Don't worry; I engraved my private key on a piece of rice and swallowed it, so I always know I have it with me.

Now, if I could only find it...

Remember, Ripple is still beta software; once they release it, everything should be mainstreamed and understandable, with easy to understand documentation for what to do with it and how to do it.

Should is the key operator here.

I can only guess your blockchain data was rolled back when you reset your comp?  No clue.

Oh my god, a celebrity! 

This is actually really cool   I like how the ones in the back appear to be dancing.

For giggles:  The Four Chord Song


That's a relief; as a practitioner of all three of those arts I mentioned before, I'd like to keep doing them   I've considered adding a BTC address to a novel I wrote and then just letting it spread to wherever it goes; I figured this way, my novel will get way more exposure (as before, when I was asking payment for it, I had literally only 2 takers, yet over a thousand the moment it went free for a week,) and thus, a greater chance people will want to send some cash my way (plus, it'll also get people familiar with BTC if they didn't know what it was before )

It's just always made me mad paying for entertainment, and then realizing only after that it was a complete waste of cash.  Plus, advertising is expensive.  So there's no use fighting copyright infringement (as it's fruitless and expensive, so says the Pirate Bay); you can't infringe a copyright that isn't there, right?  I hope EA Games is taking notes

That's bad news

But nothing is being created or destroyed; the markets are simply moving wealth from one person, to another person.  It can generally be assumed that those who lose wealth aren't winning.

However, if you refer to what Bitcoin can do for the world, then yeah, everyone's a winner, whether they like it or not.

Would this be the "invisible hand" my government and history classes keep referring to?

Good points; to add to this, there is nothing new under the sun.  Any story anyone could tell today will be inspired by the same actions which were the basis of all stories ever told--that is, life itself.  To copyright a story is to imply you hold ownership of life events.  Plus, considering that all western music use the exact same schemes for writing any song (scales, from keys, from notes, which someone figured out if you take these exact increments between sounds you can make something sound pleasant,) it's pretentious to copyright anything which stems from this invention; heck, if copyright existed then, someone would still be making royalties from every song ever to exist.

However, it's odd when it comes to capitlaism; when someone owns a copyright to a creation, it's implied they're the only ones who can control who gets paid for any money earned from the creation.  So would writers, artists, and musicians still be able to pursue their craft with the hopes of payment?  Or would they be subject to charity, or seeking other forms of employment?

The bank hates you.

Feels good don't it

I suppose you're right, but in other ways, I'm having trouble agreeing.  Though no one person can own any word, or group of words, they are often attributed to them.  For example:

“Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom.”
― Aristotle

There are likely many variants of this quote, but this is the gist of what Aristotle was saying; though it could be attributed to anyone, we assume Aristotle is the originator of this quote.  But is he the originator of the idea?  Impossible to know (and highly unlikely, anyway.)  But we can at least say he, in a way, owns this phrase, since I cannot put my own name beneath it and claim I said it.

Now, let's say I took a string of numbers, letters, and punctuation, and created something that never existed before; couldn't I say I owned it?  If this cannot be considered property, what of the patterns that dictate a private key?  Couldn't someone own a private key?  Though it is intangible, this person is the only one who owns it, and thus, owns the bits which make up a Bitcoin; but perhaps the major flaw in this argument would be, I'm not sharing this key with anybody, therefor it is, in fact, private, as opposed to a novel, which is meant to be read by other people.  In other words, if I wrote a novel, and never let anyone else read it, could I then truly own that long string of paragraphs?  After all, if I shared my television with the community, it ceases to be private property.

I suppose this is the major dividing line between property and creation.  But it is rather funny how people can own another artist's painting.

I have bad news.

They all are.  The only truly secure, non-chargeback method to funding any account takes days.  Why?  Because it does.  No reason.  It's intentionally inefficient; fiat is hard to move around.  Why?  Just because.  All they're doing is moving numbers from system A to system B.  But that's the way it goes.  Fiat is setup this way.  Probably for a reason unrelated to Bitcoin.  But it affects it all the same.

Getting all my funds out of the Gox and never using them again.

I really hope the rest of the BTC community follows this route.  At least until Gox handles very little of the Bitcoin market, and not more than all the rest combined.

It's not that they do nothing.  It's that all my work, and everyone elses, gets siphoned into them.  Because they own it (the bourgeoisie), and we don't (the proletarians).

When people have to slave for a living, the normal thing they think to do is either:

A.  Make enough money to never work again (buy their way out of slavery and/or become slave owners)

or

B.  Take down the system which enslaved them (not quite as common but getting there.)

A very few number of people here have enough BTC to say they never have to work again.  For everyone else, there's MasterC--

Okay bad joke sorry.

An odd correlation, isn't it? 

I once read a message from them that began with,

Dear Mt. Gox Users (or something to this effect)

And ended with

Yours truly,

...blank.

If one can own physical property without help from the state, why couldn't one also own intellectual property?  If an idea cannot naturally be defending in a physical realm, shouldn't it be defended in an intellectual one?  Assuming anarchism begets intellectuals, I would hope it isn't a large problem if someone wrote a song, and another person claimed to write that song without any proof they did.  It's still thievery, just of another kind; thievery in an anarchistic society could be handled without the state, couldn't it?

BOO CENTRAL BANKS ARE BOLOGNY

But a central exchange is very very bad too. 

They did.  Anyone who wanted to buy more (the bears) was saying something like, "The price is too high, I don't want to buy into it.  The price should tank so I can get some more at a low price."

Then BAM here it comes.

So then anyone who was satisfied with the amount of coins they had and wanted the price to higher (the bulls) was all like, "Dude what the eff, this is bull(shit)."