Sorry, but it has to be cash in a face-to-face meeting at a location with plenty of security for a transaction of this size.

If there are no takers after 30 minutes, I'll consider other payment methods.

Mt Gox Last is currently 93.49000.  $200/93.49 comes to 2.14 BTC.

PM me if interested.

Offer expires in 30 minutes.

I'm a first time seller located in Riverside County.  Doesn't have to be one buyer, willing to sell smaller amounts to multiple buyers.  I would prefer to transact in person at Pechanga Casino, where there is plenty of security.  Doesn't have to be right away either, some time within the next week or two.

Edit: SOLD

Yes, as long as you don't mind paying 4% over the exchange rate as well as providing your name, e-mail address, phone number to BitInstant and then showing an ID when handing over the cash at a MoneyGram station.  Also, the max purchase is $500 per transaction.

Indeed, you've helped to make the world a freer place.  Thank you.

It's both those who transact/spend now and those who save/spend later that are responsible for the current exchange rate.  Take a minute to think where the exchange rate would be without the bitcoin savers.

I'm not sure how the prices were determined in this example.  But, if it were up to me, when it came to sporting events, concerts, or any event with limited seating, I would figure out a way to sell at least some of the tickets in an auction format and have the auction end about 48 hours prior to the event with the tickets going to the highest bidders.  This would minimize lines at the time of the event and allow the free market decide what the tickets are worth.  Otherwise, the price is bound to be either too high, leading to empty seats, or too low, leading to what we call "scalpers" in the US, buying up the tickets.

You previously said that "If you expect people to jump on the bitcoin train as an investment then good luck."

I don't expect people to jump on the bitcoin train as an investment.  I expect them to jump on the bitcoin train in the future in order to escape the higher prices that will result from inflating the supply of dollars and all of the other fiat currencies around the globe.

I'll bet you a bitcoin that, in the years ahead, there are going to be a whole lot of people who would prefer to get out of a currency whose supply is expanding in this fashion:



and into a currency that is being created in this manner:

What kind of interest rate does your bank pay for a savings account?  Mine only pays .25% per year, meanwhile bitcoins have been increasing in dollar value by an average of 1.96% per day for the last year.

Someone has generously taken the time to introduce you to honest, sound money that could potentially gain a lot of purchasing power and lead you to discover how the fiat scam works.  For the love of God, you should be grateful, it's not like he gave you a Zimbabwe Dollar!

That's so far beyond my ability that I haven't given it any consideration.

Yes.  Not sure if they're easy, but:

Would it be feasible for this bank to have it's own separate network, with it's own separate blockchain without new units of its currency being created as an incentive to the nodes, but only transaction fees?  Would creating new blocks on the bank's network on a more frequent basis make this a better alternative for those who want quicker confirmations?  Could this bank have a wallet that was able to simultaneously interact with it's own network as well as the Bitcoin network to allow for quick and simple deposits and redemptions?  Would this offer former GPU miners on the Bitcoin network a chance to still generate income by processing transactions on the bank's network?

One of the concerns that some have about Bitcoin is the blockchain's inability to scale and handle an extremely large number of transactions as it gains more acceptance.

I'm sure it's probably been discussed before, but instead of transacting directly in bitcoins, has someone considered creating electronic currencies that are backed with bitcoins--similar to the way Federal Reserve Notes were once backed by gold?  As I understand it, under the classic gold standard, someone in the USA with $35 could walk into a bank and redeem it for an ounce of gold.  (Something along those lines anyway.  The monetary system of the USA has undergone so many tweaks and modifications over the years that it's difficult to keep track of them all.)  I realize that the term "gold standard" means different things to different people, but when I use that term it means that I, as an individual, can walk into a bank and redeem their paper for my gold that they are holding on my behalf.  In this scenario, dollars could essentially be considered to be "as good as gold".

In a similar manner, couldn't a bank issue an electronic currency backed with bitcoins that it held on reserve?  The bank's customers would be able to deposit bitcoins and then have an account that is denominated in the bank's currency.  Merchants that were willing to accept this currency would then be able to redeem the currency for bitcoins on a routine daily/weekly/monthly or as-needed basis.  Would it be feasible for this bank to have it's own separate network, with it's own separate blockchain without new units of its currency being created as an incentive to the nodes, but only transaction fees?  Would creating new blocks on the bank's network on a more frequent basis make this a better alternative for those who want quicker confirmations?  Could this bank have a wallet that was able to simultaneously interact with it's own network as well as the Bitcoin network to allow for quick and simple deposits and redemptions?  Would this offer former GPU miners on the Bitcoin network a chance to still generate income by processing transactions on the bank's network?

Right now it may not be cost effective to have an electronic currency backed with bitcoins.  However, if the number of bitcoin transactions continues to grow and transaction fees become mandatory and steadily increase, perhaps it would become cost effective to implement an electronic currency of some kind that is backed with bitcoins to relieve transaction traffic on the blockchain and reduce transaction costs for bitcoin users.

Stop being a mule or it's going to get you in trouble again.  What if your parents lose their house?  What if you lose your job?  I'm bullish on bitcoin, but this is a very volatile market.  Trust me, you won't be able to stomach it.  You need to listen to your own advice.  You're too smart to be doing this.  Going all in at an all time record high is not a wise move.  You're allowing the price action of the last two months to go to your head.  Just relax, think logically, and remember Murphy's Law.


This is the money you should be using to buy BTC with.  That will allow you to dollar cost average and take advantage of the dips.


So use your programming skills to earn BTC on the side.

You are describing what economists refer to as a shortage.  To see what causes a shortage, check out my responses to this post:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=147813.0

Basically, new bitcoins don't have to be added.  Shortages are resolved with higher prices.  If no one wants to sell you a bitcoin, just offer me a million bucks for a bitcoin and trust me, I'll stop hoarding it.

I would actually state the point I'm trying to make just a little differently.  Instead of saying that "prices can adjust to a point of equilibrium", I would say "Prices should be adjusted to the point of equilibrium, otherwise there will be shortages or surpluses."  Equilibrium is where the price should be and a shortage is the result of a price being set below that point.  

Yes, you're right--sometimes prices don't change easily--and that is the problem.  The first question in your original post was: "Can a shortage of a good occur because a large group of people irrationally decide to stop trading away that good?"  I'm just trying to point out that if enough people decided to start hoarding a good it would raise the point of equilibrium, but there would be no shortage as long as the price was adjusted to that new point of equilibrium.  Shortages are a result of inability or unwillingness to raise prices, not refusing to sell.  Raise prices and you'll get more sellers (and fewer buyers).  Raise prices too high and you'll have a surplus--too many sellers and not enough buyers.

I agree with you, that it's not just politicians that prevent adjustments in price.  Market participants could also just be too stubborn to adjust prices.  Home owners will sometimes put their house on the market and don't understand why they haven't been able to sell it after a year or so.  The answer is simple.  The price is too high.  Drop the price enough and it will sell.  Lower it too far and you'll get swamped with offers.

This is a one and a half minute video that does a good job of illustrating shortages and surpluses with supply/demand curves:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ffcd6Wdkn5w&feature=player_embedded#!

When it comes to being compensated by their employer, most people's pay is actually being reduced over time in real terms.  They just don't realize it because they tend to measure their pay in nominal terms using a fiat currency that loses value over time.  They see their cost of living steadily rising and assume that's just the natural order of things.  However, in a free market where goods and services are priced in an honest currency, that can't be debased, prices would be steadily falling over time, and it would be easier to accept a reduction in pay in that type of environment.  You would still be able to enjoy a better standard of living as long as your pay was declining at a slower rate than the steadily falling consumer prices in the economy.

It's not the increase in demand or a decrease in supply (or even a combination of both) that leads to a shortage.  It's an inability or unwillingness to raise prices that causes shortages.  After Hurricane Sandy, if the free market was allowed to function and gas prices had been allowed to rise, suppliers would have found a way to bring more gasoline to the area in order to capitalize on the higher prices.  As the supply increased and more gas was made available to meet the demand, prices would begin to drop.

1.  No, not in a free market.  Technically, a shortage is simply a matter of the price not being able to rise to match increased demand.  Disparity between supply and demand occurs when prices are fixed either too high and overvalued, leading to a surplus, or too low and undervalued, leading to a shortage.  When the price of a good is allowed to rise or fall freely, there are no shortages or surpluses, and suppliers will not "decide to stop trading away that good".  For example, in the US after Hurricane Sandy there were reports of gasoline shortages and long lines waiting for hours forming at gas stations.  This happened because it was illegal to raise gas prices to account for the increased demand.

2.  Yes, money is a good/service with supply and demand.