Bitcoin spending

[crumbs]

"buy back the bitcoins you spent is ... patently absurd -- it costs me time, markups, transaction fees etc., etc. -- just to get back to having the bitcoins i started with.  All pain, all loss, 0 gain.  The trick also has dubious value to Bitcoin velocity if my bitcoins are instantly converted to fiat anyway (BitPay).

~0.5% fee and ~1-2 minutes, I don't think it's that bad.
At least I don't mind buying back the coins.

I must be doing it all wrong (quite possible).  Could you walk me through your typical transaction?

[gambit1]

"I agree with your conclusion, but not your reasoning.  "Over monetized fiat-based economy" has nothing to do with Bitcoin value (not sure what you mean by "over-monetised", but my guess is "too much paper money"?  What would "the right amount" be?)"

I couldn't say what the "right" amount would be in terms of a value because there is so much theoretical fiat money in existence that only a systems-analysis perspective could even approach the question. In general terms the "right" amount of money would maintain price stability and the value of the money (in my opinion) and would see the price of most goods and commodities being set through the equilibration of supply and demand. That is not the case. Prices of government bonds (above all), equities, gold, bitcoin, housing (in many places including the UK) are all going up, even though the underlying economy is wretched, as the wealthy and corporations desperately search from somewhere to stash their mountains of fiat cash. This is a demand, of sorts, but only one of speculation rather than valuing the underlying asset.

Of all these bubbles John Quiglin said of bitcoin: "Bitcoin is perhaps the finest example of a pure bubble". The over-monetized fiat economy has everything to do with the bitcoin bubble: people are driven into exotic investments by inflation and low interest rates. If inflation is higher than the bank interest rate then what to you do? Invest. Accept risk. You might as well accept risk, even if you are naturally risk averse, because inflation will destroy the value of your savings anyway. That's why I got into bitcoin. So the over-monetized fiat economy has everything to do with it.

"For your interpretation to be valid, Bitcoin value would have to be (# of dollars in circulation) / (# of coins in circulation) * (fudge factor).  This is obviously not, and has never been, the case."

No it wouldn't. My point actually concerns the effect that ultra-loose monetary policy, and the accumulation of vast concentrations of wealth in a few hands, has on peoples investment decisions. Look at any broadsheet newspaper in the UK. They are always going on about the next big alternative investment. Wine, stamps, antiques, you name it. Why? You can't get decent bank interest. You have to take risks just to preserve your purchasing power. In this climate it is no surprise that a bubble has formed around bitcoin. There is an insatiable demand for novel investments and thats why the Winklevoss twins are getting into it. The American rich will likely take a close look at bitcoin.

The idea of buying bitcoins right now isn't because its better, its because there might be some "good" to doing so. This is a trickly one. In a market based society one tends to make decision based on which way the material incentives flow. As a result one's moral sense can wither somewhat. You see this in relation to illegal file sharing. I once saw someone argue that you "should" choose to pay for a certain product. Another person reacted angrily, saying that to do so when you could get it for free is insane. The idea of doing something for reasons other than immediate personal gain seemed to him to be irrational. However the idea in occasionally spending the occasional bitcoin is to help the fledgeling economy, perhaps because you believe in bitcoin as something other than investment.

I'm not preaching its just something to consider. I couldn't say that benevolence is my greatest virtue.

[Birdy]

I must be doing it all wrong (quite possible).  Could you walk me through your typical transaction?

1) Spend Bitcoins for whatever I want
2) Rebuy at bitcoin.de using onlinebanking (0.5% fee), no bitcoin transaction fee from there
(possible third step: transfer to local wallet and making the payment from there, 0.0001 Btc fee)

[crumbs]

"I agree with your conclusion, but not your reasoning.  "Over monetized fiat-based economy" has nothing to do with Bitcoin value (not sure what you mean by "over-monetised", but my guess is "too much paper money"?  What would "the right amount" be?)"

I couldn't say what the "right" amount would be in terms of a value because there is so much theoretical fiat money in existence that only a systems-analysis perspective could even approach the question. In general terms the "right" amount of money would maintain price stability and the value of the money (in my opinion) and would see the price of most goods and commodities being set through the equilibration of supply and demand. That is not the case.

In other words, your ideal economy is one with exactly 0% inflation?  Money should be printed in times when economy is booming, and torched when it tanks?  I realize this is a cheap shot, but what, exactly, would the mechanics be for maintaining this 0%?  

Prices of government bonds (above all), equities, gold, bitcoin, housing (in many places including the UK) are all going up, even though the underlying economy is wretched, as the wealthy and corporations desperately search from somewhere to stash their mountains of fiat cash. This is a demand, of sorts, but only one of speculation rather than valuing the underlying asset.

I'm not sure if i'm reading you correctly, but it seems that you're mistakenly lumping currencies together with investment tools.  Money is not an investment tool.  It was never intended for hoarding -- that's one of the reasons deflationary economy is considered a "bad thing."  I hope i'm preaching to the chorus when i say that "saving" is *the opposite* of investing.  Investing is *spending*.  "Use it or lose it," that's how money is meant to work.  Not "use it or put it under your mattress."

Of all these bubbles John Quiglin said of bitcoin: "Bitcoin is perhaps the finest example of a pure bubble". The over-monetized fiat economy has everything to do with the bitcoin bubble: people are driven into exotic investments by inflation and low interest rates. If inflation is higher than the bank interest rate then what to you do? Invest. Accept risk. You might as well accept risk, even if you are naturally risk averse, because inflation will destroy the value of your savings anyway. That's why I got into bitcoin. So the over-monetized fiat economy has everything to do with it.

Let me get this out of the way first: i hope everything works out for you, and i hope you've considered conventional investment strategies & rejected them.  I doubt i'd be telling you anything new by mentioning that Bitcoin is one of the riskiest investments out there.  I'd say government bonds, which you listed beside Bitcoin as a booming investment, are substantially less nerve wracking.

"For your interpretation to be valid, Bitcoin value would have to be (# of dollars in circulation) / (# of coins in circulation) * (fudge factor).  This is obviously not, and has never been, the case."

No it wouldn't. My point actually concerns the effect that ultra-loose monetary policy, and the accumulation of vast concentrations of wealth in a few hands, has on peoples investment decisions. Look at any broadsheet newspaper in the UK. They are always going on about the next big alternative investment. Wine, stamps, antiques, you name it. Why?

Human greed?  Love for easy money?  Slow news days?  Take your pick.

You can't get decent bank interest. You have to take risks just to preserve your purchasing power. In this climate it is no surprise that a bubble has formed around bitcoin. There is an insatiable demand for novel investments and thats why the Winklevoss twins are getting into it. The American rich will likely take a close look at bitcoin.

Assuming that things are as bad as you say (i agree, to an extent), unstable times have always spawned "novel" stuff -- from scams to pseudo-spirituality to more social unrest to you name it.  Bitcoin was created as a currency -- a tall order in itself.  Now it got a sex change and became an investment.  I hope things work out.

The idea of buying bitcoins right now isn't because its better, its because there might be some "good" to doing so. This is a trickly one. In a market based society one tends to make decision based on which way the material incentives flow. As a result one's moral sense can wither somewhat. You see this in relation to illegal file sharing. I once saw someone argue that you "should" choose to pay for a certain product. Another person reacted angrily, saying that to do so when you could get it for free is insane. The idea of doing something for reasons other than immediate personal gain seemed to him to be irrational. However the idea in occasionally spending the occasional bitcoin is to help the fledgeling economy, perhaps because you believe in bitcoin as something other than investment.

I'm not preaching its just something to consider. I couldn't say that benevolence is my greatest virtue.

Ignoring "the good of Bitcoin" for the moment, i'm simply pointing out that (some) people misconstrue what the Bitcoin economy is.  They think it's SR & SD & buying ASICs -- i say it's traders trading in bitcoin.

[niko]

The most important thing for bitcoin right now, in my opinion, is that people use them. It will be hard for bitcoin to move forward if people don't. I would like anyone interested, therefore to state:

* Whether they have ever bought anything with bitcoin. I would also find it helpful if people who have never bought anything with bitcoin could contribute to give a realistic picture.
* How much (in vague terms if necessary) they spend a year with bitcoins.
* If they have never bought anything with bitcoin, why not.
* How they think people might be encouraged to use their coins in transactions to stimulate the bitcoin economy

I think that such responses could help give a feel for the state of the real bitcoin economy as opposed to just mining and speculation

Cheers.

Yes. I bought a t-shirt, subscriptions to two different services, and donated to quite a few causes, big and small. In all cases, transacting in bitcoins was easier, simpler, and faster than using a credit card.

Another important use case for me has been international money transfers, as luckily there is enough liquidity in both markets. Again, simpler and cheaper than going through the old routes (once I got everything figured out and set up). This came to an abrupt stop after Dwolla/Gox fiasco, and I haven't bothered re-evaluating my options.

As for the encouragement, I know a person who has been carefully advocating Bitcoin use among the local businesses in my town. I shall not be spilling the beans here at this point, but it seems that in a week or so we will have a locally-owned chain of coffee shops accepting BTC payments. Also, it is a good idea to include "bitcoin accepted" whenever you are selling something through online classifieds like craigslist or kijiji.

I am contemplating getting some wine from the Rollingdale Winery.

As bitcoin transactions are not reversible, I try to make sure the seller is reputable or otherwise low-risk.

[crumbs]

I must be doing it all wrong (quite possible).  Could you walk me through your typical transaction?

1) Spend Bitcoins for whatever I want
2) Rebuy at bitcoin.de using onlinebanking (0.5% fee), no bitcoin transaction fee from there
(possible third step: transfer to local wallet and making the payment from there, 0.0001 Btc fee)

Please, let's at least be honest.  I've never used bitcoin.de -- they don't seem to like mah dollars, but i hopped over to check the site out.  This is what i've learned from TOS:

"The operator does not determine the price of a Bitcoin in relation to the exchangeable currency ... The price of the Bitcoin is solely determined by the sales contracts concluded from the purchase requests and sales offers ..."

"Marketplace fee 1%" -- shared by buyer & seller, thus a total of 1% -- the seller must mark up his price by .5% percent; TL;DR:  it's 1%, not .5%

Going to the "market" page, i found some bitcoins on offer: 3 BTC ~5% over BTC-E price, and climbing in price from there.  Edit: woops.  last "trade" on bitcoin.de was for 70.44 euro/btc, vs. BTC-E 69.4   Help me here.

Now, please walk me through this again?

[gambit1]

"I'm not sure if i'm reading you correctly, but it seems that you're mistakenly lumping currencies together with investment tools.  Money is not an investment tool.  It was never intended for hoarding -- that's one of the reasons deflationary economy is considered a "bad thing."  I hope i'm preaching to the chorus when i say that "saving" is *the opposite* of investing.  Investing is *spending*.  "Use it or lose it," that's how money is meant to work.  Not "use it or put it under your mattress."

1) Traditionally one could save or "hoard" money. Paper money was backed by gold, in the United States this was even the case until the 1970s. Until 1971 the dollar was convertible with gold and this curbed potential excesses of monetary policy and meant that the dollar was a currency worth saving with. The benefits of saving money were many, one of the most pressing being provision for old age. Saving is a traditional virtue and its a shame to see it being denigrated as "hoarding". Saving is a traditional method of improving one's station in life, safeguarding against hard times, moving from the working to middle class, and providing a comfortable life in old age. R.I.P saving, I guess.

2) Not everyone considers deflation a bad thing. Its a good thing for the prudent and for consumers.

"I hope i'm preaching to the chorus when i say that "saving" is *the opposite* of investing.  Investing is *spending*.  "Use it or lose it," that's how money is meant to work.  Not "use it or put it under your mattress."

Actually no. I made the point that today you have to invest in order to "save"; that traditional saving is worthless and therefore you must speculate to preserve any wealth that you have which is denominated in fiat currency. Also; "that's how money is supposed to work"? Since 1971 maybe. For thousands of year previously, one function of money was supposed to be as a store of value.

"Let me get this out of the way first: i hope everything works out for you, and i hope you've considered conventional investment strategies & rejected them."

Thanks, that's quite nice. Things aren't working out that well in most areas of my life but don't fear; I'm no fool when it comes to investing. Conventional strategies? I lost quite a bit on equities if that is what you mean. I'm increasingly turning to hard assets like bullion, bitcoin and fine wine for reasons to do with monetary policy on which I have already dilated.

"Human greed?  Love for easy money?  Slow news days?  Take your pick."

Nope, reason. Rational self interest drives people to riskier investments, regardless of their natural appetite for risk, in sheer desperation to protect their hard earned wealth from an iniquitous monetary policy. That's why when in Britain the National Savings and Investments released an issue of inflation linked certificates the public went mad for them and they had to be withdrawn before they could hope to meet demand.

We are not just talking about what bitcoin is but what it might be. I bought into it and hold it as an investment but I do want it to become more. I want competition in the currency. I want central banks to have to compete with bitcoin and let the market decide what they want to use. I want to use a currency that can't be endlessly inflated and devalued. To make this happen, I need to get over my aversion to spending and contribute something to the real bitcoin economy, on whose shoulders that vision rests. That is what this thread is about.

Peace.

[Carlton Banks]

I follow everyone else's common sense pretty much; more inclined to buy stuff when the exchange rate is on the up. But with one big difference: when the price is going down, I still buy small ticket items too. I prefer it as an alternative to selling the BTC for fiat, why not sell for something valuable!

[Birdy]

I must be doing it all wrong (quite possible).  Could you walk me through your typical transaction?

1) Spend Bitcoins for whatever I want
2) Rebuy at bitcoin.de using onlinebanking (0.5% fee), no bitcoin transaction fee from there
(possible third step: transfer to local wallet and making the payment from there, 0.0001 Btc fee)

Please, let's at least be honest.  I've never used bitcoin.de -- they don't seem to like mah dollars, but i hopped over to check the site out.  This is what i've learned from TOS:

"The operator does not determine the price of a Bitcoin in relation to the exchangeable currency ... The price of the Bitcoin is solely determined by the sales contracts concluded from the purchase requests and sales offers ..."

"Marketplace fee 1%" -- shared by buyer & seller, thus a total of 1% -- the seller must mark up his price by .5% percent; TL;DR:  it's 1%, not .5%

Going to the "market" page, i found some bitcoins on offer: 3 BTC ~5% over BTC-E price, and climbing in price from there.  Edit: woops.  last "trade" on bitcoin.de was for 70.44 euro/btc, vs. BTC-E 69.4  Help me here.

Now, please walk me through this again?

Well, you base it on the cheapest price on the overall market and everything else is a markup. The prices on BTC-E are very low, because it's a pain to get money into there.
As far as I know most merchants base their price of Gox, so if you buy cheaper than on Gox you are good to go (and I was able to do that most of the times on bitcoin.de).
the 0.5% seller markup is already included in the price you see on bitcoin.de, just the other 0.5% are subtracted later on.

Using other payment systems also have hidden markups, we don't get anywhere by just comparing some fees here and there.
In the end what counts is at what rate the merchant accepts Bitcoins (->aka if you have to pay more than that due to getting the Bitcoins or due to a higher price in comparison with buying the stuff with fiat) and if it's simple enough to regain the coins.

[crumbs]

"I'm not sure if i'm reading you correctly, but it seems that you're mistakenly lumping currencies together with investment tools.  Money is not an investment tool.  It was never intended for hoarding -- that's one of the reasons deflationary economy is considered a "bad thing."  I hope i'm preaching to the chorus when i say that "saving" is *the opposite* of investing.  Investing is *spending*.  "Use it or lose it," that's how money is meant to work.  Not "use it or put it under your mattress."

1) Traditionally one could save or "hoard" money. Paper money was backed by gold, in the United States this was even the case until the 1970s. Until 1971 the dollar was convertible with gold and this curbed potential excesses of monetary policy and meant that the dollar was a currency worth saving with. The benefits of saving money were many, one of the most pressing being provision for old age. Saving is a traditional virtue and its a shame to see it being denigrated as "hoarding". Saving is a traditional method of improving one's station in life, safeguarding against hard times, moving from the working to middle class, and providing a comfortable life in old age. R.I.P saving, I guess.

If you're grieving change, I guess...  Let us be clear, though -- saving is only a virtue when contrasted with *wasting*, money hoarders were universally reviled, never admired, and the old saw "you gotta spend money to make money" always rang true.  No one ever got rich by hoarding money.  Don't believe me?  Let's look at inflation rates while US dollar was *on* the gold standard.  Here:


Inflation is inflation, gold standard is gold standard, let's not pretend one is the other's evil twin.

2) Not everyone considers deflation a bad thing. Its a good thing for the prudent and for consumers.

Unless we wish to account for those rich enough to never have to work, each consumer is also a producer.  Those are two sides of the same coin.  Can't produce?  Can't consume.

"I hope i'm preaching to the chorus when i say that "saving" is *the opposite* of investing.  Investing is *spending*.  "Use it or lose it," that's how money is meant to work.  Not "use it or put it under your mattress."

Actually no. I made the point that today you have to invest in order to "save"; that traditional saving is worthless and therefore you must speculate to preserve any wealth that you have which is denominated in fiat currency. Also; "that's how money is supposed to work"? Since 1971 maybe. For thousands of year previously, one function of money was supposed to be as a store of value.

Please see chart above ^^^
 

"Let me get this out of the way first: i hope everything works out for you, and i hope you've considered conventional investment strategies & rejected them."

Thanks, that's quite nice. Things aren't working out that well in most areas of my life but don't fear; I'm no fool when it comes to investing. Conventional strategies? I lost quite a bit on equities if that is what you mean. I'm increasingly turning to hard assets like bullion, bitcoin and fine wine for reasons to do with monetary policy on which I have already dilated.

I was being sincere.  I do not want *anyone* to go broke.
 

"Human greed?  Love for easy money?  Slow news days?  Take your pick."

Nope, reason. Rational self interest drives people to riskier investments, regardless of their natural appetite for risk, in sheer desperation to protect their hard earned wealth from an iniquitous monetary policy. That's why when in Britain the National Savings and Investments released an issue of inflation linked certificates the public went mad for them and they had to be withdrawn before they could hope to meet demand.

You say "rational self interest," i say greed.  Why quibble over words if they mean the same?
 

We are not just talking about what bitcoin is but what it might be. I bought into it and hold it as an investment but I do want it to become more. I want competition in the currency. I want central banks to have to compete with bitcoin and let the market decide what they want to use.

But that's happening already!  You simply wish for this competition to take place on more favorable terms for Bitcoin.  I don't blame you -- i do too.  The market is deciding, i'm betting with some and against other traders on the outcome of the fight, and on the results of every round.

I want to use a currency that can't be endlessly inflated and devalued. To make this happen, I need to get over my aversion to spending and contribute something to the real bitcoin economy, on whose shoulders that vision rests. That is what this thread is about.

Peace.

Peace.

[gambit1]

"I was being sincere.  I do not want *anyone* to go broke."

Yeah I know. I was being sincere when I said it was nice that you would say that. It is.

"Grieving change" - yup. Since 2008 and the devastating credit crunch there is indeed much to grieve.

"Let's look at inflation rates while US dollar was *on* the gold standard."

Thats fine I'm not an advocate of the gold standard. I'm aware that the dollar, along with the pound lost 90% of thier value over the 20th century. The pound lost 25% of its value in 2008. That's why I want an alternative monetary system like bitcoin available to me.

Its not true that savers were universally reviled. If we are using adages are evidence:

"A penny saved is a penny earned" Benjamin Franklin

"Waste not want not"

Save a penny, spend a pound.

No man's credit is ever as good as his money.
Edgar Watson Howe

Save for a rainy day.

He who does not economize will have to agonize"-Confusius

Debt is the worst poverty. (Thomas Fuller)


"You say "rational self interest," i say greed.  Why quibble over words if they mean the same?"

Just making the point that there is a reason why people are driven to take risks in the prevailing climate. Its not just some emotion.

"But that's happening already!  You simply wish for this competition to take place on more favorable terms for Bitcoin.  I don't blame you -- i do too.  The market is deciding, i'm betting with some and against other traders on the outcome of the fight, and on the results of every round."

I really hope so but bitcoin won't be a real alternative unless people spend their coin to stimulate the real bitcoin economy which is what this thread is about. The big irony is that I'm actually arguing for greater bitcoin spending while you seem to be more of the side of saving (or is that evil hoarding). That's pretty ironic given the rest of our exchange.

I've enjoyed it though.

[crumbs]

I must be doing it all wrong (quite possible).  Could you walk me through your typical transaction?

1) Spend Bitcoins for whatever I want
2) Rebuy at bitcoin.de using onlinebanking (0.5% fee), no bitcoin transaction fee from there
(possible third step: transfer to local wallet and making the payment from there, 0.0001 Btc fee)

Please, let's at least be honest.  I've never used bitcoin.de -- they don't seem to like mah dollars, but i hopped over to check the site out.  This is what i've learned from TOS:
"The operator does not determine the price of a Bitcoin in relation to the exchangeable currency ... The price of the Bitcoin is solely determined by the sales contracts concluded from the purchase requests and sales offers ..."
"Marketplace fee 1%" -- shared by buyer & seller, thus a total of 1% -- the seller must mark up his price by .5% percent; TL;DR:  it's 1%, not .5%
Going to the "market" page, i found some bitcoins on offer: 3 BTC ~5% over BTC-E price, and climbing in price from there.  Edit: woops.  last "trade" on bitcoin.de was for 70.44 euro/btc, vs. BTC-E 69.4  Help me here.
Now, please walk me through this again?

Well, you base it on the cheapest price on the overall market and everything else is a markup.

Are you suggesting that i *haven't* bought at the lowest rate i could have?  For large trades, i don't mind jumping through a few hoops.  It is not, unfortunately, something i'm willing to do each time i order something on the net.  That's my point.  Was a pain in the ass once, don't want to relive the experience.

The prices on BTC-E are very low, because it's a pain to get money into there.

As i said, i don't even know how to get my dollars on bitcoin.de.  Regardless, the transaction is nothing like what you've described -- bitcoin.de is not selling me bitcoins, they're simply the middleman.

As far as I know most merchants base their price of Gox, so if you buy cheaper than on Gox you are good to go (and I was able to do that most of the times on bitcoin.de).
the 0.5% seller markup is already included in the price you see on bitcoin.de, just the other 0.5% are subtracted later on.

Please understand that i'm not bashing bitcoin.de -- they seem fine, though they don't deal in dollar (if they do, i haven't figured out how i would fund my account -- the site seems eurocentric).  Of course small convenient transactions will cost more than bulk buys.  The thing is, your claim of .5% markup & couple of mins. is ... i can't get it to work.

Using other payment systems also have hidden markups, we don't get anywhere by just comparing some fees here and there.

But the BTC i own is all bought & paid for, no need to account for fees.  Anything over the price i've originally paid for it is a straight loss to me.

In the end what counts is at what rate the merchant accepts Bitcoins (->aka if you have to pay more than that) and if it's simple enough to regain the coins.

In the end, what counts is how much i have to pay for the privilege of using my bitcoins.  I can see that it's much more than a few minutes & .5%.  

A case in point:  I have credit & debit cards in my wallet.  I'm a US citizen, currently in US.  Please tell me how i can effortlessly buy bitcoins. (by that i mean no more than, let's be fair, x10 times as long as buying something with $.

[gambit1]

I take it your a day trader crumbs. Sounds like it. How's that going, supposing I'm right in my observation?

[crumbs]

...
"But that's happening already!  You simply wish for this competition to take place on more favorable terms for Bitcoin.  I don't blame you -- i do too.  The market is deciding, i'm betting with some and against other traders on the outcome of the fight, and on the results of every round."

I really hope so but bitcoin won't be a real alternative unless people spend their coin to stimulate the real bitcoin economy which is what this thread is about. The big irony is that I'm actually arguing for greater bitcoin spending while you seem to be more of the side of saving (or is that evil hoarding). That's pretty ironic given the rest of our exchange.

I've enjoyed it though.

I'll be honest, i'm interested in Bitcoin for selfish reasons -- i'm trying to feather my own nest.  Sometimes it just feels that many here have turned Bitcoin into a holy cause, with heaven and earth behind them, cheering them on as they fight a holy war against fiat.  It's a curious thing, making everything that's counterintuitive about money & economics glaringly obvious & impossible to avoid -- that's a win as far as i'm concerned.

And, of course, i've enjoyed talking to you too, so thanks for the replies.

[crumbs]

I take it your a day trader crumbs. Sounds like it. How's that going, supposing I'm right in my observation?

I'll be honest, i mostly got out at 105 & haven't caught the first or the recent (mini) rally, so i'm mostly on the sidelines, feeling like Bitcoin is just trolling me.  I simply can't make heads or tails of what's going on -- nothing adds up.  Over all?  I would have made more $$ flipping burgers  

[Birdy]

A case in point:  I have credit & debit cards in my wallet.  I'm a US citizen, currently in US.  Please tell me how i can effortlessly buy bitcoins. (by that i mean no more than, let's be fair, x10 times as long as buying something with $.

I don't know, I'm not from the US. I don't have any experience buying Bitcoins there.
You are right that bitcoin.de doesn't accept non-europeans.
My point simply was that I am comfortable with the effort to rebuy the coins here, so not everybody feels like you.

But I also have to say that buying stuff is not the main reason I'm interested in Bitcoin.
It's more the potential it has - getting rich on the one hand (->speculation), being a security against the possibility of high inflation of the Euro on the other hand.

The process of buying coins or using your coins will most likely be easier in the future, I know it can be troublesome for some (like in the UK).

[Carlton Banks]

You say "rational self interest," i say greed.  Why quibble over words if they mean the same?

Depends how rational you're being. Under what circumstances would it be rational to become so economically dominant over others that you're surrounded by nothing but starving paupers?  

[gambit1]

I've enjoyed the discussion but I'd like people to revisit the original topic. Who's in it for themselves and hoards, who believes in it and spends a few coin?

[crumbs]

You say "rational self interest," i say greed.  Why quibble over words if they mean the same?

Depends how rational you're being. Under what circumstances would it be rational to become so economically dominant over others that you're surrounded by nothing but starving paupers?  

Sorry for the OT, just wanted to make it clear that greed (enlightened self-interest) is smarter than its simpleminded caricature.  The greedy never yell "Let them eat cake!"  At least not the ones that matter.  The ones that matter donate cakes, along with "Get better soon & join us!" cards.  They fund charities & feed the starving children of Somalia, they know very well how to keep the villagers from sharpening their pitchforks

[gambit1]

"The greedy never yell "Let them eat cake!"  At least not the ones that matter. "

I'm a close observer of American politics and I see the "let them eat cake" attitude all the time.

O'REILLY: "Reagan was not a confrontational guy, didn't like confrontation, much rather be your pal ... doesn't want to get involved with the really nasty stuff, the tough stuff, and that's what racial politics is -- nasty and tough. ... It's hard to do it because you gotta look people in the eye and tell 'em they're irresponsible and lazy. And who's gonna wanna do that? Because that's what poverty is, ladies and gentlemen. In this country, you can succeed if you get educated and work hard. Period. Period. I mean I know people from Haiti, from the Ukraine from eh, -- we got callers all day long on The Factor. From Romania. You come here, you get educated, you work hard, you'll make a buck. You get addicted, you don't know anything, you'll be poor. But Reagan did not want to confront the issue. And that's the truth about it."

And:

 "And that exploded during the Clinton years, with all the R&D that companies invested in the 80s you had the technological revolution where a lot of people made a lot of money. But not the poor people who are ill-educated or addicted. They didn't make any money because they never will make any money because you can't compete in that circumstance. You cannot compete if you are addicted and ill-educated. All right."

http://mediamatters.org/research/2004/06/16/oreilly-irresponsible-and-lazy-thats-what-pover/131278

Sean Hannity had his, shall we call it, let them eat beans thesis:

    "I don't believe people are going to bed hungry. ... For, instance I have friends of mine who eat rice and beans all the time. Beans protein, rice. Inexpensive. You can make a big pot of this for a week for negligible amounts of money and you can feed your whole family.

    Look, you should have vegetables and fruit in there as well, but if you need to survive you can survive off it. It's not ideal but you could get some cheap meat and throw in there as well for protein. There are ways to live really, really cheaply."

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/04/sean-hannitys-poor-friends-eat-rice-and-beans.html

As for Limbaugh:

"And in many cases, speaking bluntly, the people that don't do well only have themselves to blame. And those who have no control over themselves are the ones we help.

Limbaugh's dismissiveness is nothing new. In August 2009, he told a caller concerned about the cost of treating his broken wrist: "Well, you shouldn't have broken your wrist." In February 2010, Limbaugh suggested the uninsured eat applesauce if they couldn't afford dentures. He also advised people to pay for their doctor visits in cash instead of using insurance.

The American right yell let them eat cake (or beans,or applesauce as the case may be) all the time.