i stopped reading after the 2nd paragraph in which you mention "digital drugs" preferentially over other more useful products to be bought with Bitcoin. why does everyone have to always first mention this usage?
"In April 2011, Forbes Magazine’s Andy Greenberg wrote an article describing the qualities of Bitcoin: it cannot be forged or double-spent, controlled or inflated by any government; it is not impeded by international boundaries, and some digital drug-dealers have started accepting it."
even Greenberg in the article cited mentions other uses before talking about drugs. in the paragraph immediately preceding the mention of drugs he says this:
"About $30,000 worth of Bitcoins change hands every day in electronic transactions, spent on Web-hosting, electronics, dog sweaters and alpaca socks."
Good point. Is this better?
In April 2011, Forbes Magazine’s Andy Greenberg wrote an article describing the qualities of Bitcoin: it cannot be forged or double-spent, controlled or inflated by any government, it is not impeded by international boundaries, has a geek-friendly economy of $30,000 per day, and some digital drug-dealers have started accepting it.