mckoss (OP)
Newbie
 Offline
Activity: 52
Merit: 0
|
 |
December 30, 2011, 08:21:59 AM |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Bitcoin network protocol was designed to be extremely flexible. It can be used to create timed transactions, escrow transactions, multi-signature transactions, etc. The current features of the client only hint at what will be possible in the future.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
mckoss (OP)
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 52
Merit: 0
|
|
January 01, 2012, 05:14:12 PM |
|
I've uploaded a new Bitcoin Primer PDF - based on @Clark's design, but now more compatible with different devices and smaller (using standard PDF fonts). |
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
January 02, 2012, 04:42:16 AM |
|
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, and has a geek-friendly economy of $30,000 per day, and some digital drug-dealers have started accepting it.
|
|
|
|
|
mckoss (OP)
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 52
Merit: 0
|
|
January 02, 2012, 06:12:01 PM |
|
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, and has a geek-friendly economy of $30,000 per day, and some digital drug-dealers have started accepting it.
I don't want to hide the fact that some people are using Bitcoin for illegal purchases. It was a major component of Greenberg's story. I don't think it needs to be the dominant point, but I don't think it should be excised completely. |
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
January 02, 2012, 09:06:51 PM |
|
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?
fair enough. thanks for putting forth the effort to make this document.
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 has a geek-friendly economy of $30,000 per day, and some digital drug-dealers have started accepting it.
I don't want to hide the fact that some people are using Bitcoin for illegal purchases. It was a major component of Greenberg's story. I don't think it needs to be the dominant point, but I don't think it should be excised completely. fair enough. thanks for putting this together. |
|
|
|
|
mckoss (OP)
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 52
Merit: 0
|
|
January 03, 2012, 06:52:26 AM |
|
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?
fair enough. thanks for putting forth the effort to make this document.
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 has a geek-friendly economy of $30,000 per day, and some digital drug-dealers have started accepting it.
I don't want to hide the fact that some people are using Bitcoin for illegal purchases. It was a major component of Greenberg's story. I don't think it needs to be the dominant point, but I don't think it should be excised completely. fair enough. thanks for putting this together. My pleasure - and thanks for the input! |
|
|
|
|
|
