Wait, what? Don't you mean "get popular"? After all, even fictional game-world-only (Eve, Second life, D3) money is used for trade more than bitcoin gets used for trade.

I think you meant "any of their partners". Right now (mostly due to accounting laws) a business is going to have a hard time accepting anything other than currency (any currency) for payment, hence I'd like to see how they intend to "keep some of the profits in bitcoins" other than converting dollars back to bitcoins. Both overstock.com and tigerdirect make it clear that they use an exchange so that they can receive real currency. Were they to actually receive bitcoins in payment you can be sure that more than a few tax officials would start wondering about it.

Technically BTC that is received would have to go on the books as stock or similar. Thus keeping "revenue" in BTC means capturing payment in books at time of receipt, in which case the value you have captured is non-financial instrument asset. This asset has to be depreciated. Selling that BTC later on (for dollars) results in even further revenue. This just artificially drives up the "earned revenue" in the year-end balance, making it an almost certainty that you would be paying vastly more in tax than you would otherwise have done.

Every time the topic comes up, all the BTC proponents, with not a single accounting or economics degree between them (Patrick Byrne has the "do you want fries with that" Philosophy degree) start disagreeing with practicing accountants, book-keepers and economists. BTC as money starts looking even more of a joke when you actually try to keep books with it - book-keeping, and all the laws made in every country to audit it, don't work on a deflationary currency.

BTC can't work as a currency. It was designed as a poor joke on otherwise smart people who are a little clueless about accounting, economics, book-keeping, etc.

They can proclaim whatever the hell they want to; they themselves state, on their website in multiple places, that bitcoin transactions are routed through coinbase or similar.

When we go to the zoo and comment on the monkeys flinging poo at each other we don't call it "hate". We call it "scorn".

Why is this lie perpetually getting repeated? Hell, some moron even modded it up. Overstock (and Tigerdirect, etc) do not accept bitcoins as payment.

Once again for those of you too stupid to read carefully - No major retailer accepts bitcoins as tender!. Some of them allow you to pay via an exchange such as coinbase, but note that even though the customer is parting with bitcoins, the seller is only ever receiving dollars (AKA real currency).

No, you didn't. You were/are part of a scam. It's nothing to be proud of, being high up on the pyramid.

Hate to burst your bubble, but that link has no evidence whatsoever, only a lot of conjecture and speculation. As of now, there is still no evidence that this man and the bitcoin inventor are the same person.

No, they haven't - provide a link to the evidence.

That's not how it works - you need to provide evidence that he is. What is the main reason you think he *is* the guy?

That didn't happen - the tesla was paid for with dollars by Bitpay (who received bitcoins), Overstock uses Coinbase to get their money in dollars and the Tiger Direct website is down as of writing. IOW, none of the retailers took any bitcoins from shoppers, they take dollars from exchanges. None of the shoppers paid any retailer any bitcoins, rather they paid bitcoins to an exchange. For "retailer accepts bitcoin" I expect them to actually take the purchasers bitcoins and convert the btc to dollars, not ask for it to be converted before purchase

Regardless of whether the retailer actually accepted bitcoins or not (they don't), retailers also accept part payment in coupons, or store vouchers, etc. None of which are money or currency.

The most accurate definition of money is "common item of barter", which btc also isn't.

No, it isn't.

People steal lots of things - groceries, clothing, cars - that doesn't make those things "money" though.

Better than most players != better than the best players. GP is quite correct - it is easy to throw a bunch of electro-mechanical components together that will best even the very best "sportsman" of all time, but it is well-nigh impossible (provably so) to put together an AI that will better a Go champion (e-sport).

So, for traditional sports we already have the ability to beat the very best humans while for E-sports (Go, Starcraft, etc) it's still very much a human-dominated activity, with good reason.

So, just like my family vacations?