It's supposed to prove that (off the thinly traded BTC exchanges), few BTC transactions are for the purchase of everyday goods and services. Of course, it doesn't actually prove that, but it raises an important question.

Conversly, "ZOMG, O.CO accepts BTC!!!" doesn't prove that people are actually using BTC to purchase anything from O.CO.

If Byrne wants to promote BTC, let him disclose O.CO's BTC sales every quarter.

What's that sound over your head? Hint: re-read 3rd paragraph of GP.

I'm tempted to blather on about how some of a certain age are foolish idiots who wouldn't make it past 30 if things got real - but that would be stoopid. Besides, your post "makes me giggle".

I hope you don't mind that I'm not going to take your word on that, unless you can prove you're working in the overstock.com treasury department. Otherwise, citation needed.

It's a zero sum game if virtually all BTC transactions occur on the BTC to fiat exchanges, where no wealth is created.

That remains to be seen, but if you have some numbers to back up that assertion, let's see them.

Huh? Who said anything about overstock converting BTC to USD? What they do with their BTC receipts (if any) was not addressed in my post. Back on topic, just because overstock.com has announced their acceptance of BTC doesn't mean anyone has actually paid them in BTC.

And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? You do know that speculation is, by definition, a zero sum game...right?

Small minded fool.

At this point, I trust the US military WAY MORE than I trust ANY of the three branches of our civilian government.

I choose Revolution 2.0

NOW.

ok...groklaw...looks good for some other stuff too...thankyou

While I won't argue against the intent of the law, the way it's written is complete BS. NOTING GOOD WILL COME OF IT.

Except that "SciFi" isn't a curriculum, it's a genre. Forcing teachers/schools/districts/states to teach a particular genre (instead of IDEAS) will just make things worse.

Wow. You really can't help yourself, can you?

Given that your claims in this thread have been so thoroughly debunked, I can see why you're upset. But there's no reason to use profanity. : )

If you re-read my two word post, you'll find that I'm not actually complaining - I was simply expressing relief. You see, I'm the type of person who hates to see someone completely and utterly embarrass themselves in such a loud and public manner. I mean really, a "NOTICE TO READERS:" post? Classic.

By all means, keep posting. In a way, you're becoming less sad and more entertaining. But not in a good way.

Cheers!

Thank God!

Claiming Adbusters speaks for Occupy movements worldwide is like claiming Rush Limbaugh speaks for all conservatives in the US.

While Adbusters (in concert with Workhouse) may have provided a spark to ignite OWS, I see no evidence that OWS, other US Occupy movements, or other Occupy movements worldwide have completely adopted Adbusters' agenda. I see no evidence that Occupy movements look to Adbusters as their primary media outlet/spokesperson. Quite the opposite, if you look at occupywallst.org, there is precious little mention of Adbusters outside of the site's forums - where Adbusters is frequently ridiculed.

Here's what OWS actually says about their origins:

There seems to be no mention of Adbusters.

"Occupy folks" aren't some kinda monolithic group subscribing to a rigid ideological agenda with a single publication acting as their Pravda. You really should open your mind to the idea that many (if not most) of the movements have matured beyond the radical positions Adbusters promotes. You also might want to consider the possibility that the US government's treatment of large financial institutions following the crisis is an affront to capitalist ideals, and is something that *should* be protested.

Both your post and citations miss the point entirely. The IRS doesn't tax deposits in offshore banks - or deposits in any other banks for that matter. It doesn't tax transactions from one bank to another. The IRS taxes income reported on a form. Just because the IRS gets notified of a $5000 transfer from Nevis Corp XYZ to Jersey Corp 789 really doesn't mean squat when it comes to determining a tax liability.

These accounts are only small pieces of larger, unbelievably complex financial structures designed to shelter [hide] income/capital gains from tax authorities - and only wealthy corporations and individuals can afford the armies of accountants and tax attorneys required to create and administer them.

Your claim that this is a non-story seems to imply that all is well. All is not well.