I think it is quite obvious that all three of these religions have different prophets and theories about the one true God, but it is hard to deny that they all share the exact same one true God.

Let me break this down for you as simply as possible: If the Jewish faith worshipped the Computing Device in front of you as God (instead of God himself), then you must also accept that all sects of the Christian faith worship that same Computing Device in front of you (if you don't, you clearly are not familiar with the Old and New Testament). The Computing Device for these two people is often referred to as Yahweh, maybe for the sake of this story we can call it Apple.

In Christianity, they believe that this Computing Device gave birth to your Mobile Computing Device which they worship as Jesus Christ, and a USB Cord to connect the two, known as the Holy Spirit. Together, the Computing Device , the Mobile Computing Device, and the USB Cord compose the Holy Trinity of God for Christians, but that the Computing Device remains the father of all devices.

In Judaism, they do not believe that the Computing Device has yet produced a Mobile Computing Device and USB Cord that is good enough for them. Both Christians and Jews have written many Manuals as to how to best use your Computing Device .

Many centuries after your Computing Device gave birth to an empirically non-existant character known as your Mobile Computing Device, an empirically existant dude named Mohammed rolled around and claimed that we may have had it wrong about using a USB Cord connection with our Mobile Computing Device in conjunction with our Computing Device . He thanked the Mobile Computing Device and the USB Cord connection for their framework, though he was slightly pissed that only some of the software and hardware were open sourced. He then created his own Manual for how one should use said Computing Device , while many others created more Manuals. The Muslim Computing Device is known as Allah, but is still an Apple Computing Device

Moral of the story: The Computing Device still reigns supreme over all three of these groups.

No kidding, it is quite funny. I even got into a live debate with some people regarding this recently (I was an Econ student that went to a CS/Engineering school, thus you can imagine who my friends are and how poor and nerdy this debate was), and none of them had heard of E-Gold. I was using E-Gold many years ago, as far back to high school, and none of these people were aware of it.

I'm surprised you got the jist of my last comment based on how poorly it was written.

All my friend (singular......tear) always state that half my humour is pointing out the obvious.

When it comes to websites like these, and seeing general stupidity in public, I have typically made it my goal to at least share my knowledge with these people. At the bare minimum I want them to question their own belief system, much like people make me do every day. It's not easy telling other young people that the money systems we use today are actually kind of okay overall. Logic and empirical evidence, along with the scientific method are typically used to back my argumentative standpoints.

Sometimes I do get a joy out of it, almost like a bully, but I don't find a consistent need to do it. It really is that certain kind of intelligent (or well trained) wackjob (seemingly found in abundance on this website) that is knowingly blind and knowingly paints the world as a set of "cartoonish" extremes rather than a spectrum of solutions and possibilities (this could even be a function of this website having started out appealing to those that write binary computer code). I do not feel like a bully when facing these people, as they are bullies themselves. Bad, poor, and mis-information must be stamped out. Much like your sig, it is human duty to do so. The blind may not lead the blind. /high-horse

All this is why I am even willing to entertain the notion of bitcoin in the first place: I am willing to entertain the notion of the spectrum of solutions, alternative currencies, and that the bitcoin technology might have some validity which can help make government currency have more checks, balances, accountability, and transparency. But to suggest that bitcoin will supplant all government currencies? The notion is fallacious as you say, and totally misses the point of the current currency system. If any one singular group of people had the ability to supplant government currencies in one fell swoop such that the majority of people actually had faith in said currency, it would be some conglomerate of banks, much like it was before gold standard and fiat currencies.

People have always wanted to store shit, and banks have always been there to store said shit. Currency is just a different pile of said shit, in representative form.

I remember living in America, in a relatively small town, needing to use E-Gold in order to buy stuff online. Bitcoin is fundamentally different, yes, but alternative currencies have and always will exist. Don't like the currency you are using? Fortunately most of us commenting on these forums live in a country that provides the opportunity to use a different currency.

I'm a closeted fascist as well: An omnipotent, omniscient singular leader would likely be the best and most effecient form of government for all.

Unfortunately no such person/hero/god has or ever will exist.

Yes, I imagine that like E-Gold it will just be shut down in any capacity it can be as, because like E-Gold (man i remember those days) most of the activity it is used for are illegal transactions (man I remember engaging in many of these online, now I just have friends and don't live in a remote area so I don't need to be concerned about this).

I'm confused. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with the point I made? Allow me to repeat my point for clarification:

You can understand how I am confused by your response.

I am disregarding your points here to simply clarify my original point.

In your comment, you admit to the fact that there could very realistically be theoretical hiccups for a brief period of time. Your comments stated that this hiccup might hypothetically be caused by a massive increase or loss of computational power in the system, and that this hiccup would only be brief before the system adjusted to the new levels. I accept this. However:

You do this while claiming the system cannot be beat, in any way shape or form.

I was merely intending to point out the contradiction in logic.

If you would like to provide sources for how incredibly small the chances of this are happening are, that's fine. We may then be able to compare the percentage chance of a hiccup with the botcoin system to a percentage chance of the exact same hiccup happening with the current currency.

Yet, this still will not address the many other potential "hiccups" to the system.

11/T/192.168.1.1.

This is not stressed nearly enough. The next dollar must be available to all parties, not just those with the computational power or math/programming skills.

Although you know you missed the point, Bitcoin simply does not present a better alternative over the perceived complaints with current currency. What problems do you have with current currency?

I'm no scientist, but...... ??????????

Wow. You definitely need to stop and take an entry level monetary economics (300 level undergrad) course.