Your words certainly don't: They just continue to show how ignorant you are. Let me restate the questions from the above quote, to see if you have better answers than the heaping pile of poo you just piled onto this thread regarding Bitcoin:

1. Should the government be waiting on Bitcoin transaction approvals in order to appropriate funds quickly to necessary medical services?

2. If there are already examples of Bitcoin transaction approvals taking upwards of 20 days to execute, how do you expect time critical government services to be executed within a timely manner?

All things equal, if everyone adopted bitcoin today do you honestly think there will be no fraud and security manipulation?

You can already trade future contracts with bitcoin, and bitcoin is trying to lobby to be removed from "commodity" status such that you can trade bitcoin options contracts. When you start trading Bitcoin options, how much fraud and manipulation will be involved?

Tell me again which industries you have a problem with, and how this is a reflection of the currency system? Tell me again how bitcoin represents a better alternative to the current system in this respect, and how it helps move our society to a more socially optimal outcome?

But as we see already, it can take up to 20 days to approve a bitcoin transaction. Payroll is due every 14 days, and supplies need to be restocked weekly. People need to be paid and equipped in order to provide urgent healthcare. If you are denying these people their payments and equipment, they will deny people urgent healthcare services. So yes, moving to a community based currency system with no accountability will fuck up other essential services so hard no one knows where to begin.

Umm I said nothing about medical records.

Stop trying to confuse the issues with your red herrings. I only said things about government run healthcare services receiving TIMELY FUCKING PAYMENTS , and that timely payments are already proven to be an issue with bitcoin - as the community can take days to approve the validity of any one bitcoin.

But no shit sherlock: of course medical records always need to be available for both public and private purposes, yet still no system has perfect information symmetry. This once again has nothing to do with the currency systems in question.

What the fuck? I clearly stated that all Western Democracies that I am familiar with have some element of both public AND private healthcare. For you to suggest one can exist without the other is logically fallacious and factually incorrect.

It sucks that you live in America and don't have a reliable public system - but don't blame the currency system for this: Blame the people you continuously vote in year after year. I lived in America for 5 years and yeah, it sucked paying 10 k for an MRI when I damaged my knee and could no longer walk/work/go to school for an extended period of time. It sucked paying 200 dollars for a GP appointment once a year. Yet, this has nothing to do with the currency system.

Damn, I wish people that supported bitcoin knew how to use evidence and argue properly.

I meant whatever the previous commenter meant, to which the user provided no sources nor definitions. How would you like to define stability? If you would like to argue this point, feel free to provide definitions and sources. I am not the one trying to supplant the system in favour of the bitcoin system. Keep in mind I will make no claims for the stability of one particular government currency without considering the global context. I'm not going to sit here and defend Zimbabwe's currency management, nor am I going to suggest that the value of the US dollar has not been stable over the last few years (relative to the value of other global currencies).

Which government do you belong to? Man that sucks! You should vote for a change in management. This is also not true of all government backed money systems, so I feel for you if you live in, say, the USA. Forced regional chartered membership ownership (which also gives special voting powers for that region's federal reserve bank) of each regional federal reserve bank is not necessarily a good thing, among other things that the USA system includes.

If it was much more simple and available to the public, say with the Canadian system, this would probably be a lot easier for the common American to understand.

Correct, you didn't respond to that, and I made a mistake with my comment in this particular comment reply line. If slashdot allowed it to be so I could edit and/or remove my own comments made with haste, I would have made my above comment disappear from the generally public eye - as it adds nothing to the conversation like the two comments before it.

I have never once made an AC comment on slashdot, nor never will. One does not learn by being an AC, nor does one help others become educated behind the veil of AC. In all cases I prefer flying under my flag, and even if I am breaking the laws of my jurisdiction I would prefer to be a civil disobedient rather than and anonymous coward. Allow me to further explain my thought process regarding my previous (terrible) comment though:

I hurled the AC's insult at the follow up commenter, and in haste wrote that you and the other username were the same username. Apologies for this. My original comment was made at 4:25am (my time), and should not have been made at all. I was not attempting to call you out, I was attempting to call out the commenter that followed up this thread with "Or maybe you do...". I have seen way too much rampant ignorance in bitcoin threads on slashdot (on all sides of the issue), and in this particular instance I wanted to call out some dude that was merely resorting to flaming another - by using a flame of his opposition, again. If the username fredprado actually had knowledge about the current monetary system and wanted to engage in civil discussion that would be nice, but for whatever reason my high horse decided to take issue with the flame, and I decided to use the previously used foxnews flame to show it can easily be used both ways in the Bitcoin/monetary-system debate (as yet again, the ignorance is rampant on all sides).

Once again, apologies for resorting to the same tactics of those I am apparently trying to be better than.

My 5+ years of monetary economics training would like to have a word with you, and I am certainly not going to argue that the current money system is not backed by debt (in essence, within 140 characters of twitter explanations). But riddle me this:

How is the commodity backed system a better system (as you suggest with your initial comment in this reply line) than the fiat system, and how does it provide for more socially optimal outcomes, and why is this evidence that a proposal like bitcoin should be considered for mass adoption? I doubt you can make this argument without sounding like Ron Paul or some ignorant Foxnews analyst (At least Ron Paul is no longer ignorant about the issue, he just postures for states rights in general and uses the money system as a talking point to show there are other ways for each individual state to pursue - if they wished to).

But before you answer this question, let us both agree that I made a bad joke and terrible comment.

Correct, you didn't respond to that, and I made a mistake with my comment in this particular comment reply line. If slashdot allowed it to be so I could edit and/or remove my own comments made with haste, I would have made my above comment disappear from the generally public eye - as it adds nothing to the conversation like the two comments before it.

I have never once made an AC comment on slashdot, nor never will. One does not learn by being an AC, nor does one help others become educated behind the veil of AC. In all cases I prefer flying under my flag, and even if I am breaking the laws of my jurisdiction I would prefer to be a civil disobedient rather than an anonymous coward. Allow me to further explain my thought process regarding my previous (terrible) comment though:

I hurled the AC's insult at the follow up commenter, and in haste wrote that you and the other username were the same username. Apologies for this. My original comment was made at 4:25am (my time), and should not have been made at all. I was not attempting to call you out, I was attempting to call out the commenter that followed up this thread with "Or maybe you do...". I have seen way too much rampant ignorance in bitcoin threads on slashdot (on all sides of the issue), and in this particular instance I wanted to call out some dude that was merely resorting to flaming another - by using a flame of his opposition, again. If the username fredprado actually had knowledge about the current monetary system and wanted to engage in civil discussion that would be nice, but for whatever reason my high horse decided to take issue with the flame, and I decided to use the previously used foxnews flame to show it can easily be used both ways in the Bitcoin/monetary-system debate (as yet again, the ignorance is rampant on all sides).

Once again, apologies for resorting to the same tactics of those I am apparently trying to be better than.

My 5+ years of monetary economics training would like to have a word with you, and I am certainly not going to argue that the current money system is not backed by debt (in essence, within 140 characters of twitter explanations). But riddle me this:

How is the commodity backed system a better system (as you suggest with your initial comment in this reply line) than the fiat system, and how does it provide for more socially optimal outcomes, and why is this evidence that a proposal like bitcoin should be considered for mass adoption? I doubt you can make this argument without sounding like Ron Paul or some ignorant Foxnews analyst (At least Ron Paul is no longer ignorant about the issue, he just postures for states rights in general and uses the money system as a talking point to show there are other ways for each individual state to pursue - if they wished to).

But before you answer this question, let us both agree that I made a bad joke and terrible comment.

So you want me to take your bitcoin proposal seriously, yet you do not provide one single source to defend your notions?

Who is the troll?

Me for suggesting you use logic and reason, as well as sound argumentative processes when trying to supplant a government system?

Or you, for trolling the entire goddamn monetary system without a single goddamned source to defend your viewpoints?

Once again, for anyone else down this thread: This is not a problem of the currency system, this is a problem of the powers granted to law enforcement within Shaitland's jurisdiction. Shaitland is unable to separate the two issues, as he believes they are the exact same issue. I have continuously asked Shaitland to separate the issues, yet Shaitland is unable.

Once again, for anyone else down this thread: This is not a problem of the currency system, this is a problem of the powers granted to law enforcement within Shaitland's jurisdiction. Shaitland is unable to separate the two issues, as he believes they are the exact same issue. I have continuously asked Shaitland to separate the issues, yet Shaitland is unable.

Pleas source this "semi-popular" tv show which likely uses ample circumstantial evidence no one beyond a 10th grade education would use. Then please consider the following:

"Once again, for anyone else down this thread: This is not a problem of the currency system, this is a problem of the powers granted to law enforcement within Shaitland's jurisdiction. Shaitland is unable to separate the two issues, as he believes they are the exact same issue. I have continuously asked Shaitland to separate the issues, yet Shaitland is unable."

Then why are you defending a system you don't understand, when trying to supplant a system you probably will never understand?

Do you honestly think that speculation will go anywhere with a new currency system? Welcome to the real world my friend. Do you even know what the differences between speculating, hedging, and arbitraging are?

I believe bitcoin is not numerically sound. Please provide a source which indicates it is MORE numberically sound than the current money system, and how this works towards a better

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you do realize that pretty much all PHD Econ students are pure math/actuarial/engineering/CS students? They just use real world numbers instead of continuous mental masturbation, and they use the same mathematical principles. Read a fucking book bro. You know nothing of Economics, Mathematics, nor cryptography.

To suggest that one's algorithms can never be broken is fallacious on so many levels, and the new IBM and Lockheed Martin quantum super computers would like to have a look at your challenge. Im not saying you have suggested that it can "never" be broken, but I am saying that when it is, that is the end of the Bitcoin system as we know it. People will abandon it as they do not have a say in it, like they do with government. Pretty much everyone has a say in government except for a couple large exceptions, like minors such as (I imagine) you are.

Yet you provide no sources to back your claims. I don't want links to the fucking system itself.

That is like linking to a coca-cola advertisement telling me it is proof of how healthy coca-cola is for your body.

Jesus man. You need a lesson in basic logic, debate, and some post secondary education.

I will repeat: You will start providing me sources if you want me to take you seriously.

Please provide a source which indicates that the bitcoin proposal will better solve the built-in greed and scandal problem better, given the set of other alternatives.

No, no we will not discuss this. I don't care what you want to call your device, get the fuck off my lawn. Why bring this up at all?

We already use technology to do this. Please provide a source which indicates that the bitcoin proposal will make it easier to track the "paper-trail", given the set of other alternatives. Please also state how this same source suggests that having more anonymity is a more desirable social outcome?

Please provide a source which indicates that the bitcoin proposal will make it easier to hold those accountable who mismanage their responsibilities, given the set of other alternatives. I posit that this is not possibly true as nobody within an open-source community based project (like the bitcoin monetary system proposal) has any responsibility to anyone but him or herself. It should be your goal on the bitcoin system to mismanage responsibility and to defraud others, otherwise you are not playing this market correctly.

This is a problem with your elected officials, not with currency itself, nor the current currency system. Please provide a source which indicates that the bitcoin proposal will better solve this problem better, given the set of other alternatives.

Please provide a source which indicates that the bitcoin proposal will better solve this problem of accountability, given the set of other alternatives. I posit, that no, it won't as no member of the bitcoin community is accountable to anyone but itself.

The money is already traceable, to a degree, and government budgets are already traceable, to a degree. If you have problems with the transparency of government expenditures and law enforcement in your jurisdiction you need to vote to change this. Then you need to understand that this is a problem with your government and your law enforcement, and not the currency system in general.

This is the definition of a red herring, has nothing to do with the money system, and you are using it to distract from the issues at hand:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

Your two sources do in fact support your red herring but have nothing to do with the currency system.

But yes, I agree, the american military spends money in stupid places, and too much money in general. How is this a fault of the currency system? You literally vote people into office to spend this money in a stupid way for you. Don't like it? Vote someone else in.

It already is popular, and nobody is discrediting it as an alternative currency, much like no one was discrediting E-Gold before Bitcoin. Yet neither of these will ever become a scaleable currency that achieves mass adoption without government involvement. You ignore basic premises in logic and historical evidence to suggest otherwise.

Can you address this again? Because you clearly are not able to separate the wheat from the chaff. Once again, you are the one trying to supplant the system: You need to provide the evidence, you have the burden of proof.

You did in fact claim this when you said:

Do you need me to offer you the definitions of "anonymity" and "nothing" within this context? If you are not implying 100% anonymity with this, what are you implying? If you don't believe Bitcoin is 100% anonymous and can't prove how it is a better alternative than the already pseudo-anonymous currency system, what are you trying to show? I have seen you throughout these threads: You may be a successful investor and hedger of the Bitcoin currency, but you are a wolf in sheep's clothing. You are leading the blind into your profit margins.

And once again, in my previous comment I addressed each of your use cases for where Bitcoin was apparently "better" due to its levels of anonymity, and showed how in each case, your claims were false or argumentative of a different standpoint/issue (you mostly have issues with law enforcement, you must have a petty MJ felony from high school or something).

Please continue to talk yourself away from those use cases though.

Thanks. I am pretty clever. And I have 5+ years of monetary economics training, so I also know a thing or two. You talk theory with no basis nor sources, yet want to supplant a system that has taken hundreds of years to develop.

What the fuck does this mean? Let me repeat your claim: "Anonymity is usually optimal for transactions where payment can't be reversed." Now let me ask you again in 140 characters or less: What types of payments can not be reversed, and how is more anonymity better than the current system or some other alternative like a gold standard?

I pointed this out because clearly you do not understand what Escrow is nor how people use it. You still don't, if you read your above comment and your previous comment on the matter: "Most of the rest [of transactions] can be better solved with escrow or a deposit in escrow than current methods." If you put this in conjunction with your previous statement, this implies that all "transactions where payment can't be reversed" are better solved with Escrow. Both statements are simply untrue, and you have failed to provide any evidence for your case, nor have you addressed the fact that the majority of Escrow payments are executed with a government back currency. Once again: you have the burden of proof as you are trying to supplant the system.

I will ask this again since you didn't answer with your most recent comment: all things equal, if everyone adopted bitcoin today, how would the Escrow system be better off?

Once again, this is not a problem with the currency, this is a problem law enforcement in your jurisdiction. Can you stop confusing the two please?

Furthermore, you can provide me AT LEAST SOME FUCKING EVIDENCE of government tracking and action (and you will if you want me to take you seriously). Then, once again (as i will repeat ad nauseum to you), you need to understand this is a problem with your law enforcement and not with currency itself.

If there are so many cases where this has happened, can you please provide me with two different ones? Then can you once again understand that currency tracking as a mechanism for law enforcement is not the same thing as currency itself?

You have a vote: Limit the power of the law enforcement agents in your jurisdiction with your voice. Don't hide, speak out.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHABAHABAHABAHABABABBAHABAHAB (pause) BAHABAHABAHABAHABAH

That being said, source please.

Sucks to live where you live, man. You should elect new officials. Once again this is not a problem of currency itself, this is a problem with law enforcement in your jurisdiction. Not my fault you guys voted in Bush and the Patriot Act. I lived in the states for 5 years at around that time: It was pretty funny watching Bush unfold. Don't worry though, when you grow up you'll be able to move away as well.

Please provide me a source of the police in your jurisdiction doing this with no warrant. After you do, please once again understand that this is a problem with law enforcement in your jurisdiction, not with currency itself.

Have you ever been to an airport? You do realize it is your inalienable right to own as much cash as you want, and have it on your person, yes? Have you ever heard the term "bury it under your mattress"? Please provide me a source for the TSA in your jurisdiction detaining a person without warrant for having too much cash, and clearly mark if this was a domestic or international flight. After you do, please once again understand that this is a problem with law enforcement in your jurisdiction, not with currency itself.

You are not allowed to carry more than a certain amount of cash on international flights as the other government will want to ensure they are taxing the sellers of the products you are buying in their country, within a reasonable degree.

You do realize that law breakers, as a rule, do not tell everyone what techniques they use either, right? Even if law enforcement in your jurisdiction is not telling everyone what techniques they use, please tell me how this is a problem with currency? If the law enforcement officers are using these techniques maliciously against ordinary citizens without warrant, you need to vote for change in your area, and this is not a problem with currency.

Yes. It could be resounding coincidence. Or a whole host of other reasons not limited to the one you mentioned, which I believe you fabricated anyways since this is completely anecdotal and you have not once provided a source, when I have asked for many. Stop defending a system you don't understand, while attack another you probably never will.

Before I entertain your poor argumentative form any further, care to mention your level of education as I have?

No shit sherlock. That is why people use it: Because they have faith in the government. Nobody has faith in a bunch of nerds and banking/investment-banking servers cranking out algorithms that are not proven to have any immediate purpose. Even the bitcoin system itself, only has the value its constituents place in it.

Please prove how the bitcoin system provides a better alternative to this, using as many sources as possible: while doing this, please show that you are not at the mercy of the bitcoin system when using their currency.

That is factually, logically, and philosophically, incorrect in so many way: If there is no government, you would have no right to anything except for the laws of nature. These are not friendly laws, my friend, this is Darwinism (and potentially fits the definition of anarchy) at its finest.

Furthermore, what on earth does this have to do with currency and how does bitcoin provide a better alternative? I would rather be subject to the tyranny of the government (which I vote for) rather than the tyranny of the bitcoin operators, and the masses that compose it (in which I don't vote for).

Can I ask you one yes/no question: Were you around in the days where everyone used E-Gold to buy their drugs online?

Haha, no kidding.

Based on some in person conversations about the topic, threads like this on SlashDot over the last 1.5 years at least, my five+ years of education in Economics (with a Finance/Investing/Monetary specialization), and ample personal research on the topic, Bitcoin has theoretical problems of its own as well as the most logical incongruent fallacious basis to begin with: It cannot achieve stability in scale without the backing of the people (and their representatives, the government). To suggest that all people are always sitting at their computers all the time ready to manage the monetary system is wrong, and to suggest that the people of the world are willing to hand over their monetary system to a group of people that are sitting at their computers (but that they didn't vote for) is wrong.

Simply put, scale can only be achieved if all (or most) people have faith in the system. How do people have all faith? With a vote.

Going into the technicalities of their system itself (which has many validities, and likely even some theory that can be adopted by the current money systems) is mostly an exercise in futility. I do it to practice my knowledge on these topics in which I am quite familiar, as it expands my knowledge base about the actual, scaleable, money system each time I do.

Ah fair enough: I half expected it was copied from somewhere in haste.

It is always important to pay credit forward in some fashion or another, especially since my last comment seemed to imply that your initial comment was "your" mini poem. That being said (note:::trolling-flame-bait::: sorry this is really my passion and how I ended up in the slashdot community in the first place), if Universal and Access Industries (or whoever currently maintains global distro rights for this particular album) had their complete way with the use of those lyrics, Slashdot and yourself would pay some fee to keep that post there under both your names - as that is very much "their" content. In this case though, I am glad we fight for fair use, and it is people like you that show why fair use is so important: Educated people will pay their credit forward.

That being said, now that I know these are Dire Straits lyrics (could have searched the lyrics anyhow) I will now go contribute to the bands existence by listening to this song on a medium of my choosing (your youtube link for now). Who knows, one day I might even purchase and add this album to my collection if I can find a copy I enjoy on a medium that suits me. I picked up an old shitty beat up copy of their first album on vinyl, mostly for the artwork and my bland walls, and for whatever reason I've never ventured much further into their discography. I most certainly would have paid to see Sultans of Swing live, if I had the chance.

Thanks for the tip!

Don't put words in my mouth when I'm not asking you to feed me.

I made no claims about your assurances in the jurisdiction you live in.

I only made the claim that, by definition, money (or currency) is pseudo-anonymous. Allow me to explain this definition, starting by using your very next sentence as you have clearly not taken a monetary economics (300 level undergrad or higher) class:

Once again, I never said US cash is 100% anonymous. I said money (or currency) is pseudo-anonymous. And yes, US Cash fits this definition.

In some forms, US Cash is anonymous and in some forms it isn't. In some forms it is representative of anonymity (like the trillion "missing" dollars). In many (most) cases, the choice is yours as to how anonymous you would like your cash to be, but it will be very difficult (if not impossible, much like with Bitcoin as we will see at the end of this comment) to actually achieve 100% currency anonymity on any legitimate scale. The world is not as absolute as you'd like to think it is.

Pseudo-anonymity can can be contrasted with a currency like Bitcoin, which claims complete 100% anonymity (though it is not). Until the system is broken or until there is a warrant out for someone's arrest, you might feel as though you are 100% anonymous. This is how people felt when they first started posting things to livejournal/myspace/facebook, and it is how most people feel when they are using Torrents or some form of proxy.

Now that we have definitions out of the way, moving the current currency system closer to 100% anonymity has not yet been proven to produce more desirable outcomes than a definably pseudo-anonymous currency. Sometimes, for society, it is pretty important to know where, when, and who the money passed through, and there must be devices in place to access this information in the case of catastrophe.

Obviously, if you are receiving a direct deposit from your employer, and are paying for rent/mortgage with cheques/e-payments, and are withdrawing said cash from the bank where said payroll was deposited you should expect 0% anonymity in this case. Do you honestly think you have complete anonymity when you transfer those same dollars into Bitcoins, and from there on out?

If current US Cash were 100% anonymous for example, you would likely have more difficulty finding the person that hired the super-cool-ninja-assassin who to tried kill you in your sleep last night (thank god for the anonymous Bitcoin-purchased gun under your pillow). One way investigators (private and public) could do this would be to "follow the money" and its paper trail. But because the current government backed money systems in the Western Democracies I am familiar with are already pseudo-anonymous, the person who hired your assassin has ways to ensure his/her name is not associated with the act.

Everybody already wins.

Furthermore, many legitimate professions like Bartenders and Cab Drivers are paid in largely in cash and at no point are they required to be subject to said aforementioned tracking mechanisms. You can always ask your employer to pay you in cash. Where did you employer get that cash from? Who knows, only they do. Your employer doesn't want to pay you in cash, but you only want to be paid in cash? Find a new employer.

You do realize that there is already a lot of cash in circulation, yes? Much of it is "claimed" to be missing, yes? No currency that is already in circulation necessarily has to be associated with any one person's name. This is how drug dealers operate and provide their necessary services. Bitcoin is an alternative for them, as for now it provides them with more assurances regarding anonymity. Drug dealers will still be taking cold hard currency just like everyone else for the foreseeable future, as on average it still retains some level of anonymity for them.

Moving on to the rest of your points:

You literally pay the Bank to do this for you, this is a service they provide, and the vast majority of people see this as a good thing (and it is). If Bitcoin was suddenly adopted by everyone (all things equal), Banks would still provide this exact same service as they would likely specialize in storing and securing your Bitcoins better than you can. Tracking where US Cash/Bitcoins go is a part of storing and securing, which is what banks do. Much like banks store and secure your current cash, much like banks used to (and still do) store and secure gold, much like banks used to provide private security forces and lock boxes for other trinkets people want to hold (and still do). Every squirrel needs a tree for its acorns (and will always). Bitcoin will not remove the involvement of banks.

If you have a source for the threshold at which the government tracks these transactions, please provide said source now. You should be spending more time banning this act in your jurisdiction, rather than arguing for the validity of an alternative currency like Bitcoin as The Currency.

If your local government is doing this, this does not represent a problem with currency: It represents a problem with the laws in your jurisdiction.

Once again, having a tracking mechanism associated with currency is not proven to be a bad thing, especially when you do not have to subject yourself to said tracking as proven above. Bitcoin, as an alternative, is not proven to offer a better solution to the current situation.

Also, please provide a source which indicates that your local police can immediately detect these notable quantities of cash containing embedded metallic strips. Please also provide a source which indicates that your local police is using said mechanism without warrants on ordinary citizens, and is abusing the power of the mechanism in general.

If the police can and are doing these things, you should be working to change this act in your jurisdiction once again, instead of spending time debating me here. This is not a fault of the currency, this is a fault of the laws governing the currency, as I have and will repeat many times in threads like this.

First of all, you need to prove to me that law enforcement currently is tracking notable quantities of cash, as I mentioned in regards to your previous statement. After you do that, then you can work on proving that "Large cash purchases" are always being tracked, or are "similarly being noted" by law enforcement officials.

After you have proven both these two things, you then need to realize this is a policing problem not a currency problem.

But let's say it is a currency problem: How is tracking large cash purchases a bad thing? Here is my retort, if you believe it is a bad thing:

If you are making large cash purchases in my jurisdiction, this means there is a seller, and that there are likely domestic and/or imported goods and/or labour and/or services involved. Like fuck one of these isn't getting taxed. And if you think one of these should not get taxed, well then sir, we are on a totally different page. Yet still, this page is in regards to taxes, and not currency itself.

Moving on to your next statements:

This is factually incorrect.

Identity is required to rent cars, but your form of payment is determined by the rental provider themselves. There are many seedy joints that will rent you a car without identity or plastic cash.

Furthermore, you should be required to show identity when renting a car even if this was 100% factually correct. Why is this? Well, in order for you to drive said car away from the rental location, you will likely have to use some form of government road. Guess who owns the government road? If you guessed the people that compose the government in that jurisdiction, you win the prize. And guess what the funny thing about public AND private roads are? It is not your inalienable right to use said roads, it is a privilege provided to you by the taxpaying base or the private landowner. I, and other taxpayers, would like to know who you are when you are using my road, in case you fuck up which you will inevitably do. Private companies will likely want to know as well, for liability and damages purposes.

Once again, this is not a problem of currency, these are semantics relating to specific types of transactions. Bitcoin does not improve the situation, and may work to prevent some of this if everybody was driving anonymous vehicles on my roads.

Moving on:

Again, this is factually incorrect.

I have been paying rent in cash for over 2 years, and will soon no longer be doing so. Plenty of hotels (the shitty ones, and the good ones as long as you provide identification as with car rentals) accept payment in cash. Hourly hotels for hookers and drug/gun deals like the many near my new place of living take payment in cash. I went on a road-trip last year through the southwest of the United States and stayed in many totally normal hotels that actually preferred cash payment. This is all anecdotal evidence, sure, but I'm not the one trying to supplant an entire system: You are. You need to provide evidence that is not factually incorrect, and when your facts are simply wrong, I feel it is okay to respond with anecdotes.

That being said, these totally normal hotels still wanted some form of identity. But this is so they can sue your ass or kick your ass out of the rental unit if you damage their property or stay for too long. This is pretty fucking reasonable, in my books, and this is a contract I am aware of when engaging these private landowners.

Once again, this is not a problem of currency, these are semantics relating to specific types of transactions. Bitcoin does not improve the situation and may work to prevent some of this, though it is the choice of the hotel rental company whether or not they want to prevent any of this. They have the ability to choose Bitcoin if they wish. Unless you have a warrant out for your arrest, I'm not sure why you would want to be an anonymous rentee of property anyways, as you will no longer be afforded the due process of law which protects tenants far more than it likely should - much like all other Consumer Protection Laws which require you to identify yourself.

As you see above, no. No it does not. Not in the least for any situation you mention above or below. Moving on:

In my jurisdiction, all payments can be reversed, within reason, and within the defined terms. This is done by private entities to ensure that their customers are satisfied to the fullest extent, and it is also written into our Consumer Protection Laws.

Once again, this is not a problem of currency, these are semantics relating to specific types of transactions in your jurisdiction. Bitcoin does not improve the situation and may work to prevent some of this especially in regards to protecting the consumer (you). Being anonymous won't help you when you get fucked by your favourite company, on purpose or on accident.

But please, enlighten me. What types of transactions payments cannot be reversed (payroll? I'm sure there are many examples, but I am asking you), and does being anonymous in these transactions provide for a more optimal social outcome?

Please provide sources where necessary.

Honestly, what on earth do you think escrow is? You do realize most escrow payments are made using a government backed currency and that escrow is a very common form of payment, especially for a wide range of industries? Escrow was the first most popular form of payment on the internet, as seen with sites like Ebay (and before this) because everyone was paranoid and nobody trusted each other. Most escrow payments then, and now, are delivered and executed as government backed currencies. Bitcoin, like E-Gold, and Ebay were not the first to use Escrow. It has been around since prostitution/banks.

You can send escrow payments in acorns for all anyone cares, just like I imagine squirrels do in some capacity.

Once again, this is simply not indicative of a problem with currency. Moving on:

This is not a problem with currency, and there is no such thing as perfect law enforcement. You paint things in cartoonish absolutes.

This is a problem with how you vote for your officials, and the power your elected officials give to your jurisdiction's police force.

That being said, you are wrong: I think most people would agree that we should most certainly equip our law enforcement agents where it is reasonable to do so in regards to currency, and even the most staunch Libertarian believes in security for private property. If it is reasonable to include a law enforcement mechanism in the currency itself, most people are okay with this unless the use of the mechanism is not reasonable.

Once again, not a currency problem. It is a law enforcement problem that we willingly chose.

So tell me again how bitcoin is 100% anonymous, and how it can hope to remain anonymous with scale? It may be more anonymous than the current currency system, but neither is 100% anonymous while neither REQUIRES that your name is attached to the currency.

And once again, how is more anonymity proven to provide a greater net social benefit than the current currency which is already pseudo-anonymous?

I would expect nothing short of a full reply from you regarding all these points, as you have already spilled thousands of words on this article thread alone. I have addressed every single one of your sentences that you wrote for me. I would love it if you were able to address all of mine.

Well here is an E-Handshake for you good sir. Glad to say I shared a sentence with a person that worked for a service I valued highly for a while. Thank you for your efforts, for however long you may have been doing them.

I guess that mini poem you wrote at the top of this comment reply line hit a little too close to home then, huh. Too bad I had to comment in this thread, otherwise you would have had my mod.

Apparently, you didn't read my previous comment (which you decided to respond to (twice) anyways) where I stated this exact same thing:

Why the fuck are you responding to my comments if you are not even reading what I am writing? At the top of this comment reply line you make a terrible flame-baiting comment, and I call you out on it. Then you refuse to debate your trolling comments because you have no leg to stand on. I have the ability to admit I am wrong, do you? Because the second clause of your first statement in this comment reply line is wrong, yet you refuse to admit or provide justification for the terms you used.

Can you please address the fact that the Internet is the most pure Capitalist system known to man, yet somehow this is not evidence of Capitalism having some merit? You have literally ignored this for three straight comments now, while I acknowledge that Communism has merit.

I addressed all of your examples to show how subsistence farming, sharecropping, and collective farming are not very good examples of either Communism or Capitalism while they most certainly are not scaleable on any level.

Why bother engaging in conversation or debate in an online setting via a written word forum if you are not fucking reading?

The aforementioned comment where I explained my second clause wasn't even that long, but apparently it was too long to keep your attention. This is slashdot, not twitter. I put a lot of this comment in bold, so that you actually made it to the end this time.

This comment is so ignorant I don't know where to start.

But allow me to provide you with one example for your mind to chew on for a while: An example of an industry that should not be taking a bullet in the head anytime soon, as those that take bullets will need this industry.

Consider the healthcare systems of most major Western Democracies: They contain some share of public and private presence. Should the government be waiting for Bitcoin transaction approvals in order to appropriate funds from the Bitcoin taxbase to the Hospitals that need these funds for equipment, drugs, and payroll within the immediate future? If there are already examples of transaction approvals taking upwards of 20 days, how do you expect to pay for refills and hospital payroll in a timely manner? People's lives depend on this.

If you are pursuing some form of private healthcare, should you have to wait any longer than the blink of an eye for your transaction to be approved? You might be pursuing private healthcare because you feel there is better quality, or it is an elective procedure, or many less obvious reasons. But take for example the case of Dentistry, which is not covered by a public health system like Canada. Should you really have to wait any amount of time for emergency dental surgery, if in the case of serious mouth/teeth problems that is actually causing you pain?

I will repeat this until necessary: The problem is not with Currency itself, the problem is with laws that govern Currency. Bitcoin does not currently present a better alternative to Currency itself. Once upon a time there was E-Gold, then there was Bitcoin. CyberPunkMoney is no different than all other alternative currencies, like cigarettes and gold, which existed before the internet. It may have a fresh approach, but its end result is no different. If it wants to achieve legitimate scale, it will be government controlled.