thanks.

Bitcoin itself (I consider it a scarce commodity, like gold) indeed has these problems. However they could be worked around by an entity setting up a secondary system on top of the Bitcoin network (think: paypal handling bitcoins). That way you'd have traceability, auditability, chargebacks and all the features some desire.
Your above criticisms also apply to traditional cash and gold.

Excuse me, but I find this disturbing. I trust in the value of silver, for example, a lot more than in the value of the EUR, specifically because it is not controlled by any one nation or group of nations who are very likely going to expand the money supply rather than reduce it.

True. Bitcoin is still in its infancy. It's already getting a lot better, though: Markets are becoming more liquid and larger every month.

That's not true. There are various alternative implementations and the thing that would have to be controlled is not the software, but the protocol rules used in the wild. A disagreement on the rules results in a fork of the blockchain. There is then a Bitcoin A and a Bitcoin B and people have to decide which one they use. The users (merchants, individuals, miners,...) decide which ruleset they use, not the developers. Firstly: a fork like that would be bad for both chains and secondly: one chain would likely win (because more people like the ruleset of it better than the one of the other chain and only accept coins from that chain) and we'd have only Bitcoin again after probably quite a short while. So what I'm saying is: the cartel of developers cannot simply change the rules by rolling out an update. For an example look at how hard it was for them to rollout BIP16 (multisignature transactions)... a very positive change, but still it was tremendously hard to achieve consensus of a large enough portion of the rule-setters (all participants, basically)

Let me paraphrase Alan Greenspan: "We can print as much money as you want, we just cannot guarantee its value". I think this makes guarantees of savings, pensions or whatever a moot point. In addition: saving is in the current scheme greatly discouraged anyway by keeping interest rates artificially low.

why?

True, I forgot that. I'm sure you're aware that the hash function used can be changed. It'd make a hard-fork necessary (everybody update client with new rules)... but who wouldn't participate if the old one's broken?

ah, noone uses email anyway, why bother? *types letter on typewriter*

you analysed correctly. Mining profitability is currently questionable.

I'm sure someone will let you know when the time comes. Keep reading slashdot, that'll work.

The main advantages of Bitcoin over other types of "real" money:

  * it's censorship resistant (can't be shut down, just like bittorrent)
  * it has low transaction costs and low barrier to entry (freedom of economic transaction)
  * it can be transmitted via the internet globally in short time (max 1 hour)
  * it's cheap and easy to secure against theft and loss

The additional advantages of Bitcoin over FIAT currencies:

  * the supply is limited
  * it's open source and not controlled by banking cartel or government, open to anyone

The disadvantages of Bitcoin:

  * its acceptance is very low, to say the least
  * it's hard to understand and therefore hard to trust
  * it offers an ideal playground for criminals and scammers
  * you can add your own criticism here

There have been anonymous digital cash systems before.

The main point of bitcoin (the innovation, so to speak) is not anonymity (which you can actually achieve with bitcoin pretty easily if you want, but it's not built-in), but censorship resistance: it cannot be shut down by nuking some server.

With the introduction of using ASICs for mining, nowadays the large chunk of the cost will be upfront for the hardware anyway. A "jalapeno" from BFL (no ASIC is being delivered yet, btw) will deliver 4.5 GHash/s using around 5 Watts of power. Compare that to about 2000 Watts for a CPU rig of same hashing power.

I find it pretty unfair that the early gold miners got such large bonuses. It's much harder to mine gold nowadays. No more standing by the river with a sieve will do it :-(

that's why real criminals use bitcoin.

The Number of bitcoins in existance should have no direct influence on the number of bitcoin owners, since bitcoins are highly divisible (8 decimals).

I'd also like to know how udachny arrives at "the number of people with Bitcoins diminishes over time".

I agree with him on bitcoin not being a ponzi and fiat money not having the "store of value" property.

A fool and his money are soon parted.

"The engineers hope someday these tiny motors could help deliver cargo, such as drugs. "

lol. nano-drug-trade. "BTC received, sending off ten billion bots with the coke tonight, expect bell-curve delivery tommorow around noon"

fuck courts, free markets ftw!

bitcoin?

*ducks*