A better user experience is unique and amazing.

Given that I have no horse in this race (I have no bit coins, and no plans of getting any) you're falling back to accusations that don't make sense. Also it doesn't fit the "pyramid scheme", because the value isn't dependent on new users taking loses. Throwing around terms like that weakens your point.

I think that's a pedantic argument of the limits of currency. You don't want to call it a currency, that's fine. Lots of people disagree with you and use it as a currency. But the equivalency you draw to "pony plates" is intended to be demeaning and offensive in a gender-normative way. It seems like your issue isn't with the definitions of a currency, but that the argument of a currency's limit has become the vehicle to discuss your dislike of BitCoins. That's fine too. You could save a lot of effort just by saying that from the start; "I don't like BitCoins."

There's an actual thriving market of collectibles and antiques; so, yeah, there's that.

This is an argument that the USD is worth MORE than the BTC, and not that the BTC is inherently worthless. If we agree on that, good. But the statement "X makes the USD valid, while other invented currencies are invalid" is absolute bullshit. No, fucker, it's all made up.

One step further; if you mention that 'bitcoin' isn't a real currency. The whole argument chain is fucking tired.

Spoilers! Spoilers!

You're asserting that all opinions are equal, that because there is not a unanimous opinion that an opinion can't be a binding legal obligation -- allow me correct you there. A court's opinion is more important in this case, it has ruled the patent to be without merit. Fines to dissuade further abuse of the patent system are in order.

While systemic changes to reduce the ability for abuse are needed, this isn't a time for better planning -- it's about responding to abuse that has already happened. You don't ignore that and merely lament that you need to better the system.

(i.e. You broke the rules, you receive a punishment. The system is, by poor design, promoting the breaking of rules, you fix it. Both can be true.)

I'll take that bet. Digital representations count.

Um, that's exactly the right way.

ESRB conformity is a voluntary action on all sides; the concept of "more penalties for video game stores that sell them to kids" doesn't make sense in the current system.

First, they're enraged over a kidnapping, iirc, of their eggs.

Second, it's because the game is about cartoon animals - there's a lot to be said for evoking social issues, like your jihad example. It wouldn't be a 1 for 1 swap.

It is the site operators and their site with the security flaw, not the bitcoin itself. Not to claim that the bitcoin structure is perfectly solid, but once again people are arguing the wrong point. ( i.e. If your local bank is robbed they have a security problem, but that doesn't demonstrate a failure of the dollar. )

Honestly after the whole Swartz case we knew it wasn't a 'free network.' You know, it would have been nice if they "secured it" to their liking before they harassed someone to death for using it.

If anything, nanny-state filters are a leftist thing. See: Iceland.