Quote from: neutrinox on December 01, 2013, 09:47:29 AM

Quote from: Crazy on December 01, 2013, 09:38:05 AM

Quote from: philip2000uk on December 01, 2013, 09:35:46 AM

what about the ones that have bank accounts and promote banks and have money in tax havens. Oh and also most banks are in a tax have, it's the Square mile called the city of london corporation, that's not even london it's a completely different thing, has different laws and so that's why all the banks are HQ'd there.

I'm not really sure what you mean, but if you're saying what I think you're saying I don't think that's necessarily a fair analogy. Right now BTC is being traded as a brand new asset class. It's not like anyone in the public eye is actually promoting a generic "bank account" and if they were, how would they possibly gain from doing so?

Yeah but come on you can make the same accusation for pretty much anything the reporters write about. Maybe they own an iPhone and give nice reviews for them, which basically strengthens the ecosystem and thus benefits the reporters. Or maybe they write a nasty story about democrats because they like republicans better. How about giving US economics positive articles because they live in US and don't want to have a depression? They could also throw dirt at bitcoin simply because their boss tells them to do so, because the boss has an interest to keep bitcoins from spreading. Drawing the lines becomes impossible.

I think all those benefits would be quite marginal, if even recognizable. Consider that people on TV who speak positively of equities of which they have a stake but don't disclose their position can be fined or jailed for that (at least, I believe so).