Jorge, Danny may have ponzi'd
I don't think he did. To me it looks like just incompetence and arrogance, at least until the failure became too obvious to ignore. But some foul play probably happened after that point.
but the real idea about bitcoin is not to trust someone else with your money. I don't think anyone lost money from Danny unless they backed his business venture. To my knowledge they didn't get to the point where they had bitcoin savings accounts with deposits in existence.
That is correct, but the bare protocol is not enough. Even of bitcoin succeeds (in my definition, not just as a black market currency) ther will be a need for banks and such things.
If you're not well informed yet Jorge you should know the U.S$ is the king of black market and that is unlikely to change. No.. we are our own banks...if you mean keeping our btc funds safe from thrives yeah maybe we will need safer places to access our bitcoin storage than our houses but this is no different that keeping cash at home.
and its not we will see, its we're witnessing they're growth.
I see many promises. As for Silbert's fund, esterday I posted a rough analysis. It seems that the average investor lost money so far (although some have already made nice profits, and the rest may too if the BTC price goes up). On the other hand, SecondMarket will profit in any case from fees, and perhaps more if they can buy coins below market price, e.g. from a private mining outfit.
I don't trust your analysis of second market but that is just me.
You don't need to trust him. It's just common sense as most bitcoins in BIT was bought over $400.