Ce serait extrêmement tentant, avec au moins une adresse officielle par personne physique et morale, et donnerait de grandes possibilités de contrôle.
Politiquement c'est sans doute compliqué à passer dans un pays occidental, et puis de toutes façons les décideurs ne comprennent rien à cela.
Diplomatiquement je suppose que cela poserait de gros problèmes, étant donné la pression internationale qui est mise sur tout ce qui dévie de l'orthodoxie monétaire moderne

You're right.
But replying with a link to a good FAQ entry really helps. And the replies might help enrich the FAQ (sometimes...)

Thanks a lot ; is this the right place for a "common objections" or "false problems" section, with questions like :
"The blockchain keeps growing, can I use Bitcoin without downloading 15 GB ?" (this one is partially answered already but the answer is short and a bit hard to find)
"What happens when miners stop getting block rewards ?"
"Will Bitcoin crumble to death if the underlying crypto is borken ?"

Currently some "objection" questions are listed under General or Economy. I might just add my own under in the existing sections. I'll keep thinking about it, any adivce appreciated !

Shouldn't we have some easily linkable FAQ covering this and thousands other questions ?
Or have we got that already ?
I'm evangelizing a lot and getting tired of answering the same questions. If there is no comprehensive resource like that I might set up one.

It does one thing : it allows verifiable transfer of a fungible, finite thing : bitcoin. That, in itslef (and some other properties), is huge, and explains the interest for bitcoin and its future.
Bitcoin might reduce poverty in Africa, yes, because it might lead, directly or indirectly, to the end of debt money. Understand it or not, but that would be a HUGE change in our current world, and would indeed help reduce poverty, to put it simply.

AnonyMint is raising some good points.
Bitcoin is not a ponzi scheme stricto sensu because veterans aren't paid by a scammer with the subscription money of newcomers. Nevertheless, the question of bitcoin's long term sustainability remains.
I disagree with you AnonyMint, though ; I think (I might be wrong) that bitcoin-rich people will spend enough coins to allow bitcoin-poor people to trade work for coins. How do you "prove" that wrong ?

The facts that the price is higher on BTC China, and that BTC China has taken such a huge share of bitcoin trade, let me think China is leading the raise.

Might very well be true.
Currently the "greatest investment in the history of capitalism" is that of the Rothschild family, having invested in the monopoly of monetary creation.
Bitcoin is playing in the same league.

That Chicago Fed article is very good and I would recommend reading it.

There is a wonderful gem inside :
The Fed said this. I'll print that and hang it on the wall.

He's not making all that much sense.  The bitcoin code, as an open source project, is the opposite of opaque.  And for that reason it's rather more unlikely that governments could intervene in the code-base, without the network and anyone looking at it noticing.  The government obviously can easily intervene where bitcoin interfaces with the traditional financial system.  Maybe that's what he's talking about, but it sounds like he thinks the former.  Am I missing something here?
[/quote]

Bankers don't understand open source. In their mind open source is something opaque.

My guess is that he is just busy.
Anyways that Code 2030 is quite worrying. Generally speaking, I fear anything that forbids advertising something, since it can usually be twisted to condemn a broad range of behaviours and limit free speech.

Very good question. Especially in relation to the word "advertise".

I found it disturbing to read a lot of bitcoin-related headlines being cited in this document, while the body doesn't even mention bitcoin.
The message, to my hears, is :
1. "We know this virtual currency thing is mostly about bitcoins"
2. "We will not confirm or deny we are currently working on regulating bitcoin"
Which is quite disturbing to me. Maybe they want to keep all options on the table while they try to find ways to regulate bitcoins behind their "closed doors". Maybe they're not sure if they can or cannot, technically speaking, at this time.

Not in my tribe !

I'll give it a second chance then
But the words "We don’t really know how this coin is created." are quite worrying for Mr Forbes IQ and professionalism, quite clearly.

Ok, let me add forbes.com to my "never trust" list... Done.

He was.
"The State represents violence in a concentrated and organized form. The individual has a soul, but as the State is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence."
"While apparently doing good by minimizing exploitation, [the State] does the greatest harm to mankind."

Google is about 30k employees paid in average 100k$/year, which means their monthly wages in in the order of 100M$ To 1G$.
I was talking about small businesses (1M monthly)
And I still don't know what you're talking about.

[/quote]

WTF???
Any idea of what this "classified" material is supposed to be ?

Quand tu auras des réponses de leur part je serai intéressé par une comparaison avec les infos que j'ai !