Mark Zuckerberg shorting on his own stock because he knew the price would fall and netting himself some ridiculous profit

An asset is something that generates value to the owner by some other method than speculation.  Bitcoin does not do that, it represents value that can be transfered, but cannot produce new value.  Bitcoin cannot ever be an "asset".

Why do you even use an admin account as your regular account? This is like running root for everything under Linux. I have trained some non-technical Windows users to always run their regular stuff as a non-admin user and they have never picked up a single virus in the past 10 years or so.

Lol. Stop with your silly promotions.

It cant work, tax law requires capital gains to be paid on bitcoin gains.

Well today was a success. We pitched it to a local business owner. He was initially skeptical but we overcame his objections (standard "but it's not backed by anything" etc etc) and he's looking at implementing into his store ASAP. He is on the Financial Advisory Board for the chain of the franchise he owns and he says he has a lot of weight in there (his words were "Golden Child") as his store is one of the most successful.

Optimally it will be implemented on a nationwide chain of around 160 stores. We just have to look into the exact methodology of how is to implement it as seamlessly as possible into the business and go from there.

If anyone has any suggestions of merchant options for BTC in Australia, I'd love to know!!! Initially I think he would like to just convert it straight to fiat (AUD). I have looked into CoinJar, does anyone know of others?

If we see success here, I will take it to some larger chains, particularly in the tech retail sector where I work as I can see it gaining traction there, particularly after Bitcoin Black Friday's success.

Thanks again guys

Bitcoin does not need to replace normal currency in order to have a future, according to an expert on digital currencies from professional services firm Ernst & Young.

Speaking at an event in London, Roger Willis, who has been following bitcoin since its inception in 2009, described myths around the currency, one of which was its position as a replacement for "fiat" money.

"Fiat currency is essentially currency the government decrees to be legal tender," Willis says. "Bitcoin wasn't really developed to be a replacement for fiat currency. You see a lot of people talking about how bitcoin is going to take over, or how bitcoin doesn't have the properties that lend to it being used widely.

"But it was really developed to be used in ecommerce and for micro transactions. It wasn't really to replace our sterling, our us dollars, and our euros."

With that in mind, [...]

Basic math fail detected. I guess you are just another free-marketer.

It doesn't matter how things are cheap when your income is zero. Zero divided by any number no matter how small still gives zero.

It seems we're barreling toward socialism, or socialism.  If those are our two options, I'm rooting for socialism; it seems capitalism doesn't function right when you have a people without labor, since the owners of capital have no way of selling their products to people who aren't working.  Rather, if people mutually agreed to work the land for their own benefit (in this case, agreed that the machines should do it), they can get the basic necessities they need and continue to work (in the fields machines can't automate, of course, unless A.I. becomes a real thing) to improve their condition.

Which is my hang-up; I can't picture a world without money, for this implies a world in which labor is not necessary, ergo a store of one's work is no longer a necessity.  This is not because I believe it is impossible, but because it is so abstract from the world as we know it that I would need a complete understanding of the world as it is just to see one that completely isn't.

But we're left with a problem: what if you don't want to be some kind of scientist or creative?  Perhaps the scientists and the creatives still need human labor to assist them, and can be paid for doing that; since all the necessary work is handled by the perfect slaves and thus, all items necessary to life are essentially very inexpensive and high quality, it seems a person can still make a great living while working few hours; socialism normally has this effect but the machines help tremendously.  After all, the original machines were the natural driving forces behind agriculture some 8k years ago, allowing people to not only feed themselves but to feed others.  Now we're to the point where machines can potentially completely replace the need for a human laborer.  The only difference with all our technological advances, the surplus created by machine tends to get sucked away to whomever owns the means of production, thus making the wealthy class possible at all.

And then there's the RBE conceived by Jacque Fresco which I'm not entirely sure about.

Anyway, I don't see either of the listed options as permanent solutions; one is bound to break when people don't want to be taxed to their eyeballs, the other has proven in the past to be troublesome, and not to mention how much limited freedom curtails in being unable to decide for oneself what the self needs and doesn't.

I think this is bad, they only care about money and they're so desperate they are giving people horrible advice, not only gpu buy he used an Nvidia at first

i didnt catch that, can you repeat it ?

the reason is why so slowly, because industrial btc owner doesnt helping. so there is the difference between mortal people when it goes high slowly and immortal as knc, terra, etc.. when it goes in 5 days 1000% up. the advantage when mortals trading is the stability of the currency it wont popup 20% up and down.. you can take the grow rate right now and calculate what it will cost in 2 years with circa 10%-20% accuracy.