In a very short time I've come to admire both your work and thought process. And I am trying to think through the essence of the problem you're dealing with, and I suppose that it's:

centralization V decentralization

or stating the same thing another way:

stability V accuracy

With centralization we get currency stability, which is vital for trade, but we lose the accuracy (truth) of the currency's true market worth. We might also say that we lose the integrity, honesty, of the market by exposing the currency to enormous risk vis-a-vis the fiat of centralization powers, people (or person).

With decentralization we get accuracy (honesty), which is vital for integrity. And integrity is the cornerstone of the currency's strength, its durability, its ability to fight off competitors, usurpers, exploiters. Whereas a centralized currency will always be on the knife's edge of destruction, from within or without, because of its targetable point of failure. However, the price for this durability is stability. We lose stability when valuation is turned over to the market.

From a psychological perspective, I suppose the problem could be characterized as one-man's-reality Vs. the reality-of-the-collective...and then all of the inherent pros and cons that flow out from each.

...all of this leads me back to thinking that your darknet exchange is so important.

...just really excellent, Morpheus. This is a game changer for money changing, and it's one of the most important projects underway.

Quite right.

I've come to understand the nature of 'ponzi' to be a function of focus, how close in (or far out) one zooms.

In light of this, it is far more practical to ask simple questions of Bitcoin utility, rather than (what are essentially) economic-philosophy questions.

So we go from: "Is Bitcoin a ponzi?"
to: "What is the definition of a ponzi?"
to: Screw it. What can I buy with a Bitcoin?

There is no aspect of international markets which, in principle, would not be affected by Bitcoin. And because the international markets are the lifeblood of governments (and their wars), practically everything could be affected.

If the Internet was the 'relativity' of communications, then Bitcoin is the 'quantum mechanics' of economics.

This is quite correct. The early adopters had skill and foresight, and that is admirable - but very modest risk, and enormous payoff potential.

The current wave of adopters have far higher risk factors to consider and far higher barriers to entry.

There is nothing more important that the early adopters can do than donate and invest in startups. Even only 10% of the early bitcoin wealth would catapult this next leg of the economy. And, by extension, make their remaining 90% stockpile far more valuable.

Agreed Serge, significantly easier; it's not on my plate.

Just an FYI for anyone interested in this, here is his investment announcement:

https://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=25771.0

Namecoin is a vital aspect of Bitcoin. It provides an avenue of refuge if, when, gov't entities threaten Bitcoin.

And for those feeling that Namecoin may be a threat to Bitcoin, that's difficult. Spend a week on the namecoin IRC and you will see how much further behind that community is in terms of its development...quite crude. Sure, it's coming along quick, but the level of problem-complexity that Bitcoin is now tackling, Namecoin has not even begun. And when it does begin, it will have far less resources with which to emerge into its own.

IMO Bitcoin is a large undertaking and a head-on Blockchain rival would need significant funding. The first mover advantage for Bitcoin is big.

That said, it is almost inevitable that Namecoin will be 'discovered' by the media and then pick up some press as either a 'rival' or as an example of the multitudinous Xcoins to come.

Miners will (re)pile into Namecoin and drive difficulty levels higher, get some coins, then ask themselves "Why?" The miners will then see a large commerce potential deficit with Bitcoin and then head back over to Bitcoin (or drop out entirely).

Even so, Namecoin is doing some very admirable work and will provide a vital service to Bitcoin and potentially others.

Easycoin, as I understand it, is not 'just a payment processor'. It is effectively a bank which issues its own form of tradable credits "backed" by Bitcoins.

And at what point do the "Easycoin virtual credits" become a currency of their own? I suggest, immediately (though not immediately touted as such).

And at what point do those Virtual Credits cease to require the "backing" of Bitcoins? Well, that will be a function, over time, of the strength of Easycoin's market share and the strength of its brand name.

But make no mistake, once the thing is moving, the brand that will be pushed will be Easycoin, not Bitcoin. And people's perception, belief, in Easycoin Credits will become THE ingredient.

At the juncture where Easycoin realizes it doesn't need Bitcoin, it can work on its own blockchain which will bend wholly to the needs of Easycoin Credits. Or Easycoin can even bail on any "backing" at all (history repeats). It's all about perception.

Whoever captures the interface, captures the market. And whoever captures the market, defines the currency.

People do not care about 'monetary values'. They just don't. They say they do. But what people want is 'easy' and 'now'. Easycoin knows that and Easycoin wants to give it to them. But then what? Easycoin will have the market - not Bitcoin.

And at the point when Easycoin CAN exploit the system, Easycoin WILL exploit the system. Not because Atlas, or anyone with Easycoin, is bad - but because they are normal.

We need Bitcoin interfaces. Fast.
 

I quite agree Sukrim.

Personally, I think that no movement of the decimal makes Bitcoin look too expensive and a movement too far back makes it look ridiculous. This is very much psychology/perception that we are dealing with - and that is extremely important.

I believe, at this juncture, 3 decimal places makes the most sense. It suggests a very psychologically affordable buy-in for the average person. And it also reduces the angst for those who may feel threatened by a currency that has become "too powerful".

Bitcoin needs this time to breath and grow stronger. A three decimal place shift will facilitate more popular interest while (hopefully) dropping back down to a 'DEFCON 4 or 5' on the gubberments radar.


 

"Digital Gold backing"
"sound money"

So EasyCoin reaps the upside through instant exposure, massive first-mover advantage, growing marketshare, fees & profits, and fantastic structural support from Bitcoin. And meanwhile Bitcoin will take the heat if, when, there is "sound money" monetary downside.

This sets Bitcoin up for some nasty blowback while dramatically limiting Bitcoin's upside.


EasyCoin wants the anonymous market too?


"...just an overlay..."

From the perspective of Joe6Pack and soccer mom, the overlay-IS-THE-currency (what central bankers have always known, and exploited).

This isn't getting people into Bitcoin. It's getting people into Easycoin. Bitcoin is an afterthought for them, if that.

And if at some point, having successfully captured market share (and having rendered Bitcoin a mere background 'vault' coin), EasyCoin feels UNeasy about its relationship with Bitcoin, then Easycoin can be working on developing its own blockchain.

What Bitcoin needs are better GUIs and apps. Not a competing currency.

Furthermore, this from grau...


Grau accurately depicts the matter.

And IF there is to be a 'backing' mode, I suggest it go from virtual to physical, rather than a virtual daisy-chain.



Bitcoin is not gold. And stacking a currency on top of Bitcoin does not make Bitcoin gold (though it could open up a Bitcoin legal can-of-worms against claims of being an underlying commodity).

If (as I believe) Bitcoin is the digital best-in-show, then let's keep Bitcoin front and center...and keep making it more user friendly.

And this from chodpaba...



Trust. I've had my fill, thank you.

And open source is not a panacea. With massive first-mover advantage, subsequent developments, strategic partnerships, momentum and hot investor $$ could make mincemeat out of the wannabes trying to play catch-up.

Look, let's be honest. This is a direct competitor to Bitcoin. Easycoin is a currency; it front-ends Bitcoin as a currency and therefore will be perceived as a currency and therefore will be a currency. What is a currency if not perception? And Easycoin would not be a "sub"-currency in the sense that the term is misleading. If anything, it's an "over"-currency because it sits OVER Bitcoin.

If Easycoin runs to its logical conclusion, Bitcoin will become a cul-de-sac for everyone but the underworld and digi-techies (heck, we already have them)...with Easycoin being the central bank access road. 

The window for Bitcoin to emerge into ITS OWN with the online mass market is now.

If the argument is that some private interest is going to do this anyway, then let them. But if we lose focus, and begin to write-off, outsource, the Bitcoin interface with the public to Easycoin, or anyone, then we've handed over the most valuable asset - the growing (albeit infant) perception of Bitcoin as THE online lingua franca currency.

This is exactly the moment where techies could short-change themselves on just how unbelievably valuable, and game changing, this thing really is. Surely there is enough new found $$ with Bitcoin holders & sellers in this community that bounties can be setup to race ahead with interfaces.

I say stay focused on Bitcoin, front and center.

If they are marketed as a "real" physical representation of a currency, then that is how the prosecution would treat them (if such action were pursued). The vendor's own verbage would be the prosecution's case.

Indeed, they effectively have serial numbers.

I am just saying that Bitcoin is clearly on the gubberments radar now, and 'Bitcoins' being posed as physical coinage is not going to help.

The two legalese keywords here are 'novelty' and 'entertainment'.

Agreed...wherein 'whatever' includes bitcoins. They are all vehicles.

You may want to consider making a more definitive statement on the Website that this is for 'novelty purposes only'. I can imagine that government interests (i.e. Sen. Charles Schumer) are just looking for some excuse to hang Bitcoin (and in this case, you) with a federal currency violation.

 

When I look at the utmost importance of things, neither silver nor bitcoins even make the top ten. But you're right about shiny things, that's why silverbugs own shovels.

 

Indeed, the long term is going to be largely dependent on the degree of 'official' sanction.

True, Bitcoin could go rogue (which would be fine and dandy with many current Bitcoin folk), but the masses will sheeple in the direction they are told.

HOWEVER, if (or as many of us believe, when) world currencies collapse, then all bets are off and Bitcoin is setup to be THE game in town.

I've been a silver stacker for years, and I can tell you that the lessons from the silverbugs are hard won. Silverbugs have really taken it on the chin and tasted the business end of the JPM etc. buggy whip. Perhaps that is one of the reasons that there is a, very unfortunate, knee-jerk reaction to Bitcoin - fear of manipulation. I, myself, certainly came in VERY cautious to Bitcoin. But the more I study it, the more I like it.

Perhaps now that (at least for the moment) the Bitcoin community realizes that valuations can also go down, it is a good time to do more to bring the movements together. Silverbugs tend to be hardened vets whose minds are, frankly, too narrow. Bitcoiners tend to be techie idealists who have difficulty hearing any critique.

I have a lot of admiration for both communities. And I consider them to be very smart people.

Casey Research, like most PM sources, is rather conservative. It is a tough transition to make for most gold and silver bugs because they are so incredibly distrustful of that which they cannot physically hold. Nevertheless, these are the guys, and gals, who have a great deal of libertarian etc. commonalities with Bitcoin folk.

So are you talking about generic terms (keywords) or domains with extensions?

If 'keywords', I can understand how this (RealName analogy) would be very compelling for both Namecoin and those vendors who acquired the keyword (which would route to their website) but would that create a compelling utility for the end user...as opposed to say googling the keyword, (which would return results much richer)?

Say for example a Firefox app stepped in to handle this (where RealNames failed by being dependent on Microsoft), how would this be presented to the end user? Ostensibly a Namecoin-DNS 'lookup', correct? Other ideas?

I suppose that adoption along these lines would be a function of the vendor's, and their customers, "motivation" to be liberated from central authorities...indeed, including their software doing auto queries to the blockchain.