Article is very good. Why is interest in addressing this issue so limited?

http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=19130.0

It is one of those things that I wonder how they could try and contain things with how far stretched Bitcoins are networked wise, is there a global power switch?

Realistically, nerds better get on telling their parents and grandparents about this funny money sooner than later, because once government informs an older person on how to think, it's pretty much done.

I've seen this stated a few times, but never with a citation. I've read the statute that says the USD is currency and legal tender for all debts, public and private.  That means that if you owe someone money and offer to pay USD, they must accept it.  It does not say that they can't also choose to accept Monopoly money, for instance.

Would love to see a source for this apparently common knowledge that it is illegal to produce a separate currency.

Liberty Dollar got raided because their silver coins had the word "dollar" on them. Barter is legal, and Bitcoin is not even legally a security, much less a currency. http://www.lextechnologiae.com/2011/06/26/why-bitcoin-isnt-a-security-under-federal-securities-law/

This article says I made $3 million....Hahahah very funny.

My response:

Mr. Cohan tried his best, but this article is a far cry from excellent piece done by The Economist. Pay grades aside, it doesn't surprise me that the older generation can't quite wrap their heads around bitcoin.

After all, they've been brought up to believe fancy green pieces of paper are valuable, and banks do everything in their customers best interests. We're starting to see the fruits of those efforts, namely in the massive Federal Debt, and the increasingly ineffectual Federal Reserve monetary policies.

However, they stay true to the 'system' because it is all they know. All of their savings is committed to it, every possible investment expressed in green paper, whether it be bits on a hard drive or physical notes in their hands.

Bitcoin is the first iteration of many online currencies that will spring up, and I dare say, the beginning of the end for many of the useless intermediaries that siphon off their 'cut'.

Of course a Forbes writer doesn't like it. Even if he understood it properly, he'd realize that it is the unrelenting flow that erodes large ponderous organizations, much like the one he works for.

Keep deriding bitcoin, it is okay, we'll be here when your next job demands you get paid with it.

Yes, even if it stays restricted to nerds and finance types with an anarchistic streak (of which there exist a lot these days), it might succeed in the same way Linux succeeded. In the background. Unlike the mentioned alternatives, bitcoin is not a company so it can afford to stay a niche a long time.

I think it will slowly be adapted, a lot of support infrastructure for merchants still has to be made but on the other hand there is a lot of international momentum going. More than for any alternative currency, ever, I think.

forbees out of calculators and out of touch with reality
BTC peaked at around $32

if anyone got 3 million out of 20k bitcoins, it means someone paid $150/BTC for those

their blog journalism  just got down to the level of  National Enquirer or w/e their name is

the article reminded me that post by the guy who runs downside.com site

let the people decide what they want to use as currency....   o wait i forgot a democracy plutocracy doesn't work that way.....