participation rate at 35 yr lows. 

i think i might decide to become part of the group that lets the rest of you feed me.

I spent a few hours yesterday talking to a Japanese lawyer about Bitcoin, at his request. Last year he was asking me about gold as he's familiar with the issues surrounding central banking. He gets it, and he's well-connected and telling his friends. He agrees with me that Bitcoin is still almost completely unknown in Japan, and that when Japan bites it will bite BIG.

Yeah, as a developed (rich) nation of technophiles with a serious debt issue, bitcoin should find an appeal in Japan.  
Then again, its not local, so maybe thats why they dislike it (maybe I am being somewhat racist/stereotyping, but I have heard that Japanese are very much focussed on their own culture).  Although I presume that the looming currency/bond crisis will fix this emotional fondness of their own state.

Actually, Bitcoin is absolutely local to Japan...the first bullet point on any presentation to Japanese people always should be that Bitcoin was created by a 36-year old Japanese male

Second bullet point that the first major exchange was HQd in Tokyo.

Third bullet point that Bitcoin Jesus AKA Roger Ver, out of all the countries on this planet, selected Japan as his place of residence.

Just those three should get their nationalistic juices flowing profusely.

PS: and, of course, the Japanese flag is perfectly minimalist and balanced for the addition of a lovely BTC symbol in the middle of that red circle.

Very interesting video that I watched recently.Take the time to watch.
The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of The World by Niall Ferguson Epsd. 1-5 (Full Documentary)

better yet, read the book.  it's good.

Oh come on, what's wrong with just saying "zionist lizards" 

The U.S Constitution has historically worked generally well, but people living 200 years ago can't just predict everything, when it comes to Bitcoin it is starting to show signs of failure at least.(I am talking about U.S Constitution because it has been long considered to be the model of constitutions, but the conclusion should apply in many other nations as well)

The election system is based on the assumption that people with a common local interest, be they live in the same county or state, could send a delegate to the national or local Congress, elect local administrators, who will create and promulgate laws that reflect the influence of such local interests. Everything you seriously care about is supposed to happen locally, you can always try to find some local people who share a particular concern, and those who want to get elected may try to get your votes by promising to address him to your concern once he is elected, democracy is thus accomplished.

But now is the age of the internet, we form communities online, it's entirely possible that many people share more common interests with those in the same online community, than their neighbours. Yet this was out of the scope of the U.S Constitution:the number of a online community could be as much as the population of a state, but at the same time have little influence whatsoever on the government policies because without geographical concentration their votes simply don't matter. This wasn't an issue in the beginning, as the majority of people use internet for obtaining information and to procure services from particular internet companies, any issue originating from such uses of internet are unlikely to turn political, as long as the freedom of speech is protected and there is enough market competition, if Google screws up their customers, one competitor will raise to replace it, hardly anything to do with the government.

The decentralized P2P distribution network and BitTorrent changed things a bit, record and movie industries have got big backings, the "anti-priacy" issue didn't become part of local political debates for many years, which gives the industries' agents in the Hill much leeway to push through some very harsh bills to go after the supposed "pirates". The sheer number of "pirated" music users is too large (who doesn't like free music anyway?) however, eventually, some of the harshest measures are not implemented(SOPA, PIPA, etc).

Bitcoin is something entirely different. It's a direct challenge to the long taking for granted government monopoly on currency, and the whole financial industry backing it, yet on the hand there is very little chance for Bitcoin supporters to change the system from inisde: we are entirely linked together by the internet, geographically sparse and far apart, many of us remain anonymous, our votes simply don't count, I am expecting a uphill battle to be fought against the government/governments, if we win over them in the end, it would be a entirely new way for people to approach the governments.

What happened to gold on Friday?