Topic: Losing Critical Mass and Call to Action (Read 24305 times)

The developer behind this project has done well. Now we will need to reciprocate by making something that he might want to spend bitcoin on. Fostering trade relations and interdependence is very important for a successful bitcoin economy.

No, I don't think so.  That would be a violation of Facebook TOS as I understand it.

This is simply another place to spend your BTC, and a pretty effective implementation he's done too.  If only we could get all app developers to do it.

No sorry, I mean trade points on the game back to BTC.

I don't know what you mean by 'go backward'.  Do you mean after you have uncovered a square?  No, once the mine goes off you're done.

I assume you can't go backwards? Or can you?

Its there.  When you start to play the game (click on a square), you will be taken to a screen to place a bet.  On that screen you can buy more minesweeper 'money' with BTC.

Still doesn't seem to work.  I see a minesweeper game, but it looks like ti is just the standard windows game, no option to buy anything with bitcoins

It's called Minesweeper.  Try this link: http://apps.facebook.com/sweepmines/

Link didn't work for me.  What is the game called?

Makes sense.  providing services definitely has a lower overhead than providing goods.  I don't think we need bitcoin only physical good stores right now, it would just be nice to see some sellers of physical goods accepting bitcoins in addition to paypal, credit cards, or what have you.  I know that currently tobacco cannot be purchased with paypal, so this looks like a big possible opportunity.

When you beat the game, it made a post at your blog bragging how good you are. Just by playing sweepmine, you help promote bitcoin and the game at the same time.

One small thing that could be done right now by everyone is:

Install this Facebook game http://www.facebook.com/#!/apps/application.php?id=157118501301&ref=ts which is also listed in the bitcoin.org trade directory http://www.bitcoin.org/trade.
The game accepts bitcoins in payment.
Invite 10 different Facebook friends to install the game everyday for a week.

Its free, fast and takes almost no effort.  And who knows, it may go viral and all of a sudden everyone will be asking 'what are these bitcoins?'

Just be warned, I found the game addictive.

There is a difference between advocating violation of contracts, and providing a tool that *may* amplify the harm caused by the violation of a contract.  The act of selling a crowbar to a know burglar does not  in itself constitute advocacy for burglary.

Also, believing that people should have the freedom to behave in a certain way does not mean you necessarily approve of that behaviour personally.  It's still a freedom worth advocating, even if it means more of that behaviour will take place.

In any case, there are plenty of ethical uses of Tor that would also benefit from bandwidth trading.

In a prosperous economy, everyone narrowly specialize and consume diversely.

Not everybody have a niche in the bitcoin economy, so there are no diverse consumption.

This forum could be used as support group for entrepreneurial activities and niche finding effort.

Good discussion above.

I want to come back to the original question about HOW TO DRIVE CRITICAL MASS.

Some people have express their belief that we should wait a couple of months before trying to make it bigger, but still think we should build on the momentum BITCOIN has currently. For example, bitcoin transactions, prices and turnover of coins have started to increase significantly over the past days.
If we wait to long, it may die.

I also agree that we need to look for ways to have BITCOINS used in the right target group, i.e.
Gaming, online shopping, etc.

What can we do more and faster???

It doesn't make sense. Bitcoins are only a sum that the network agrees belongs to some person. There are no contracts between any participants, so why should it be illegal for someone to cause these independent entities to change their mind about who the coins belong to?

Theaters would just show public domain equalivent and be done with it. Smaller risk, and smaller profit maybe. Heck, public domain books these days sell, sometime like hotcake.

If somebody can make a million dollars worth of movie quality, and don't force you to sign a non-copying agreement you're basically screwed.  

Right, so there is a point in your example somewhere between $1 million and $100 million where the theatre owner and the film producer can come to agreement.  Some point where it is feasible to take the movie and risk it getting out in the world and duplicated for free, and some point where the theatre operator can make money showing the movie even if he has to pay the fine.

The point is, somewhere along the line somebody is going to have to violate a contract in order to have the movie available for 'free'.  Either the theatre owner is going to start making copies, or a person who viewed the film, or an employee of the theater.  In a society of all libertarians, someone is going to have to violate libertarian principles in order to supply a free movie.

Therefore it does not make sense for present-day libertarians to advocate piracy, or using bitcoins to facilitate piracy, in the pursuit of libertarian goals.  At least not in the context of the present discussion around movies.  Maybe things are different regarding software, drug patents etc.


At no point am I saying that if A and B create a contract, C is somehow obligated to follow the contract.  I am just saying that for a large number of scenarios A and B can create a contract in such a way that the likelihood of C "somehow" acquiring the IP for free is very low.  Or at least B will have to compensate A in such a way that even if C gains access, A won't care.

And what if XYZ does violate the contract? How harsh would the penalties be in absence of a government-sponsored MPAA racket?  Yeah, you could draft a contract that said "if you leak the film you owe me $100 million compensation", but good luck finding a theatre chain who would be prepared to take that kind of risk. On the other hand, if the mutually agreed penalty was more market-realistic, say $1 million, that would no longer serve as deterrent onerous enough to prevent a leak. All it takes is 1 out of 10,000 employees being careless, or dishonest, and the damage is  irreversible. XYZ would not bother investing millions in airport-style security scans for every cleaning lady that enters the cinema building. It would simply accept the risk of paying the penalty.

(The bitcoins themselves can't be reproduced.) Your password, key shape spec or bitcoin keys are not property but the stuff in the safe and the bitcoins are. Morally and in any reasonable legal system.