Topic: Suggestions to significantly increase bitcoin's users (Read 17310 times)

Well, I guess I found out where that idea came from.

I have really limited programming abilities but I have played with the iPhone SDK a bit. I could look at Bitcoin's source and see if I could get it on the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad platforms.

One way would be to allow freeware/shareware authors to use CPU cycles of those who download their creations. I know the infamous Tower Defense flash game http://www.handdrawngames.com/DesktopTD/Game3.asp takes player CPU cycles and sells them via http://www.pluraprocessing.com/.

If someone just slashdot'd this thing, it would really jump.

Nope, but I do read Infowars every few days.

Oh yeah?  Is that you?   

I've noticed someone has been commenting on some of the economic news articles on Infowars.com. I bet that helps a lot.

The more people introduced the better, but I think those outside the mainstream will be most attracted to Bitcoin.  They will be the early adopters that establish it's credibility.  A celebrity like Jesse Ventura would be helpful.  He is outside the mainstream.

I've thought about buying advertisements on some of these alternative talk radio sites like Alex Jones, Jeff Rense, etc...

I'm not sure the ACLU would go for bitcoin. Yes, it offers more privacy, but it does so at the cost of consumer protections, which from a financial perspective are very important. I think it's good to have both types of currencies available, but I have a hunch that the lack of consumer protections would prevent it from being promoted by the ACLU. Although, I could be wrong.

It's always been true that groups who isolate themselves from the mainstream are distrusted and persecuted--(hello, Jews).  If people act different, or weird, or unusual it is human nature to fear and distrust them (and give impetus for the raids of their homes and property).  I have seen men convicted on circumstantial evidence because they acted "weird" and the Jury did not trust them.  These groups that move into the hills to start micro-societies get the same treatment.  I remember once Oprah had Michael Moore on her show and they showed footage of a baby in diapers being held by his mother, who wore fatigues and had a rifle slung over her back (something that I was accustomed to seeing in my home and didn't find strange).  Oprah and Michael both agreed (to the cheers of the audience) that there was something "wrong" with people who acted this way--even though the act harmed absolutely no one.

After reading some undergraduate psychology texts I came across the theory that this behavior was ingrained into all human beings as a matter of instinct.  Apparently, back in our primitive, barbaric days as early primates--groups that stuck together and punished outsiders were better protected against predators--and groups who enforced strict social codes were better protected against disease--hence it is these traits that were passed down to humanity.

That being said--it seems that the way to get bitcoin popular would be to sell it to the mainstream so it is not perceived as the tool of a "weird" grouop of "outsiders" and human instinct does not inevitably drive people to fear it and brand it as a scepter of the terrorists, pedophiles, drug lords &c.

I am going to try to introduce this program to as many econ professors as possible.  Hopefully this way it will work it's way into the mainstream as a sort of "experiment" in economics.

Also, celebrities should start using and promoting bitcoin--I think that Drew Carey and Jessie Ventura might be interested in it.  Also--mainstream activist organizations like the ACLU would make valuable allies.  IRRC--PGP cryptography was once banned, but the creator printed the code onto a book and published it--and the ACLU defended it as free speech (and won).

The problem is inherently, as I have stated elsewhere the less morally reprehensible the act the harder the state cracks down...

The state went to war on American civilians on two occasions less than 20 years ago, over alleged (unproven to this day) tax discrepancies totaling less than $250 combined.  In both cases the state fired first, and then proceeded to execute with extreme prejudice.  We do not see this type of action taken against drug cartels, prostitution rings or any other illicit activities, just ones that the average person would not generally look on as such a bad thing.  The state then used media to propagandize the situations to some monstrous proportions, the first was based on a racial issue that did not exist, and the other was claims of religious sexual practices that did not exist...

In effect they legitimized state aggression based on people's emotive decisions on non-illegal actions, not that these non-illegal action existed at all...

The strength of this is the decentralized nature, there is no one place to attack that will destroy us all...

The danger lies in the authorities perceiving it as a medium for criminal activity, especially significant amounts of criminal activity. It is one surefire way of getting bitcoins and its exchangers persecuted by the law and exchangers potentially prosecuted. Even suggesting it, can be enough for conspiracy charges especially if the government has it in for the system or its exchangers and users.

Good business decisions money wise, often involve illegal activities. This can be seen regularly in the news. However good business practices such as staying out of jail and staying in operation especially long term require following legalities.

1. how does bitcoins illegitimate application hamper its use in legitimate application, last I checked most criminal transactions are made in current fiat currencies, and yet they still seem usable in legitimate functions today...

2. Claiming that an exchanger should cater to where they are most likely needed is not focusing on criminal activity, it is making good business decisions...

3. You guys are judging

Agreement with DannyM. Bitcoin should not be centered around criminal usage.  Not only will it hamper Bitcoin's usage for legitimate usage, it will also harm Bitcoin's image (thus killing its potential to spread). Focusing Bitcoin on illegal uses is short sighted.

While I certainly do not wish to make a ethical judgment on "less-than-legal" activities, I would like to register my opposition to a plan to explicitly "cater to that crowd", for at least strategic reasons.

I think that since bitcoins primary utility will (at least for the forseeable future) be as a sort of underground currency like egold, for less-than legal activities like tax evasion and underground business rather than generic money substitute. As such, currency exchangers should cater to that crowd and offer anonymous bitcoin-dollar exchanges where the clients are..

Oh, I know. I don't advocate illegal activity either. However, I can deface bills legally where I live. That was all I was saying.

I don't think that any of us were actually going to 'deface' anything or intentionally do anything 'illegal'. We were just being humorous.

P.S. I'm just off to go and get Bitcoin.org tattooed on my forehead.

It is only illegal in my country (not the US) to deface coins. Bills are fair game.

Writing "bitcoin.org" on paper money is not good, I think. Is it not illegal to deface money? Does Bitcoin need to come to governments' attentions in form of a crime?