I would reply to all of you if it wasn't so clear that you're not willing to change your viewpoints. As is usual on the interwebz, you're not in the discussion to learn anything new, you're just here to throw mud at your opponents. Bravo.

That train runs both ways. You can also learn something new, and change your viewpoint, but you also seem intent on keeping with the viewpoint you came in with.

This.

I don't even understand the suggestion. Why would GOG accept basicly nothing for his work?

But they are already trading them for nothing. Every electronic cash is nothing but a number on some computer. The worth comes from the banks that are willing to give you cash for this numbers.
And even that cash is only worth the faith people have into it.

When that cash and its exchangeability is backed by the "full faith and credit" of more or less well capitalized banks and governments, that is very different from it being backed by one central authority that claims it doesn't even exist, and exchangeable by one organization that hasn't submitted its capital structure to any auditors or regulators.

Bitcoins are mere barter tokens, like tulip bulbs, or shares in the Mississippi Company or South Sea Company. They don't qualify as money, because they have none of the institutional characteristics (backing by a well-capitalized institution that maintains a stable market in the money) that constitute money.

$500.000 Bitcoin heist. So much about security

Every currency consists of barter torkens. if you cannot exchange it for goods, then the currency has no value. No matter what banks or governments are backing it up.
Neither of them can magically turn the cash into goods. The banks dont even have enough cash to exchange all their electronic cash.

Would you accept your job paying you in bitcoins?

Personally I'd prefer some sort of barter tokens which the guy who I rent my appartment from accepts, with which I can buy food and such. But maybe that's just me.
If there's no way to easily exchange them to the local currency, would it make for good wages for the Gog staff or payment for the rights holders? The powerplant for it's power? Taxes?

Psia krew. There is a huge difference between a currency maintained by a government or league of governments and their central banks, with huge resources that they can expend to maintain a stable and liquid market for that currency and assure merchants that there will be a sufficient and stable supply of currency to buy and pay for goods, and a Ponzi scheme of artificially scarce tokens backed by nobody at all.

What can I say, I don't like me or anyone else being called a moron for liking Bitcoins. Like I said, if people resort to mockery it clearly shows they don't have an open mind about the subject.

I was (and remain) a believer in scarce metals like gold and silver to secure wealth from the constant inflation of national currencies. As such, I was very skeptical to Bitcoin when I first heard about it, because it's not a "physical", tangible commodity. I hold no stakes in Bitcoins, since I only started reading about them a few days ago (I have plenty of free time). I've made no investments yet, except testing my luck generating bitcoins in a "mining pool" which clearly isn't worth it anymore (I got the equivalent of ~0.03$ by mining for 2 days).

The success of a currency depends 1. On its properties, and 2. On public acceptance. The first aspect facilitates the second, unless force is involved. It's well known that Dollars and other fiat currencies would be worthless if they didn't have a government enforcing them, because they lack the properties of ideal currencies like gold, the most important property being scarcity.

There are only two ways to guarantee scarcity for a virtual commodity: Through responsible central production of the currency by a single company, or through decentralized "mining" activity that requires work to be done for Bitcoins to come into existence. The Bitcoin creator chose the latter approach, which I think is a stroke of genius on his part since it simulates the work needed to mine scarce metals.

Who cares if some people made more Bitcoins because they were earlier adopters? It's always the early adopters that rake in the cash, because they are the biggest risk takers. Bitcoins probably weren't worth the electricity they took to produce, even back when it was easy to produce them. They were essentially worthless compared to the dollar. The value raised as adoption increased, and the miners were rewarded for their investment. This is in no way a scam, it's just basic economics.

There is clear demand for Bitcoins from several audiences who aren't interested in it just as an investment. As long as these people continue to use Bitcoins to facilitate trade, it will continue to have value on the market, and exchange services like Mt. Gox will continue to exist. As long as they exist, companies like GoG that (presumably) want to store their wealth in "real" currencies, will be able to do so while accepting payment with Bitcoins.

And no, gold isn't popular just because it's yellow and shiny, or for its industrial uses. Up until the last century, there wasn't much use for gold beyond decoration, but it was popular as a currency since long before that. The properties that make it popular are that it's easily identifiable and a scarce commodity. Bitcoins have both of these properties. In addition to that, it's cheaper to transfer than actual gold for long distances, which is an upside.

It seems to me that Bitcoins have all the properties that a successful physical currency should have, except in virtual form. It's basically got the "properties" aspect nailed down. Whether it becomes successful in the end depends entirely on popular opinion.

And no, I don't think Bitcoins are perfect. The downsides may be unforeseen technical details relating to security, and the total supply of bitcoins may not be sufficient if everyone starts using it (though it's divisible to 8 decimal places). Because destroyed Bitcoins never reappear, Bitcoins may become subject to unwanted deflation, which while increasing value of the currency may decrease its practicality for small payments. In the event that Bitcoins become popular and these flaws expose themselves, another virtual currency could be developed that irons out the flaws of the first. It's like any new technology.

Edit: Also, Bitcoins are (or used to be) in a bubble for the last few weeks due to increased investor speculation. Bitcoins are highly volatile at the moment because it's new and used by few people as of yet. It's received lots of publicity in the last month alone, which can account for the bubble it's been in. The exchange rates will stabilize with time.

I think money backed by computing cycles is pretty cool. It's possibly the currency of the future.

I don't know that we're there, yet.

Looking back, I cannot see any reference to anyone calling you a moron. There is a suggestion of naievity in the people that invest in them, and those that wrote the trading software, but you've actually just had some fairly informed economic arguments back at you. Anyway, I suspect that you're about to get a few more coming after your post.

I would simply say that in relation to the title, and your suggestion that GOG should accept BitCoins, by the same reasoning, GOG should accept shares in gold, silver, publicly traded companies, and the like. The fact is that until they can trivially and near-instantly convert this currency, and provide a dependable exhange rate at time of purchase, they can not accept it. If people want to pay in BitCoins, they will have to do that exchange themselves first.

The most obvious group to try to persuade to accept BitCoins which would then make them a much more credible currency, would be PayPal. Oddly enough they are strongly against virtual currencies.

I don't think baseless accusations of "ponzi scheme", and "pyramid scheme" are informed economic arguments regarding this currency, but if they want a solid refutation I might as well link them to this short post on the official forum. That thread also explains that BTC is subject to speculation just like any currency, and bubbles can form (as it has), though this doesn't mean the "real", stable value will be 0 when the speculation bubble has ended.

Moreover, BTC can't be compared to Dutch tulips precisely because tulips aren't a scarce commodity by default. When tulips became used as currency, they were relatively scarce, but it's foolish to use a currency that can be grown in unlimited amounts.

First off, I'm not the OP :)

I see what you're saying. I haven't used any exchange services yet, so I can't testify to the ease of conversion yet. The benefit of using VISA and such services is the ease of conversion, of course. I'm not suggesting that GoG should start accepting Bitcoin regardless of the cost-benefit, just expressing my support for a Bitcoin payment method.

I had the same idea, actually. Though apparently, one of the perceived benefits of Bitcoin according to its community is the phasing out of middle men such as VISA/Mastercard/PayPal for electronic transactions. Regardless, it would help Bitcoins gain credibility.

There were arguments as to why it is a ponzi scheme, I made some myself a lot earlier on. They have weight. I know you don't want to hear it, but it's not an invalid argument, there's a lot of good reasons to consider it such. The primary refutation to the post you've quoted is that there is "someone" at the top, they are the people there first, which by lucky co-incidenence are the people that made the system. Anyway, this has been covered many a time in this thread, so you can refute other posts if you wish.

The main point is that none of these were an attack on you, they were simply an objective assessment of the currency. People are entitled to make such an assessment.

As for the rest, I know you're not the OP, but I hope you see the practical blockers for GOG adopting BitCoin, even if the currency had sufficient trust. If you could get PayPal on your side it would basically give the currency credibility. They're a nasty bunch at PayPal. Too much power, and I'd like to see them made irrelevant, but right now BitCoin needs them.

Ohai, Popped in here to say....

DO NOT WANT

Kthxbai