Ahem, ahem. 

That is easy, the one with longer blogchain will win. 

Sure. Keep denying or minimizing the theft/scam problem, that is a wonderful way to build public confidence.

At least 10% of all the bitcoins in existence must be in possession of thieves and scammers (the MtGOX "theft" alone took 5%).  Only a couple of thieves have been caught and prosecuted.  Few if any of the bitcoins that were stolen, embezzled, or obtained by fraudulent means have been returned to their legitimate owners.  There is no evidence that such crimes are diminishing.

Oh, I have been through many topics before bitcoin, surely there will be others.  The world is ours, dear colleague. 

There are some possible attacks using combinations of malware in the host computer, "human engineering", hidden cameras, theft, replacement of the device, infiltration of Satoshilabs, etc..  Appears to be safe if the latter two are considered unlikely and the device is used strictly according to the instructions.

And I did not mean to imply anything, sorry. 

IIRC, @MagicMexican invented Dinosaur Analysis (DA).  Was that one by him or by @cbeast?

Price too is still 3x last year, but that is still the effect of the November bubble.  We cannot tell whether other markets (responsible for previous bubbles) have been growing in the meantime.

Moreover, the blockchain USD traffic since January does not show growth where expected, so a large component of the traffic is probably not payments but merely hot/cold swapping, tumbling, deposits/withdrawals, etc..

As for wallets, it would be necesary to know how many hold significant funds.

What a fail, didn't he know that the correct answer had to be a question?

Please state your understanding of what is going on, then.

Good question.

As it has been discussed here, most stores that "accept bitcoin" are attractive mainly to people who already own bitcoins, and probably attract few if any new users. 

Blockchain traffic does not evolve in the way one would expect from increasing use.

Most investment has not been in bitcoin itself, but in ventures like exchanges, funds, payment processors, and the like --- services that will make money out of bitcoin users.

I do not know where to get reliable data on bitcoin usage.

If we look at previous bubbles, after a month or two of roughly exponential growth, and another month or so of oscillations, the price usually settled down to a nearly constant value.  I take that as a sign that the markets responsible for those bubbles were saturated and stopped growing.  Maybe they started to grow again this year, but I have not seen any real evidence of that.  (Neither the number of stores that "acecpt bitcoin", nor the blockchain traffic, nor the venture capital investments imply growth of any market.)

The last big bubble lifted the price from ~120$ in early Oct/2013 to ~800$ in Jan/2014.  The fall from ~800$ in Jan/2014 to the present ~350$ can only be due to the undoing of that bubble (and to the undoing of the May/2014 "pseudo-bubble").

I cannot see any plausible explanation for the Oct-Nov/2013 bubble other than the opening of the mainland Chinese market.  The undoing of that bubble then must be due to the loss of that market.  According to a few articles, the Chinese bitcoin market consists mainly of amateur and semi-professional speculators who, lacking access to the stock market, were used to day-trading other bizarre commodities.

So, if those traders pull completely out of the market, the May/2014 pseudo-bubble is completely undone, and no new market opens, the price should eventually go back to ~120$.

Draw a straight line on the Bitstamp price chart, in log scale, from the prices at Jan/2014 (~800$) and at May 19, 2014 (~400$). Extrapolation of that line suggests that the price (minus the May pseudo-bubble) will reach ~120$ by the end of the year.

I suspect that the Chinese were responsible also for the Jan-Apr/2013 bubble, that lifted the price from ~12$ to ~120$.  Specifically, the start of that bubble seems to coincide with the hiring of Bobby Lee by BTC-China in Shanghai.  In that case, if that market closes too, so that the Jan-Apr/2013 bubble gets undone, the price could go down again to 10--20$.

Needless to say, these extrapolations will be moot if another market opens (COIN? Argentina? Africa?).

Note that those laywers mostly helped BFL to fight lawsuits by customers, and answer to investigations of BFL by the District Attorney.   I bet that the court will grant the payment, unfortunately.  Morally, though, those lawyers should join the queue of creditors, and hopefully be paid with assets recovered from the managers.

I am considering to add " (and of this forum's future)" at the end of my signature...

Curiously, the mysterious owners of BTC-e go by the names of Aleksey and Alexander, and are believed not to be Russians.

Just a meaningless bitcoincidence?

Well, the exchanges now are all but transparent.  Are they solvent?  Are they front-running their clients?  Are they faking orders and traffic?  Do some clients have special privileges (like a few seconds advance knowledge of the order book)? 

For a 51% attack, it suffices that the 3-4 largest miners collude.  That is much easier backstage than through a professional association.  On the other hand, a miner's association could better spot and sue fraudulent manufacturers, for example.

Obviously having an entity to "govern" bitcoin in any way would negate bitcoin's very goals.  The situation of Gavin wrt the Foundation wrt the blockchain is already, ahem, interesting.

However, there could be

* A Foundation to sponsor technical studies, education, etc. -- but not to control the blockchain, protocol, or core software, or represent bitcoin to government, or engage in business.

* A Trader Association, to publish standards and ethical guidelines for exchanges, pressure them for openness and independent auditing, and evaluate them for compliance;

* A  Miner's Association, to do the same for miners.

Ideally these institutions should have a low fixed fee, and refuse donations.  Otherwise they would soon be "owned" by a few large members, and will cater to their interest even when it is against the interest ot the majority of the memebrs.  Which seems to be the current state of The Shrem Karpelès & Friends Foundation...

Indeed.  The actual gain/loss is not linear on the monetary gain/loss.

If all your worth is 100'000$, earning another 100'000$ will only make your life a bit better; but losing 100'000$ woud be a terrible disaster, from which you may never recover.

So, taking that bet at 3:1 chances, even though it has a +50'000 expected monetary return, has a hugely negative expected actual return.  That is the reasoning behind the advice "only invest what you can afford to lose".

Indeed, it is unfortunate that Tibanne is officially a separate company that is a creditor of MtGOX.

I do not know why they are being paid before the account holders, but there is a priority list for payments mandated by law (employees first, excluding management; then ...; then investors; then, for last, managers).  Presumably, as service providers, they are somewhere in "...", before the account holders (which may be regarded as investors).

I insist: former MtGOX account holders must, individually or in groups, hire a lawyer familiar with Japanes bankruptcy law, and let him interact with the liquidator.  The lawyer will know what are the right questions to ask (such as, "why is Tibanne being paid before us", "how will the claims be computed", "is the disappearance of the 600'000 coins being investigated", etc.).  He will know how to ask those questions so as to maximize the chances of a useful reply (which is not by email, not personally, but by a paper letter in proper legalese, signed by a lawyer).  He will know how to request that the liquidator considers Tibanne as management rather than a service provider, if such is possible by law.

Trust the adage, "he who chooses to be his own lawyer has a fool for lawyer and a fool for client."