Transaction

j"1LAnZuoQdcKCkpDBKQMCgziGMoPC4VQUckMŠ<div class="post"><div class="quoteheader"><a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=234.msg1967#msg1967">Quote from: teppy on July 05, 2010, 04:07:52 PM</a></div><div class="quote">Unless anyone else knows a Slashdot editor, I'd be willing to submit this when 1.0 is released. (More people submitting their own versions will improve the chances of hitting the front page.)<br/><br/>(Technology Section)<br/>Headline: Bitcoin releases Version 1.0<br/>Body: How's this for a disruptive technology? Bitcoin is a buyer-anonymous, seller-anonymous cryptocurrency with no central bank, and no transaction fees. Using a concept similar to Hashcash, clients burn CPU cycles attempting to discover some of the 21,000,000 Bitcoins that will eventually be found. It is expected that over time, the market value of Bitcoins will reach parity with the energy needed to generate them, resulting in an energy-backed currency outside the reach of any government.<br/><br/>Comments?<br/></div><br/>1) I like the first two sentences.<br/><br/>2) Not sure whether I would include the "similar to Hashcash" phrase. I doubt that the majority of slashdot users has ever heard of Hashcash.<br/><br/>3) I have a problem with the "energy-backed" claim. It's misleading. Just because you need to invest energy to generate Bitcoins doesn't make them energy-backed. They would only be energy-backed if there was some sort of guarantee that they could be traded back into energy. Which there isn't. The generation of Bitcoins is irreversible. If the software was hardcoded so that you could buy other users' CPU cycles with Bitcoins, then maybe we could call them energy-backed. <br/><br/></div> text/html