It's true that if you assume bitcoin is actually worth what the exchange pays for it (and it would be, because some entity is willing to pay for it), then the exchange has not actually lost any value, just exchanged one form of it for another. But from what I gather, GP wasn't counting the value of bitcoin as an actual value. With that assumption, then the exchange is rapidly losing money because they are paying out something of value (USD) for something of no value (bitcoin).

And if you assume, as GP did, that bitcoin is a closed system, and the only way to get bitcoins is to buy them from the exchange (not technically true but for most people entering the market at this point it might as well be), then people are giving USD in exchange for bitcoins, putting money into the market, then it's possible for one person to sell a ton of coins that have gone way up in value, and be paid out all the exchange's USD reserve. In that case, since the exchange can't print more money, they have essentially lost the ability to buy anyone else's bitcoins. At that point the people who still own bitcoins technically haven't lost value either, but as there's no entity (we assume only one exchange in this scenario) that can pay them for their bitcoins, the coins essentially become worthless outside of the bitcoin system.

So in the end I guess it depends on your definition of money. I don't personally consider bitcoin to be money, though it's getting a lot closer. But if it is money, then the exchange never loses value at all, since it's essentially just a money changer. On the other hand, if bitcoin isn't money, then the exchange is almost guaranteed to lose money if the currency becomes more valuable.

As with all things, its just down to a point of view.

In that case it's the exchange that loses the money. So you're right, there don't have to be a thousand people losing money, but it does have to be someone.

This is why I do it. I have both and while the streaming is nice, there are so many titles they just don't have (often because they don't have permission to stream them anymore).

To be honest, if GP really did have a BS in Lit History.. what are they doing here?

I've had similar experiences with a few games, some that were just really terrible and clearly had never been tested (and some that never got completed either). But I've also had some really good games come off of Kickstarter. You just have to be really careful about what you back. Projects that have a very clear description tend to be better then those that just list some components and a theme, and those do exist out there. Some of the better projects actually have gameplay videos (using concept pieces) that can give you a good idea if the game will actually be good or not. In the end it's still rather hit and miss, but not every game on Kickstarter is going to be bad.

If I spent $700 on an electric car, I'd be much more comfortable replacing it after 2 years (especially if it's more the case that I spent $100 on the car, along with a 2 year contract that provided me with electricity for said car) when a newer model was out.

The very first time I used Python this exact thing happened to me. Transferred a largeish script from school computer (which used tabs) to my own IDE (which used spaces). It took me forever to even realize what was wrong. I still use Python from time to time, but I wouldn't use it for anything large that requires multiple people.

That is an interesting point about kids though. Now, I've observed some very well behaved kids walking through the various office-spaces I've worked in. No problem there. I've also observed some who are just horrible little monsters. I'd say that if your child is well behaved and is not going to make me uncomfortable or distract me simply by existing, I have no problem with it being there. Why shouldn't the same thing apply to dogs? If your dog is well behaved and doesn't shed or drool over everything, then I've got no problem having them in the office. Hell some people even call their dogs their "kids", and if you look at it, there really is very little objective difference, isn't there?

I've met people that still believe that argument. They didn't particularly appear crazy either, just ignorant (given the area I was in, they may not have ever had anyone tell them otherwise). But they are dwindling, probably because people started using said argument as an example for "how crazy religious people are".

What about a mail slot that is built into the house?
...
Hmm I actually decided to read the article cited (thanks for citing it :D) and apparently a mail slot built into the house is NOT property of the US Post Office.