Home > Currency > Why would you ever use BitCoins?

Why would you ever use BitCoins?

From $266 to $54.25 in a matter of hours. An 80% fall puts the dramatic crash of the dot-com bubble at the beginning of the century to shame. Even Cypriot banking customers were recently allowed to keep more of their deposits. And this is the “currency” that is supposed to compete and replace fiat currencies, like the US dollar and the Euro, to create a more stable and trust worthy financial system.

BitCoin 2013-04-11

Source: bitcoin.clarkmoody.com

Advocates of BitCoins usually argues that it is the lack of government involvement, central banks and limited and finite supply that make BitCoins a valid and superior alternative to fiat currencies. Business Insider (BI) argues very well against this idea and concludes that BitCoins don’t have any intrinsic value but that fiat currencies do. BI points out that fiat currencies has the “slight” advantage, over BitCoins, of a legal system, authorities and the full force of the army backing them. Whilst this is a strong argument, let’s forget that for a minute, just for arguments sake, and imagine that BitCoins has replaced fiat currencies and then just ask us, why would you ever use a BitCoin?

BitCoins is a crypto-currency with a finite supply. There is currently just over 10m BitCoins in existence, a number that is steadily rising at a slow pace through what is called BitCoin mining. The algorithm makes sure that there can never be more than 21m BitCoins in existence and all BitCoins will be mined well before the end of this century, by 2050 according to some estimates. What happens then (or actually well before then)?

Isn’t the finite supply setting BitCoins up for eternal deflation? As the population grows and productivity improves the sum of the global utility will also increase. A growing population will need and produce more utility in the shape of food, housing, etc. to survive. But there is still just 21m BitCoins.

So, if we build more houses and produce more food and clothes, the price of this produce must continuously decline, priced in BitCoins. After all there are only 21m BitCoins to be divided between a growing inventory of houses, cars, clothes and food. For this equation to work the economy will have to be in eternal deflation in BitCoin terms. The alternative is to stop producing houses, cars, roads, clothes and food and just replace what is consumed. But how will a growing population live on that?

Or to put it in another way, if you know that the price of a house or a bushel of wheat will be lower tomorrow, in a week or a month, why would you use your BitCoins to make the purchase today? You can get a bigger house in a month or a year or just pay less for the house and afford a new car too, hence get greater utility from your BitCoins. Since the economy needs to be in constant deflation in BitCoin terms, given population and productivity growth, you will always get more utility tomorrow than today. So why would you ever use a BitCoin for anything but your bare necessities? You would certainly not invest it. To get what, a negative return?

The development in Japan over the last two decades is a reasonable real world example of deflation and what it does to the willingness to invest. It became a nation of currency hoarders. They haven’t had much incentive to invest, but every incentive to save, as they could always get more utility from their cash tomorrow. Hopefully, Bank of Japan’s recent announcement about sharply increased quantitative easing in an effort to reintroduce inflation into the Japanese economy may have put an end to this vicious circle.

Could the solution for our fictitious deflationary BitCoin economy be similar? With a “successful” BitCoin and low entry barriers to the crypto-currency market we are likely to see new competing crypto-currencies, increasing the supply well beyond the 21m limit set by the BitCoins and reintroduce inflation? This would effectively remove one of the pillars of BitCoin advocates’ argument of a non-inflationary economy and stable currency. Isn’t it instead likely that low entry barriers would make the system highly fragmented, hard to trust and very unstable. Perhaps. Alternatives could include abolishing currencies altogether or, god forbid, stop the population from growing.

Maybe it is much simpler and more along the lines of BI’s argument. As you can just create crypto-currencies out of little more than thin air and you have no legal system, government or army to support it, BitCoins don’t have any intrinsic value and as such should trade at or close to $0.

If it looks like tulips and smells like tulips it is likely we’re dealing with tulips…

  1. April 14, 2013 at 21:19

    The algorithm only guarantees a liquidity trap. Tulips, indeed.

    • April 15, 2013 at 09:50

      I suppose you could always buy one and see what happens.

  2. April 14, 2013 at 21:49

    Reblogged this on Adama J. Adama (A.J.A) Blog.

  3. April 14, 2013 at 22:01

    you do not get the point, you don´t even mention it ONCE in your post. bitcoin is not meant to replace any national currency. it is used for anonymous money transactions and black market liquidity. what is special about bitcoin is the ANONYMITY. it´s more like “virtual gold”.

    • April 15, 2013 at 19:10

      I do get that point. That doesn’t make the fundamental properties of the currency any different. BitCoins are still set for eternal deflation, as the supply is finite.

      • April 16, 2013 at 04:37

        but then you cite the possibility of new currency that could lead to the opposite of deflation, so now?

      • April 16, 2013 at 09:35

        As I write in the post, if the BitCoin is as successful as advocates wants, it will be deflationary. However, as entry barriers are so low, it is more likely there will be competition from other crypto-currencies increasing crypto-money supply, i.e. the very same money printing BitCoins was supposed to save the world from. In addition to inevitable inflation, it will make the market very fragmented and the currencies essentially worthless.

      • April 16, 2013 at 19:07

        I don’t know if entry barriers are really low. I mean, it is really hard to provide a secure and reliable system and it needs quite a lot of work. If it is that easy, since the success of bitcoins (and it is, because even non technocrats talk about it tight?), some new crypto-currencies should have been emerged already, but that’s not the case.
        By the way I would use bitcoins only for evil things (ok, thath’s true only because I live in a civil country, if I was in cina, iran/iraq or under some regimen than everything change), but since I am good I never needed it. 🙂

      • April 16, 2013 at 19:36

        There are a number of alternative crypto-currencies already and they’ve been around for some time, Linden Dollars, QQ Coins and Facebook credits for instance.

      • April 17, 2013 at 02:39

        Wait, Linden dollars and facebook credits are really different from bitcoin. Q coins developed to something more similar to bitcoin, but it is popular only in china and however not as bitcoin, which can be considered the de-facto standard. Moreover i don’t know if your reasoning works, because we currently have many real currencies without problem (ok, again not really true, but you cannot say they doesn’t works)

      • April 17, 2013 at 09:38

        They are still all examples of crypto-currencies, successful or not. Ordinary fiat currencies (USD, EUR, GBP, JPY etc.) have a controlled money supply, some may say somewhat uncontrolled these days but nevertheless controlled by law and government. You can’t just introduce and print your own money. There are no such barrier for crypto-currencies. The bottom line is, BitCoin has no intrinsic value, fiat currencies do.

      • April 17, 2013 at 21:20

        “They are still all examples of crypto-currencies”
        but only limited to a restricted environment, while bitcoin is in the wild, thus it is mor expendable (not really, but that’s the point)
        “The bottom line is, BitCoin has no intrinsic value, fiat currencies do.”
        can you please justify this sentence? I mean, the value is given by the economy of the country and by demand and offer (this is what driven bitcoin prices that high), what will happen if a country (e.g. China/USA) adopt a crypto currency as a second currency? I think is not the fact of being a crypto currency that eliminate the value and if being a crypto currency could lead to more security, then why not?

      • April 17, 2013 at 22:28

        This has already been discussed at length in the post and in the comments. Please also read BI’s article which I’ve linked to in the post.

      • April 30, 2013 at 08:57

        The fundamental properties of Bitcoins haven’t changed unfortunately.

      • April 17, 2013 at 13:09

        No there is a finite amount of bit coins… so there is zero inflation…

      • April 17, 2013 at 15:23

        This has already been explained in the post and comments.

  4. dirk
    April 14, 2013 at 23:26

    Reblogged this on the dirk and commented:
    So, you want to use BitCoin? Read this first.

  5. April 15, 2013 at 04:47

    At a risk of sounding like an idiot. .this blows my mind, but thanks for teaching me something new today; )

  6. April 15, 2013 at 05:07

    very well observed, very well done

  7. April 15, 2013 at 07:01

    Reblogged this on thechristchurchfiasco.

  8. April 15, 2013 at 07:41

    Reblogged this on Permanently Grumpy (A Weblog).

  9. April 15, 2013 at 09:55

    Reblogged this on Reflexio.com.

  10. April 15, 2013 at 11:55

    I ended up in a lengthy comment full of disagreement and decided to put it on my blog. Just because I do control the content:


    • April 15, 2013 at 12:15

      Thank you for your comment and for supporting my argument by saying that you don’t believe the world’s population will continue to grow. However, another part of the argument is also that productivity has to fall. Only then can you start to argue for BitCoins, or any other finite supply currency, as a vehicle for payment or store of value. Now, there are many more arguments against BitCoins than what I’ve mentioned and what BI highlighted in their post. Nevertheless, in it its very basic form, you have to accept static or declining population and productivity for any finite-supply-currency-equation to work.

      • April 15, 2013 at 13:56

        I don’t get your first sentence. You say this in your post:

        Isn’t the finite supply setting BitCoins up for eternal deflation? As the population grows and productivity improves the sum of the global utility will also increase. A growing population will need and produce more utility in the shape of food, housing, etc. to survive. But there is still just 21m BitCoins.
        (sorry, for the lack of formatting possibilities)

        And keep writing that the population will grow. How do I support your argument by saying it will not grow without bounds?

        The second part: raising productivity, well I’m no expert, but how do you measure this, anyway? In relation to a currency? Which inflates? What does that say? This is just some other fairy tale.

        Nevertheless, I hope you are aware that a Bitcoin is dividable to eight decimal places. And I read somewhere (I can’t remember where) that there is plenty room for more in the implementation. So everyone will be able to have her share of coins.

        So logically their actually is no limit. It is more like, that the value of the coins raises, inherent deflation, if you will.

        You should check the Bitcoin Wiki for further thoughts about that matter: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_Currency_Supply

      • April 15, 2013 at 14:40

        That is the point with the post. As productivity is how efficient we are at producing utilities (goods and services), if the population grows and productivity improves (as we learn and improve our technology), we will produce more goods and services. If the number of BitCoins remains constant, which it is regardless of how many decimal places you divide it into, every utility has to be worth fewer BitCoins.

        If we produce 100 utilities in year 1 and there are 100 BitCoins available, each utility will be worth 1 BitCoin. If we grow the working population by 5% and become 5% better/faster at producing utilities in year 2 we will have produced 110.25 utilities (1.05 x 1.05 x 100) to be divided between 100 BitCoins, which gives each utility a price of 0.907 BitCoins, i.e. deflation of 9.3%. So, exactly as you say, the value of BitCoins in utility-terms rises. So why would I use a BitCoin today, when I know that I can buy more utility tomorrow, in a month or a year using the same amount of BitCoins?

        Therefore, unless the population stops growing, which you believe, and/or we get worse at producing utilities, in a BitCoin world the economy would be in eternal deflation. This would effectively withdraw the incentive for investments in technology and knowledge, as you are no longer rewarded for becoming more productive. I don’t think anyone would like to live in that world.

        This is obviously a very theoretic and hypothetical argument, but it is made to highlight the built in long-term flaw of finite supply currencies.

      • April 15, 2013 at 20:49

        I will try to take the comment apart and anwer to the various aspects in isolation.

        I understand what productivity is. But how is it measured? Generally in terms of money: products produced and services delivered in terms of U.S. Dollars in some time span, right? As this is the case, the aspects you are referencing are coupled to the system in question. Look at it in isolations. Is there still a need for continued growth of productivity?

        There is another stronger force than profit prospects regarding currency systems. That really keeps everything going: Demand. If someone needs something, he will find someone to deliver it, for some price tag.

        Yes every new utility will be worth fewer Bitcoins. But what’s the matter? If you get less money next year, because of deflation, the mortgage would be reduced likewise, because no one would be able to pay it. The landlord himself would pay less for everything and could effort it … If it is adopted in breadth there is no problem at all.

        Thinking about it, it will not make any difference I guess. No real man/woman out there thinks about inflation/deflation. They are simply wandering about and decide to buy things, when they need them and have the money.

        Money lending, no problem either. The interest rates level the inflation/deflation rate out.

        But what might be the rate? The current volatility is a problem. Well it is still early and things have to sort out. I wouldn’t recommend anyone to invest huge amounts of money. But I like the idea: take a self-controlled system and cut off the middle-men.

        A last thing to consider, besides monetary rewards exist many different – and often more rewarding ways to be rewarded. That might sound idealistic, but you hit the tone quite well, either, as you said you look optimistic into the future (another comment).

      • April 15, 2013 at 21:52

        As we’ve discussed above, productivity improvements are needed feed a growing population. I’ve already discussed most of the points previously, but just to give you another example of deflation. What do you think the bank says when you’ve borrowed 1 million to buy a house and a year later the house is just worth 900,000? Add to this that your salary has fallen from 300,000 to 270,000. So, how will you ever be able to pay off that mortgage, if the bank allows you to keep the house that is, when your loan to income ratio keeps rising?

      • paulsnx2
        April 15, 2013 at 18:16

        There are two ways to inflate a currency. Increase the value of the currency (increasing real wages, savings) or print money and give it to one priveliged group. Someone gets something for free. Everyone, or just banks. Hard to understand why only banks should profit…

      • April 15, 2013 at 19:01

        I’m not really sure what you mean or what your point is, but if the value of money increases it is deflation, as you can buy more utility with the same money. However, if you print money you reduce the value of the currency, i.e. inflation, so that it takes more money to buy the same utility.

      • April 18, 2013 at 05:36

        This seems like another bogus argument…. Fiat currencies have been pegged to gold (FINITE) for ages…. To link your currency to something that is scarce (finite) is far more logical and sustainable than to link it to something infinite (interest)….

        You thoughts are true, yet only within the boundaries of our current financial system. But interest has been called into the world to make capital a production unit, not to compliment the growing population/productivity.

        Hence the word ‘currency’ originally is applied only to things that can work as a means of exchange, but ever since it has be detached from the gold (finite), is has become more than just a means of exchange.

        You are comparing a currency that is used as a means for exchange (bitcoin) , to a currency that is used as a means of exchange AND a production unit (fiat currency, due to interest).

        But dont worry, you are not the first investors that is blind to this argument. Im curious to know what you think about your comparison now! LMK

      • April 18, 2013 at 09:08

        This has also been discussed before in the post and comments. There is a finite supply of gold, as you point out, hence it is not suitable as a currency as it would also be deflationary, just like BitCoins. The gold standard was abandoned over 40 years ago, in 1971, with the break-up of Bretton Woods. The bottom line is still that BitCoin is deflationary, hence cannot support a growing population and/or increasing productivity.

      • April 18, 2013 at 09:39

        The bitcoin is simply NOT deflationary…… i notice my English is not suffice enough to make this clear…. check this out, is a huge topic on Forbes…..: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2013/04/11/bitcoin-doesnt-have-a-deflation-problem/

      • April 18, 2013 at 10:46

        I’m aware of the programmer Mr Lee’s point of view and just because it is on Forbes.com doesn’t make it any more true. Anyone can publish on Forbes.com. If you don’t believe me when I explain why Bition is deflationary, have a look at this: http://pandodaily.com/2013/04/10/great-now-engineers-think-that-they-are-economists-too-2/. After all, if it’s not deflationary it has to be inflationary in the medium to long-term. I can’t recall that the planet has been at status quo for any meaningful period of time. And inflation is what Bitcoin advocates want to avoid at all cost. So which is it?

      • April 18, 2013 at 11:29

        i think you should take population growth out of the equation, as population growth makes ANYTHING of value inflationary…. so its a pointless aspects of a currency…. The fact that there is no interest, or rather… people choose to park their inflationary US$ in the bitcoin currency, offsets the deflationary effects of it the Bitcoin… thats where the balance comes from

      • April 18, 2013 at 11:33

        what i meant to say…. by buying bitcoins with a currency that otherwise could be used to yield an interest, people loose out on money. But by joining the demand side in the Bitcoin currency market, the value of the bitcoin is appreciated….. there is your balance.

      • April 18, 2013 at 11:46

        Unfortunately we can’t ignore population growth, or productivity growth either for that matter, as that is the world we live in, at least I do.

      • April 18, 2013 at 12:50

        The bitcoin is not linked to a country or nation…. so you CAN ignore productivity and population growth, as fiat currencies ARE linked to a region, and thus to its population, and thus also its productivity/technology level.

      • April 18, 2013 at 12:56

        Unlike the coca cola can in your dispenser, which costs one US$ the whole year through, Bitcoin denominated products cotinually changes prices…. that is why there is no inflation or deflation…. this is irregardless of the population growth or productivity… It seems you havent grasped the full idea of the Bitcoin, but just pulled some Stop/loss image of the web and applied a conventional financial analysis on this topic.

      • April 18, 2013 at 14:39

        There is no need to SHOUT. Changing prices are just other words to describe inflation and deflation. Please read the post and the comments again, as we have been over these subjects a number of times now.
        Population growth and productivity improvements have nothing to do with countries or regions, but everything to do with nature and humans’ desire to improve their lives. As long as we keep having babies and learn to grow more crop or build that bicycle a bit faster today than yesterday there will be population growth and increased productivity.

      • April 19, 2013 at 02:08

        Ok, so finally…. In one year… In your opinion, what will happen to the US$/Bitcoin exchange rate, according to your analysis? I think it will stabilize and evolve itself into a useable currency afterall…..

      • April 19, 2013 at 09:54

        As there is no intrinsic value in Bitcoin it becomes impossible to value on fundamentals. To make matters worse, a year is a very short period of time for fundamentals in currency markets. So we have to use technical analysis to get an idea of future prices, especially in that time frame. For this, volume is unfortunately very low in a very illiquid market, which is one of the reasons we see a very volatile market.
        Therefore, your guess is as good as any. The only reason you have a price above $0 today is that someone is prepared to pay more than $0 in hope of being able to sell it at a higher price in the future. Very much like the tulip market mania in Holland in the 17th century. Hence, Bitcoin is a lottery, at best. You might just get lucky. Nevertheless, the long-term fundamental the value of Bitcoin is at or very close to $0.

      • April 19, 2013 at 11:44

        So your article is not based on a technical analysis…?

      • April 19, 2013 at 11:58

        Not at all. Please read the post and comments.

      • April 19, 2013 at 12:02

        Im sorry for being so direct. If the case is what you say, I think its too early to judge bitcoin then. I have to admit, i havent used it yet. But as soon as the possiblity arises to efficiently hedge future cash flows… i will give it a go.

  11. shpeck
    April 15, 2013 at 16:07

    Great article! Eversince I heard of bitcoins I was extremely dissapponted, and for more than one reason. As a computerized currency – it’s hackable. No matter what you say, if it’s online, it can be hacked. That on it’s own is concerning but even worst than that is that I believe this is all a sham. Money is manifactured by state banks to represent a certain amount of gold ingots. What does bitcoin represent? absolutely nothing. This money has no real value what so ever! it stands for nothing but the ignorance of those who keep it, and filling the pockets of those who manage it. In theory, the creator of bitcoin can buy gold ingots to represent this currency, but he dosen’t have an army to defend them and they can easily be stolen. He can also decide to shut bitcoin down and keep your money. If that wasn’t bad enough, I didn’t even know that the amount was going to be finite – that is just plain dangerous… Now, international coin is a completely possible thing. The united states of america has their dollars, the european union has their euro, the subcontinent of india has their rupi and so on. All of the above coins represent something. Bitcoins represent your willingness to be a chump in the name of progress. and if you want computer based international money – try a credit card. It works, I tried.

  12. April 15, 2013 at 17:45

    Another great view point on bitcoin! Thanks for sharing.

  13. paulsnx2
    April 15, 2013 at 18:08

    Or in other words, if our wages and savings retained their value or even increased in value, people wouldn’t buy things because they could afford to do so. But if we devalue their wages and savings, then they will borrow to buy things.


    Let’s make this really simple. Do you want to be paid in a currency that holds its value? Or would you rather be paid in a currency that loeses value, forcing you to borrow money printed and given almost for free to the banks? Which you will have to pay back with your diminished wages along with high fees and interest?

    Obviously with an ever growing income gap, printing money has worked out well for most… Bankers. Who else matters?

    • April 15, 2013 at 18:37

      I want to earn a living in a world where there is an incentive for progress, to develop new drugs to cure diseases, new technologies to better our lives, etc., ultimately to be able to feed an ever increasing population. With deflation, there is no such incentive. Which means that the wealthy, who can afford to save, gets even wealthier and the poor get relatively poorer. Imagine trying to pay your mortgage in a deflationary world, where your salary drops every year. How would you do that?

      • April 18, 2013 at 05:52

        In which country didnt the wealthy get more wealthy, and the poor more poor in the last 15 years…..? This is nothing personal Donald, I come from the same financial background as you. But my professors during my master’s degree could only agreed with us (students) who pointed this out to them. Even in the socialist country I am from (the Netherlands), the income gap has increased….
        Btw, half of the inventions in your Iphone where inventions from governments subsidized companies, and not Apple…. The inventor of the Polio vaccine, ceized the opportunitiy to get a patent….
        We live in a new world, an interconnected, barrrierless world. Where ‘sharing’ is the new ‘owning’. Smithian thoughts are getting oldfashioned….

        Try blogging about how you think the future WILL look like, even if you think it isnt Bitcoins….

  14. April 15, 2013 at 18:13

    With the failure to find new antibiotics and the increasing resistance to antibiotics worldwide, as well as and enhanced by environmental disasters from about 2030, the population will very likely suffer extraordinary decline. BitCoin’s day will come….

    • April 15, 2013 at 18:22

      That sounds very pessimistic. If you question the sustainability of humanity, we get into a whole other set of questions. And as I’ve noted in the post, a declining population would help the cause for finite-supply currencies like BitCoins or gold. However, that’s not a world I would like to live in. I’m optimistic.

  15. April 15, 2013 at 19:43

    As a replacement currency, it makes no sense, as you describe quite well. As an alternative currency (i.e. on that exists alongside others) it makes a little more sense, only a little. If I buy/sell something for bitcoins, I’m not only getting an exchange I want, but I’m getting a little gamble on the short-term direction of the bitcoin/real-money exchage rate. It only works as a temporary short-term holder of value. I guess it works a little like PayPal with steroids. Then again, who really wants their PayPal to have steroids?

  16. hajo
    April 16, 2013 at 16:16

    If a BC should trade at or close to 0, shouldn’t then any future do the same? Me as a layman thinks that as long as there’s someone who believes in market movements, futures work. So I consider BC a similar instrument, And there seem to — have been — enough believers recently…

    • April 16, 2013 at 16:40

      Derivatives on Bitcoins wouldn’t make it anymore viable as a currency. One of the fundamental flaws is the finite supply of Bitcoins.

    • April 16, 2013 at 16:38

      Funny, but it doesn’t make it true unfortunately. Shares in companies are backed by real assets that produce goods and services, i.e. some sort of utility. Bitcoins don’t have that feature.

  17. mrky007
    April 16, 2013 at 20:06

    Finally an article about Bitcoins that doesn’t start with; Build a perfect Bitcoin mining rig or How to become a millionaire by sitting and watching your CPU / GPU do the sweating. Also very educational, in my opinion the main driving force of Bitcoin is greed and allure of “easy money”.

  18. April 17, 2013 at 23:42

    Reblogged this on The Legal Standard.

  19. April 18, 2013 at 16:36

    Is the world population really going to keep growing forever? I think I remember reading a National Geographic article a few years back that we’re on track for a plateau in the next few decades.

    • April 18, 2013 at 17:08

      That is another question. It is not unreasonable to think that the population may decline at some point. After all the planet keeps developing in cycles, long-term and short-term. The UN published a report in 2004 expecting the population to peak in 2075 around 9.2bn to then decline somewhat and stabilise just below 9bn for the next few hundred years. The UN has also published a higher peak projection of 10.5bn, just showing how difficult these types of projections are. However, that discussion is well beyond the scope of a single blog post (the UN spent 240 pages), but under these circumstances we obviously face a different environment. Nevertheless, it is unlikely to have a negative effect on productivity as humans are unlikely to become less intelligent. Thus for the foreseeable future we still have both a growing population and improving productivity.

  20. April 18, 2013 at 17:06

    Reblogged this on Other Such Luck?.

  21. cjrichards18
    April 21, 2013 at 03:10

    The potential aspect of an alternative money supply is interesting and promising, yet the lack of general consistency with the Bitcoin’s value compared to “normal” currency keeps me on edge and just far enough to not use them…yet…

  22. April 21, 2013 at 18:56

    bitcoin is a currency based on demand and supply. the more people trust it the higher the value. when people don’t trust the euro currency then bitcoin value will go up. such an interesting currency

  23. July 7, 2013 at 01:10

    Ask the Winklvoss twins this question, they seem to know more than we know regarding this currency that 99.99% of the population knows nothing of. It’s unregulated and like swiss accounts, virtually untraceable. What can you purchase with this currency, really?

  1. April 15, 2013 at 11:53

Leave a comment

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: