Topic: Calling all Bitcoiners: SPEAK OUT against CIRCLE! (Read 6822 times)

People do not like the fact that circle could lead to somewhat centralization of bitcoin

There isn't much substance to speak of in this post.

Circle is a reputable company with reputable backers.

True that you don't control your coins in they are held by a third party like Circle or Coinbase... but there are a large number of people who prefer that due to simplicity.   

Circle will likely increase adoption and help Bitcoin a great deal.

I've been to the HQ, I know the CEO, I completely trust them with my Bitcoin or fiat.

I spoke out by requesting and invite.  Nothing back yet.

I'll totally leverage these guys services just as I do with Coinbase (which is ceasing to be as useful to me as it once was due apparently to Wells Fargo malfeasance) but as with any other organization (in Bicoinland OR in mainstream land) I'll not entrust to them anything I cannot afford to lose.

If Circle damages Bitcoin in any tangible way it is more a deficiency in Bitcoin(istan) than an issue with Circle.  And one which would spell eventual failure at some level anyway.

This fella's post makes a great deal of sense to me although I do also agree with earlier posts regarding most users not being sophisticated enough to keep their own bitcoins safe (not even sure mine are).  I use coinbase on occassion and it works great but I would be lying if I said I had 100% confidence in them holding my coins.  I basically use them to purchase or sell, and now that my friend has instructed me on how to run a full-node I immediately withdraw my coins as soon as they hit my coinbase account.

Not sure whether or not this circle thing will end up taking off but it seems to be gaining traction.

Yes circle is something that would likely be very good for the less technically inclined.

One major concern that I have is the fact that it would a possible central point of failure where something could either go wrong or the site could get hacked

I see thanks for clarifying that in that case as long as they do not run a fractional reserve with the Bitcoins and have the capital and fiat to cover the ones they hold in their possession there should be no problem.

That said I guess a reserve if they somehow do get hacked might be needed, it has a lot of capital as a company so that shouldn't be a problem
The problems would occur if they declare bankruptcy with their fiat end.

For me circle makes it possible for a few people who don't get Bitcoin to use it as well and they take a niche market and help to push it further into mainstream.

Who is a 'trustworthy entity' ? CIRCLE?

Right ... just like MtGox was trustworthy up until Karpeles ran off with everyone's coin.

You want a TRUSTWORTHY ENTITY?  Try an exchange or wallet service using TRUSTLESS IMPLEMENTATION such as multisig.

In fact, my whole network is moving to trustless wallets in the very near future .. I will not have access to anyone's private keys and therefore even the site owner would not be able to steal user funds.  If my grandmother was dying of cancer I couldn't steal your coins ..

Every exchange and wallet service should be moving RAPIDLY to implement trustless architecture.  No one should EVER trust their coins to a service like Circle, which could simply disappear.  

Here are some possible scenarios where you could lose ALL YOUR COINS with Circle:

A. The US government decides it doesn't like Bitcoin and bans it
B. Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire decides he wants that SuperYacht and runs off with the BTC (Not so far-fetched.  Remember Chris Mallick of ePassporte? He stole millions of dollars, including $50,000 of MY MONEY, to fund his silly porn movie)
C. A Circle ROGUE EMPLOYEE steals the BTC
D. A hacker steals the BTC
E. Circle decides to cancel your account because of onerous verification requirements

Who knows what other horror scenario could result in the loss of millions of dollars worth of Bitcoin through Circle.

Circle might be good for Bitcoin temporarily as it brings the clueless masses into the game. Fine and dandy. But what happens when it turns into a massive ponzi scam like MtGox? Do we really need another Bitcoin exchange disaster??

How is this different than coinbase.com?

I use coinbase to buy and sell coins with no issues. I can transfer my BTC to my offline wallet if I don't trust them.

I just don't see how Circle centralizes any coin when they too are dependent on the BTC network that they don't control. 

Businesses in this niche are inevitable -- I think that average joe type people will want trustworthy entities to hold their bitcoins and keep them safe. Is it ideal? No, and maybe with time we can move beyond that. But I think Circle and the like will bridge the gap to some extent.

Some people do not like the fact that Circle would act like a "bank" in that users would send coins to their account and then circle would encourage users to send money to other circle users in an off blochchain fashion.

As of now Circle does not plan on having any fees and to my knowledge do not plan on lending your coins that you deposit (operating on a fractional reserve)

I don't have a problem with it.  A lot of people (most actually) aren't technically adept enough to keep their own bitcoins safe.  So this might not be a bad alternative for them.

DO NOT DO THIS

Let me give you a lay down of what will happen,

First remember the big bankers, like barclays, JP Morgan Finance, and many many others hate this currency, do you know why, because in order for them to play they must pay, pure and simple, and these guys feel anything worth their investment should be free to join, and expensive for you for them to destroy. they have loads of cash and gold to manipulate any and every other market that is "CONTROLLED", "CENTRALIZED" and "REGULATED" you know who controls and regulates the common currencies, thats right places like Barclays, JP Morgan,  Deutsche Bank, HSBC, Bank of Nova Scotia and a few others. These guys manipulate absolutely anything that is "federally regulated" because they are the federal government. Your presidents, your congressman, those are just pawns on the chessboard of the big banks competiting with each other.

the second you centralize and allow federal regulations on this currency is the same dayb you allow places like JP MOrgan, and barclays bank to step in the door and freely regulate it the way they regulate everything else in the real world.

I say watch the big bankers, watch real gold and silver, and watch how things in those industries are defying all sense of logic, the watch as barclays and JP Morgans finances go thru the roofs aas they collude, and manipulate the markets, and banks like JP MOrgan go 3 yearswithout 1 lost trade in gold, That is impossible, but they do it, how because they know how they will move the market and bid on trades theyb know will bring them in fountains of cash on a daily basis. 4.3 trillion dollars are made daily on the forex market, and 4.29999999999 of those dollars goes to the already rich bankers of barclays and JP Morgan.

Let them destroy their own currency and come begging at the doortep of us to let them in, let them fail and destroy everything they have and be broke, dont let them in willingly to destroy us to. they do enough damage in world currencies, let them sleep in the bed they made for themselves, and beg us to bail them out.

What is wrong with Circle to my knowledge they are just a payment processor for smartphones
Insert converter and send
Simply put they are a service not anything more or less and help with merchant adoption

Circle is a way that will get the masses to start using bitcoin.

Circle does centralize bitcoin but it does not create a central authority.

If circle is successful then others will create competing services that are similar and will further innovate

I don't understand how the state is in any way required for contracts between two or more individuals. Bitcoin itself shows that you can have a stateless contract system that even goes so far as removing counter-party risk and regulate itself in a trust-less manner.



Correct, there are many degrees of different political philosophies all will different definitions of what is allowed as private property ownership. Some collectives allow for some personal items under a certain value to be owned.



Agreed.

What was being discussed by Beliathon I believe is a form of anarcho-socialism/communism called parecon which uses participatory decision making to make economic decisions instead of the the free market and profits as signals to base economic decisions as bitcoin does. Participatory economics forces decentralized common ownership of means of production with voting and consensus making. Bitcoin does allow for some consensus voting with the direction of the code, but it also has some innate capitalist tendencies where business owners who invest labor and capital can accumulate a greater miner share and / or a larger bitcoin savings unlike what parecon proposes.

Parecon does speak about hypothetical electronic credits but these are attached to individual real identities and cannot be transferred or stolen and any other form of money would be discouraged which is quite a different arrangement than how Bitcoin is designed.

Parecon is dependent upon monitoring and comparing consumption in detail where there is little individual privacy unlike the pseudo-anonymity of bitcoin where individuals are free to participate outside the careful scrutiny of others.

The economic calculation problem is one of parecon's greatest weaknesses. Bitcoin communicates economic needs directly and immediately from many data points, while parecon depends upon a certain degree of policy planning to determine plans and prices. While this is better than central planning, there are serious concerns at the accuracy and fluidity of localized planning as opposed to having a capitalist market setting prices to inform business's inherent efficiencies or a lack thereof.

Lastly, there are serious concerns about coercion being used against dissenting individuals in many consensus building frameworks where the will of the majority is imposed upon the liberty of the minority. With bitcoin one can fork the blockchain and participate or not at any moment unlike with a required consensus planning meeting.

These differences are what confuse me as to how does one propagandize parecon and bitcoin in the same breath?
How does one square this circle?

Without the state, you don't have contracts, and, until about 2009-2010, I assumed no money for the price system to work either.


First, collective ownership of the means of production does not imply a total restriction on private property.

Second, such a "communist" crypto-currency would be essentially impossible to set up in a trust-free manner. Information about the real world requires trusted sources of information. This is why I am not optimistic automated decentralized exchanges will become a reality.

Bitcoin essentially ends usury (by being deflationary in nature). If any die-hard anarcho-communists are worried about wealth accumulation, Freicoin Deserves a look

Just as with everything in the free market, the consumers will either choose to use this or not if its shoddy.
Its on its own organization.  No one is forced to join and do business with them. 

I suspect the money isn't in individual banking anyway for them. THey set themselves up as some sort of private SWIFT network and the real money is dealing with corporations and moving money in mass around the world. Signing up small investors is just something to grease the wheels. THey have big goals, mom and pop on bitcoin is just peanuts.

Oh baloney.

Just because YOU don't know how they're financing it is in no measure whatsoever an indicator THEY don't know how they're financing it. Clearly they have a model that convinced venture capitalists to invest millions of fiat in a totally free product for the masses.

You sound like your head is firmly up your ass - which is why you are unable to connect the dots or understand what's shaping up here.

No offense. But hey, if we're taking the time to read your opinions then we're perfectly free to convey our own...

I won't say for certain but I'm reasonably certain that Circle isn't doing background or credit checks. I think they're most logically doing what any other service does and checking to make sure you actually have the funds you're trying to transfer, similar to the way PayPal works, or any other POS transaction with a debit/credit card.

The credit check would be an enormous brick wall for the vast majority of debt ridden public population who would instantly and permanently recoil at the very idea Circle is gonna pull a credit check. And moreso for background checks or all that.

It read to me that the check was to verify you actually have the funds - else what would happen easily is someone would transfer huge amounts, move it to a wallet off Circle, the card would bounce and it'd be mass chaos.