People are also willing to risk buying powerball lottery tickets even though their chances of winning are almost infinitesimal. I do get what you're saying, a slow evolution towards acceptance. I just question how many people are truly supportive of Bitcoin for the movement as a whole and how many are here to buy lottery tickets. Perhaps in the end it doesn't really matter what the motive, the participation may be enough.
It's still a rather giant leap of faith at this point, however. I'm curious to see how this all plays out.
Topic: Can Bitcoin Survive? Is It Legal? - Forbes (Read 3165 times)
It seems like you're expecting the Subway owner to wait (do NO bitcoin transactions) until everyone else is using bitcoin and then suddenly run their whole operation with it (do ONLY bitcoin transactions).
I'm saying it'll happen far more gradually. Accept bitcoin now and then. Pay wages in bitcoin now and then to the tech-savvy teens that work for you. Strike up a conversation with your landlord one day and maybe he'll get excited by the idea.
Forgetting about stockholders for a second, let's just say the owner is a person, like you and me. It's obvious that people ARE willing to take risks with bitcoin in the interim. In their own interests and in the interests of the whole bitcoin movement.
I'm saying it'll happen far more gradually. Accept bitcoin now and then. Pay wages in bitcoin now and then to the tech-savvy teens that work for you. Strike up a conversation with your landlord one day and maybe he'll get excited by the idea.
Forgetting about stockholders for a second, let's just say the owner is a person, like you and me. It's obvious that people ARE willing to take risks with bitcoin in the interim. In their own interests and in the interests of the whole bitcoin movement.
If Subway were to accept Bitcoin, no one would know what to charge until the moment I got there. And instantly afterward, the merchant is at risk due to volatility.
It's a problem I don't know how to solve,
It's a problem I don't know how to solve,
It solves itself gradually as the Subway manager starts being able to buy his ingredients with bitcoin, then his rent, then his electricity, his staff's wages, etc.
Even if that were true, would the owner (I seriously doubt it's up to the manager) be willing to take those risks in the interim? Right now you have a concept that could essentially be worthless or perhaps in time have value (as an exchange medium). What sort of incentive would entice the owner to convert now? The problem is the smarter business choice is to play the "wait and see" game because right now you can't pay your salary, utilities, rent or inventory with bitcoins. You can speculate that BTC's will increase in value but a merchant is not a speculator. A merchant needs cash flow NOW.
Everyone likes to compare Bitcoin to Napster, Facebook, etc. but it's a poor comparison. Those sites offer a service. Bitcoin is meant to be an alternative payment/barter system.
If Subway were to accept Bitcoin, no one would know what to charge until the moment I got there. And instantly afterward, the merchant is at risk due to volatility.
It's a problem I don't know how to solve,
It's a problem I don't know how to solve,
It solves itself gradually as the Subway manager starts being able to buy his ingredients with bitcoin, then his rent, then his electricity, his staff's wages, etc.
Pegging could never be enforced.
I agree. And that I think is a big problem. If Bitcoin is going to be a medium for exchange, there needs to be some sort of stability.
If I buy a sandwich from Subway tomorrow, I and the merchant, know exactly what the price will be no matter what medium of exchange (cash, credit card, check, etc.) I use. If Subway were to accept Bitcoin, no one would know what to charge until the moment I got there. And instantly afterward, the merchant is at risk due to volatility. In this respect, Bitcoin is similar to Gold. I can't take my gold to Subway and use it as a medium of exchange. The price fluctuation is too volatile. Of course, gold is at least a commodity and has inherent usefulness so it trumps BTC's in that respect.
It's a problem I don't know how to solve, but I think it needs to if Bitcoin wants to have a sustainable future. Otherwise the only value is speculation and that will turn once people realize it cannot ever be an acceptable form of currency for the very reasons you mention.
I would go so far as to say Bitcoins would need to be pegged to USD (or some other currency) at a certain value.
Pegging could never be enforced.
Say you try to peg 1 BTC = 10 USD... What stops me from buying a coin for $11 if I really really want a coin? Or selling one for $9 if I desperately need some fiat cash?
Nothing.
Suddenly it's floating again.
I can see subtle bias in this article. I liked it apart from the fact he tried to present it as objective, but it ultimately had negative connotations associated to it.
People will read that and believe it was a security fault on Bitcoins behalf.
It will be a long an tedious argument between the people and their governments debating if Bitcoins is a fraudulent currency (or some other disagreement).
Also, instead of being original, Peter uses the typical Drugs-Bitcoins association, which I'm sure hes aware is simply enforcing unlearned peoples doubts. Anyone that mentions you can buy drugs with Bitcoins, should also mention that you can buy drugs with federal monies, from far more people just as easily, and usually as securely (well for me anyway...).
~ Conf
Quote from: Peter Cohan
Although the sudden drop was caused by a hacker breaking into Bitcoin’s currency changer
That is explicitly saying that Bitcoin is the owner of the currency changer (Mt Gox.). That doesn't even makes sense because Bitcoins cant own anything because noone owns Bitcoins. People will read that and believe it was a security fault on Bitcoins behalf.
Quote from: Mann
Mann notes that Bitcoin’s ultimate ambition well might be illegal in any event
Bitcoins ultimate ambition well might be written in the published whitepaper, which it is. That is Quote from: Bitcoin Whitepaper
These costs and payment uncertainties can be avoided in person by using physical currency, but no mechanism exists to make payments over a communications channel without a trusted party.
What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party. Transactions that are computationally impractical to reverse would protect sellers from fraud, and routine escrow mechanisms could easily be implemented to protect buyers.
I do not believe the publishers cared about if governments think they are an imposter currency. Their goal is not to enrage governments and people, but to solve the specific problem of how to make virtual transactions have similar properties to cash.What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party. Transactions that are computationally impractical to reverse would protect sellers from fraud, and routine escrow mechanisms could easily be implemented to protect buyers.
It will be a long an tedious argument between the people and their governments debating if Bitcoins is a fraudulent currency (or some other disagreement).
Also, instead of being original, Peter uses the typical Drugs-Bitcoins association, which I'm sure hes aware is simply enforcing unlearned peoples doubts. Anyone that mentions you can buy drugs with Bitcoins, should also mention that you can buy drugs with federal monies, from far more people just as easily, and usually as securely (well for me anyway...).
Quote from: Peter Cohan
Bitcoin – the online currency used to buy Alpaca wool socks and illegal drugs
~ Conf
let the people decide what they want to use as currency.... o wait i forgot a democracy plutocracy doesn't work that way.....
I think in order for Bitcoin to survive the volatility needs to disappear. In fact, I would go so far as to say Bitcoins would need to be pegged to USD (or some other currency) at a certain value. Otherwise it will be very difficult to entice merchants because they simply cannot price their goods accordingly.
Even at these supposed "stable" prices we're seeing, it's not stable enough for a currency. Even a change from $16 to $17 is a 6.3% change and we're seeing larger intra-day fluctuations than that. To put it in perspective, the USD moved against the Euro by 0.265% today. Over the last 3 months, it has moved 1.4%. You'd have to go out SIX MONTHS to see a percentage change greater than what Bitcoin is witnessing in a matter of hours.
But no one wants to peg BTC's because speculation is the only place where the money making is at and probably the only place it will stay. Sadly, I believe the long-term success of BTC is tied to it's acceptance in daily transactions. It will never happen under the current conditions.
Even at these supposed "stable" prices we're seeing, it's not stable enough for a currency. Even a change from $16 to $17 is a 6.3% change and we're seeing larger intra-day fluctuations than that. To put it in perspective, the USD moved against the Euro by 0.265% today. Over the last 3 months, it has moved 1.4%. You'd have to go out SIX MONTHS to see a percentage change greater than what Bitcoin is witnessing in a matter of hours.
But no one wants to peg BTC's because speculation is the only place where the money making is at and probably the only place it will stay. Sadly, I believe the long-term success of BTC is tied to it's acceptance in daily transactions. It will never happen under the current conditions.
forbees out of calculators and out of touch with reality
BTC peaked at around $32
if anyone got 3 million out of 20k bitcoins, it means someone paid $150/BTC for those
their blog journalism just got down to the level of National Enquirer or w/e their name is
the article reminded me that post by the guy who runs downside.com site
BTC peaked at around $32
if anyone got 3 million out of 20k bitcoins, it means someone paid $150/BTC for those
their blog journalism just got down to the level of National Enquirer or w/e their name is
the article reminded me that post by the guy who runs downside.com site
This article says I made $3 million....Hahahah very funny.
This tale of someone buying 20,000 low and making about $3 million has popped up in a couple of places..
Is it really referring to you - and if so - are you able to share the real story?
Realistically, nerds better get on telling their parents and grandparents about this funny money sooner than later, because once government informs an older person on how to think, it's pretty much done.
Till they die.
I think it will slowly be adapted, a lot of support infrastructure for merchants still has to be made but on the other hand there is a lot of international momentum going. More than for any alternative currency, ever, I think.
Keep deriding bitcoin, it is okay, we'll be here when your next job demands you get paid with it.
It's more likely that 'jobs' will not pay you at all. I expect that jobs will pay in food and clothing credits at Walmart so you slaves won't go out and blow your paycheck on booze while your babies starve. First class citizens will trade in bitcoin.
My response:
Mr. Cohan tried his best, but this article is a far cry from excellent piece done by The Economist. Pay grades aside, it doesn't surprise me that the older generation can't quite wrap their heads around bitcoin.
After all, they've been brought up to believe fancy green pieces of paper are valuable, and banks do everything in their customers best interests. We're starting to see the fruits of those efforts, namely in the massive Federal Debt, and the increasingly ineffectual Federal Reserve monetary policies.
However, they stay true to the 'system' because it is all they know. All of their savings is committed to it, every possible investment expressed in green paper, whether it be bits on a hard drive or physical notes in their hands.
Bitcoin is the first iteration of many online currencies that will spring up, and I dare say, the beginning of the end for many of the useless intermediaries that siphon off their 'cut'.
Of course a Forbes writer doesn't like it. Even if he understood it properly, he'd realize that it is the unrelenting flow that erodes large ponderous organizations, much like the one he works for.
Keep deriding bitcoin, it is okay, we'll be here when your next job demands you get paid with it.
Mr. Cohan tried his best, but this article is a far cry from excellent piece done by The Economist. Pay grades aside, it doesn't surprise me that the older generation can't quite wrap their heads around bitcoin.
After all, they've been brought up to believe fancy green pieces of paper are valuable, and banks do everything in their customers best interests. We're starting to see the fruits of those efforts, namely in the massive Federal Debt, and the increasingly ineffectual Federal Reserve monetary policies.
However, they stay true to the 'system' because it is all they know. All of their savings is committed to it, every possible investment expressed in green paper, whether it be bits on a hard drive or physical notes in their hands.
Bitcoin is the first iteration of many online currencies that will spring up, and I dare say, the beginning of the end for many of the useless intermediaries that siphon off their 'cut'.
Of course a Forbes writer doesn't like it. Even if he understood it properly, he'd realize that it is the unrelenting flow that erodes large ponderous organizations, much like the one he works for.
Keep deriding bitcoin, it is okay, we'll be here when your next job demands you get paid with it.
Sorry but Forbes is for cunts by cunts.
Forbes is obviously biased towards a statist world.
look at these article titles....
More on Forbes Right Now
o How to Purchase Guns and Drugs Anonymously
o Are Bitcoins Worth Their Weight in Gold?
o So, That's the End of Bitcoin Then
o Bitcoin: the First $500,000 Theft
o PayPal Gets Pep In Its Step, Puts eBay On The March
Love the that last one "PayPal Gets Pep In Its Step"
right after the 4 articles about : "bitcoin buys guns and drugs" "Theft!
" etc.
give me a break
Forbes is obviously biased towards a statist world.
look at these article titles....
More on Forbes Right Now
o How to Purchase Guns and Drugs Anonymously
o Are Bitcoins Worth Their Weight in Gold?
o So, That's the End of Bitcoin Then
o Bitcoin: the First $500,000 Theft
o PayPal Gets Pep In Its Step, Puts eBay On The March
Love the that last one "PayPal Gets Pep In Its Step"
right after the 4 articles about : "bitcoin buys guns and drugs" "Theft!
" etc. give me a break
This article says I made $3 million....Hahahah very funny.
Interesting they refer to Flooz going bust. That case looks like it was supported by one central company.
for BTC there is no central entity acting as clearing-house and balance keeper for all users - the point of it being distributed is there isn't a single point of failure
(example, if the US federal reserve vanished - borrowed by aliens or whatever - people would still have dollars to go buy a beer or pay for their taxi because the FED isn't a fail point (well it might be, but that's another discussion))
for BTC there is no central entity acting as clearing-house and balance keeper for all users - the point of it being distributed is there isn't a single point of failure
(example, if the US federal reserve vanished - borrowed by aliens or whatever - people would still have dollars to go buy a beer or pay for their taxi because the FED isn't a fail point (well it might be, but that's another discussion))
Liberty Dollar got raided because their silver coins had the word "dollar" on them. Barter is legal, and Bitcoin is not even legally a security, much less a currency. http://www.lextechnologiae.com/2011/06/26/why-bitcoin-isnt-a-security-under-federal-securities-law/
There are so many great potential opportunities with Bitcoin that it would be shame for them to step in and shut it down, and with the stability in prices it's a great time to buy in.
After all, he points out, there are federal statutes that make it illegal to produce a separate currency.
I've seen this stated a few times, but never with a citation. I've read the statute that says the USD is currency and legal tender for all debts, public and private. That means that if you owe someone money and offer to pay USD, they must accept it. It does not say that they can't also choose to accept Monopoly money, for instance.
Would love to see a source for this apparently common knowledge that it is illegal to produce a separate currency.
Jump to: