Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 1124. (Read 2032266 times)
Erdogan: Governments confiscating assets and taint seem like entirely different things to me. I read cypherdoc's post as implying a US Government agency has stated they will consider some bitcoins illegal to use due to their having reviously been associated with activities frowned upon by the US gov't. That's what I'd like clarified - has such a statement been made, and where?
Its what steve jobs would have wanted 
Forget ghash.
Apple's making good:
http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-wallet-apps-re-enter-ios-store-apples-digital-currency-policy-shift/
Apple's making good:
http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-wallet-apps-re-enter-ios-store-apples-digital-currency-policy-shift/
The Feds sale of btc is great news for fungibility.
Yes and no. I've noted that large potential investors may be specifically interested in this sale since it's gov-approved bitcoin. But if that's true, then these are "special" bitcoins right now...
But there's an inherent contradiction in the gov't position if they sell for profit these tainted drug coins which was the premise on which they snatched them in the first place and their argument that the rest of us can't transact in tainted coins.
I must have missed something, where did the gov't make any claim about taint?
It was not said on this occasion, but generally governments will confiscate money that is earned by criminal actions, even if it is not the criminal, but some other, non convicted, party that currently have them. The confiscated money can then be spent by the governments. It is a double standard and it is not right.
The Feds sale of btc is great news for fungibility.
Yes and no. I've noted that large potential investors may be specifically interested in this sale since it's gov-approved bitcoin. But if that's true, then these are "special" bitcoins right now...
But there's an inherent contradiction in the gov't position if they sell for profit these tainted drug coins which was the premise on which they snatched them in the first place and their argument that the rest of us can't transact in tainted coins.
I must have missed something, where did the gov't make any claim about taint?
The Feds sale of btc is great news for fungibility.
Yes and no. I've noted that large potential investors may be specifically interested in this sale since it's gov-approved bitcoin. But if that's true, then these are "special" bitcoins right now...
But there's an inherent contradiction in the gov't position if they sell for profit these tainted drug coins which was the premise on which they snatched them in the first place and their argument that the rest of us can't transact in tainted coins.
Not at all. Taint is not an issue. The important thing is control of taint. Obviously there will be mechanisms to remove it. That'll be the incentive to register and pay one's taxes and so forth. Eventually. This will be ratcheted in over time of course.
More idiotic socialist drivel from you.
Why are you even in Bitcoin? You don't seem to understand what is being attempted here. If you give gov't the right to be the final arbiter about which coins are clean versus which are tainted, you've lost any advantage over fiat.
You might as well admit you're an opportunist. And don't come back with some bs about being a pragmatist.
Gold will collapse to the price of nothing till the end of the world, there is a prophety from a Christian saint for this. He said that in 19th century, so far predictions looking correct. 
Interesting way for a (fairly) mainstream publication to start a bitcoin piece:
"A Beginner's Guide to Owning Bitcoin" - http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/234742
Quote from: entrepreneur.com
By now you know enough about Bitcoin to want in, but you’re not sure how to get some of your own...
"A Beginner's Guide to Owning Bitcoin" - http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/234742
The Feds sale of btc is great news for fungibility.
Yes and no. I've noted that large potential investors may be specifically interested in this sale since it's gov-approved bitcoin. But if that's true, then these are "special" bitcoins right now...
But there's an inherent contradiction in the gov't position if they sell for profit these tainted drug coins which was the premise on which they snatched them in the first place and their argument that the rest of us can't transact in tainted coins.
Not at all. Taint is not an issue. The important thing is control of taint. Obviously there will be mechanisms to remove it. That'll be the incentive to register and pay one's taxes and so forth. Eventually. This will be ratcheted in over time of course.
The Feds sale of btc is great news for fungibility.
Yes and no. I've noted that large potential investors may be specifically interested in this sale since it's gov-approved bitcoin. But if that's true, then these are "special" bitcoins right now...
Quite a good point. It will be very interesting to know what these BTC sell for if that info is public. Especially whether they command a premium or not. It will also be interesting to see if they are tagged differently a-la the 'enjoy/sochi' methods.
Have used Uber twice now while on vacation.
Great service with courteous drivers and reasonable if not cheaper cost. The drivers also understand the economic reality of what's happening.
Uber is good, bitcoin is great. Great service with courteous drivers and reasonable if not cheaper cost. The drivers also understand the economic reality of what's happening.
Next Up the taxi wars. I
You have that inside out. The state intervened in the free market to give some friends a monopoly.
That’s almost how Wikipedia puts it, I don’t think I have it the wrong way round, I’d agree the problem was exacerbated by the state but until the mid 80’s taxi’s for practical purposes didn’t exist.
Sanctions made cars or minibus taxi's unaffordable to the masses, so in effect the free market was oppressed by law and sanctions, if you were a laborer you had to use the monopoly PUTCO to get around. Taxi’s only served a minority and became viable for the masses in the mid 80 with the production of the Toyota HiAce.
After the mid 80’s ever tom dick and harry bought a HiAce when Toyota started making them in South Africa, the result was a flood of entrepreneurs started called themselves taxi drivers, and by the late 80’ the market was saturated, and competition drove out profit. If there ever was a taxi monopoly, no one in South Africa cared and it was never part of the race, they were left behind at the start with the production of the HiAce. What resulted was a gold rush and after market saturation it was taxi gang warfare, called informal associations, then the state intervened in the free market to give some "friends" a monopoly, but they weren't friends, it was still apartheid.
Have used Uber twice now while on vacation.
Great service with courteous drivers and reasonable if not cheaper cost. The drivers also understand the economic reality of what's happening.
Uber is good, bitcoin is great. Great service with courteous drivers and reasonable if not cheaper cost. The drivers also understand the economic reality of what's happening.
Next Up the taxi wars. I
You have that inside out. The state intervened in the free market to give some friends a monopoly.
Have used Uber twice now while on vacation.
Great service with courteous drivers and reasonable if not cheaper cost. The drivers also understand the economic reality of what's happening.
Uber is good, bitcoin is great. Great service with courteous drivers and reasonable if not cheaper cost. The drivers also understand the economic reality of what's happening.
Next Up the taxi wars. I
Have used Uber twice now while on vacation.
Great service with courteous drivers and reasonable if not cheaper cost. The drivers also understand the economic reality of what's happening.
Uber is good, bitcoin is great. Great service with courteous drivers and reasonable if not cheaper cost. The drivers also understand the economic reality of what's happening.
Have used Uber twice now while on vacation.
Great service with courteous drivers and reasonable if not cheaper cost. The drivers also understand the economic reality of what's happening.
Great service with courteous drivers and reasonable if not cheaper cost. The drivers also understand the economic reality of what's happening.
Did you pitch bitcoin to them?
Agree that Uber is good. I find the protests in Europe ridiculous. And it's more than a little funny that Uber signups in London were up 850% due to the protests. People will look back in a few years and wonder what all the fuss was about, given how obvious and inevitable services like Uber are.
Have used Uber twice now while on vacation.
Great service with courteous drivers and reasonable if not cheaper cost. The drivers also understand the economic reality of what's happening.
Great service with courteous drivers and reasonable if not cheaper cost. The drivers also understand the economic reality of what's happening.
But there's an inherent contradiction in the gov't position if they sell for profit these tainted drug coins which was the premise on which they snatched them in the first place and their argument that the rest of us can't transact in tainted coins.
Isn't it against the law to profit from drugs/money seized from criminal activity?
Shouldn't the coins be burned (i.e. private keys wiped forever) or are the proceeds from this sale going to good use, such as an addiction charity?
The cops are legally obliged to incinerate drugs and drug money, aren't they?
I'm not getting on some kind of moral high horse, here. I was a member of Silk Road back in the day but it doesn't seem right that they would gain from this.
The Feds sale of btc is great news for fungibility.
Yes and no. I've noted that large potential investors may be specifically interested in this sale since it's gov-approved bitcoin. But if that's true, then these are "special" bitcoins right now...
But there's an inherent contradiction in the gov't position if they sell for profit these tainted drug coins which was the premise on which they snatched them in the first place and their argument that the rest of us can't transact in tainted coins.
Oh, I hear ya... The irony is not lost on me.
The Feds sale of btc is great news for fungibility.
Yes and no. I've noted that large potential investors may be specifically interested in this sale since it's gov-approved bitcoin. But if that's true, then these are "special" bitcoins right now...
But there's an inherent contradiction in the gov't position if they sell for profit these tainted drug coins which was the premise on which they snatched them in the first place and their argument that the rest of us can't transact in tainted coins.
The Feds sale of btc is great news for fungibility.
Yes and no. I've noted that large potential investors may be specifically interested in this sale since it's gov-approved bitcoin. But if that's true, then these are "special" bitcoins right now...
Jump to: