Topic: I am fucking panicking - page 2. (Read 15802 times)

Those countries are extremely unsafe to store gold or other valuable stuffs, if they realize that they can store their money in a save way like BTC ,what makes you think they would not to do so assume their local currency are almost incapable to store value ,because the uncertainty of their government .

The company in Argentina can received in btc and use future market to secure its value(plus 500 or 796 ).. thus Volatility can become not a problem for them.
And it is also a problem that MT.GOX even thought as a largest liquidity method but it also sometime can't meet the needs, there are other way can solve this problem out by invent a trader that use fixed exchange rate to dealing with large transaction.(often 2-3% below the market average) Then this company can sold its BTC separately by small quantity over different exchanges.(Not only can make profit on the transaction ,it also release liquidity and price pressure on those exchanges)
So, the potential of BTC is numerous, all problem of its either liquidity or volatility can be perfectly be solved...

Yeah, well, this is pretty much the list of countries that Paypal does not serve. Certainly you would expect a US payment processor not to serve countries on the embargo list? However, I am curious as to evidence that bitcoin is more liquid in Belarus and Somalia. Or that bitcoin adoption has taken off in North Korea and Burma.   I mean, Iranians have paypaad / mpaad, Bangladeshis have payza, etc... so comparing bitcoin to Paypal in that context isn't relevant. Naturally, it's not about being more liquid than Paypal. Paypal is just one of many, many examples, as stated earlier.

Why the hell would they do that?
REVOLUTION!!!  

Agreed ~

yeah i wouldn't invest in Google at IPO because all they did was help me search the internet

[high potential] + [infrastructure gaps] = [huge opportunity]

Completely agree on the "potential" part. Bitcoin is revolutionary indeed, but its potential its still unrealized.

Going back at the two personal examples I gave you in my last posts: the company with which I did business in Argentina in the past, would never pay me in BTC at this stage. The process to buy significant amounts of BTC its still too lengthy, complicated and shady, especially for a big company - the volatility risk is also too big ATM. As absurd as it sounds, right now the only solution would be the one I was proposed, which was to fly to Argentina to pick up a suitcase full of pesos (an alternative would be dollars bought in the black market, but that is too risky and thus out of the question for a legit company trying to transfer a big amount of $).

On the contrary my friend in South America is using BTC to move some money back and forth, but still he couldn't make his relatives to understand how to safely "cash out" without my help.

Making a long story short, the potential is all there but the current infrastructure its not good enough to realize that potential. Bitcoin *can* be a revolution indeed, but it still has a long way to go.

What I do not agree with is with the statement that BTC being decentralized and trust-free is only "ideological" stuff with no utility. No sir, not at all. Those characteristics has the potential to solve very real, daily problems for millions of people on the planet.

Would you agree that we're closer than we were two years ago? A year ago? 6 months ago? 3 months? 1?

You definitely bring up some interesting points. My feeling is that bitcoin is too illiquid and volatile at this point to serve these purposes on scales worth mentioning, though I agree, the potential is there. Indeed, people are becoming perpetually poorer because of destructive monetary policy, but that doesn't address what I was saying. My frustration is with the tendency to speak of bitcoin's potential as already having been fulfilled -- and that by its potential alone, it is useful. This forum is awash with that sentiment. It's funny, but frustrating, when people ignore everything you say and reply, "but, bitcoin revolution!" or something similar. The early discussion re utility is a good example of how irrelevant that can be (and how cult-like it comes off).

    Bitcoin is more liquid than paypal in Afghanistan, Montenegro, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma, Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, Syria, Belarus, and Somalia. This is approximately 600 million people. Even if they only made an average of 1 dollar a day and saved at a rate of 5%, and then put an average of 20% of their savings in bitcoin to be able to make international transactions, this would mean a tripling of bitcoin's market cap. There are at least a few people among those 600 million who would like to make purchases online and are hindered from doing so by restrictions that ultimately only benefit the rich. Both capitalists and socialists can get behind bitcoin in good conscience- free markets create more wealth, free flow of money loosens super elites monopoly death grip on the global order. The more they tighten their fists the more bitcoins will slip through their fingers!

Bitcoin is actually extremely illiquid in much of the world. Are you actually suggesting that bitcoins are more liquid than Paypal $? What evidence do you have for this?

"Locked" in a Paypal account? According to Paypal, there are 110 million active accounts. There are what, 1.5-2 million funded bitcoin addresses? Are you aware of what Paypal is, and that large, reputable businesses accept it (unlike bitcoin)? It's accepted point-of-sale in 2 million retail stores.

Why do you seem to think exchanging bitcoins locally would be more useful or prevalent than exchanging Paypal currency locally? In the context of developing markets, why would you assume that bitcoin is more liquid?

This you call "political philosophy and idealism" is in reality a very big practical problem solver for a big part of the world. I will give you two examples based on my very own personal experience:

1) Have you ever tried to do business with Argentina? I've been doing for many years, with big and reputable companies (but currently in a "fight" with C. Kirchner), until they couldn't pay us any more in USD because of internal monetary policy. The situation got so absurd that I was offered to flight to Buenos Aires to pick up a suitcase full of useless pesos. Obviously I declined as that is a dangerous game, I took quite a big loss and I moved on, not doing any more business with that country. That problem persists and is very common in my industry, Argentina is "cut out". BTC has the potential to solve that problem.

2) One of my best friend moved to a South American country, and there are very big barriers to get a residence permit (the process is lengthy and the bureocracy messy), and without resident permit you can't have bank accounts that allow international wires, both incoming and outgoing. BTC is actually solving that problem, besides of the exchange rate risk (which is indeed big at this moment).

Plus, I think that I don't have to remind you what happened in Cyprus, and the amount of money taxpayers from most of Europe and the US had to pay from their own pockets to bail out "too big to fail" banks. I guess you also know that Southern Europe countries are in the middle now of a deep financial crisis triggered again but a disastrous monetary policy.

So, I understand how for a lot of US and generally speaking "first world" folks the "decentralized, trust-free" characteristic of BTC is only "ideological", but the reality is it is not: millions of people are becoming poorer because of the IMF, FED or ECB monetary policies.

TL;DR -> do not underestimate the practical need for monetary freedom.

There are many, many ways to convert Bitcoins to local fiat everywhere in the world (which is a factor in liquidity).

To be able to purchase locally with funds locked in a paypal account doesn't seem the same, does it?

Why are you guys getting so angry go back to inflationary fiat only designed to keep you on the mouse wheel the rest of your life if you love it so much!

Dude. Are you serious? You are telling me that you can use bitcoins for P2P payments. I am telling you that you can do the same thing with Paypal, cheaper, in all of the places that you claimed that people couldn't. The only thing that matters is liquidity -- and there is no question that mobile/web payments providers will continue to ramp up services in developing countries.

You can't withdraw BTC to a bank account in your country, can you? Much of this discussion is about people without bank accounts. I really don't see where you are going with this. The point is that people can exchange value cheaply without banks.

That is to send to their paypal account not to be able to withdraw it to a bank accunt!

That is just saying someone in those countries can open a paypal account but they cannot withdraw the cash to a bank account in their country!

Anyone can open a BTC wallet in 2 seconds, it is a level playing field there is no red tape and no BS.

No, look closer. Like bitcoin, no bank accounts needed. If the liquidity is there, there is no need for banking. It's just cheaper.

That's cool, I guess, but you saying so doesn't really make it so. I think I've made a case for why the former generally isn't true for most people. "A lot" doesn't really mean anything, does it? What is "a lot" relative to the rest of the mobile/cloud payment industry, or the banking industry?

First time I read your post I saw one of my ads offer some advice 

I thought it would have been clear that I meant the number of bitcoin addresses used (nevermind that 90% of them are empty), not the theoretical limit. I was under the impression that there were 2^160 possible (2^256 for public keys).

Though digging around I may have been looking at old stats... I believe the 11 million number was from April 2013.

There are 2^256 bitcoin addresses.
Just a example of how much 2^256 is:
If you would split each of the possible 21 million bitcoins in single satoshis and place them in their own bitcoin address, the probability of guessing such an address would still be 1.813595x10^-62