Topic: NY Hearings - lets live blog this puppy : - ) - page 7. (Read 11904 times)
everything this guy is saying he wants is already being done
law enforcement dude projecting the sum of all fears on bitcoin ....
also, in the second video, Charles Lee raises a point that although bitcoin may be potentially vulnerable to attack from large foreign powers, the USA equally has the power and resources to secure the system. That could be critical if the USA needs to make a decisive decision to back Bitcoin.
LOL. They would start an ASIC farm and grab 40% of the hashing power, then they would say "We need over 51% so that we can fuck with the known terrorist wallets!"
Then they would gain 51%, and get really confused when BTC instantly crashes to $0 and nearly all the value travels to Litecoin, Namecoin, and DOGE.
"Hmm? But we're from the government, we're here to help! Why don't you want our AML help?"
DOGE? You must be joking.
also, in the second video, Charles Lee raises a point that although bitcoin may be potentially vulnerable to attack from large foreign powers, the USA equally has the power and resources to secure the system. That could be critical if the USA needs to make a decisive decision to back Bitcoin.
LOL. They would start an ASIC farm and grab 40% of the hashing power, then they would say "We need over 51% so that we can fuck with the known terrorist wallets!"
Then they would gain 51%, and get really confused when BTC instantly crashes to $0 and nearly all the value travels to Litecoin, Namecoin, and DOGE.
"Hmm? But we're from the government, we're here to help! Why don't you want our AML help?"
You would think so, but did you read my earlier post? this is check mate. If the US destroys Bitcoin they will be fighting a super-virus in the next round. they want a global crypto with a public ledger, not a tumbled public ledger, so they can track criminals.
It is in their interest to protect it now and support it, especially considering that the FBI holds 1%.
the overall tone of the meeting was that cryptos are revolutionary, they are here to stay.
also, in the second video, Charles Lee raises a point that although bitcoin may be potentially vulnerable to attack from large foreign powers, the USA equally has the power and resources to secure the system. That could be critical if the USA needs to make a decisive decision to back Bitcoin.
LOL. They would start an ASIC farm and grab 40% of the hashing power, then they would say "We need over 51% so that we can fuck with the known terrorist wallets!"
Then they would gain 51%, and get really confused when BTC instantly crashes to $0 and nearly all the value travels to Litecoin, Namecoin, and DOGE.
"Hmm? But we're from the government, we're here to help! Why don't you want our AML help?"
also, in the second video, Charles Lee raises a point that although bitcoin may be potentially vulnerable to attack from large foreign powers, the USA equally has the power and resources to secure the system. That could be critical if the USA needs to make a decisive decision to back Bitcoin.
HIGH FIVE WINKELWII!!
did you hear that?
he essentially said, if bitcoin is not supported or squashed, then a virtual currency without a public ledger (ie designed to be tumbled) is likely to take its place that is truly un-traceable!!
check mate!!
did you hear that?
he essentially said, if bitcoin is not supported or squashed, then a virtual currency without a public ledger (ie designed to be tumbled) is likely to take its place that is truly un-traceable!!
check mate!!
Yes I think the regulators may be starting to understand this. Which is why I wasn't perturbed by the answers that were along the lines of "Just keep doing what you're doing, you did get the Silk Road guy after all." There really IS no sure-fire way to stop people who REALLY want to be anonymous, from doing just that. A lot of people fuck up, for sure, but there IS going to be money-laundering, no doubt about it. And there is no easy way to take care of it. But crushing Bitcoin just means something even HARDER to trace is going to pop up, and attempts are already being made at making bitcoin anonymity even easier and easier.
HIGH FIVE WINKELWII!!
did you hear that?
he essentially said, if bitcoin is not supported or squashed, then a virtual currency without a public ledger (ie designed to be tumbled) is likely to take its place that is truly un-traceable!!
check mate!!
did you hear that?
he essentially said, if bitcoin is not supported or squashed, then a virtual currency without a public ledger (ie designed to be tumbled) is likely to take its place that is truly un-traceable!!
check mate!!
Some of these guys, I believe truly exist in the currency for the right reasons, but the twinkle twins only believe in a panned out pump and dump. Who would expect anything else from them.
They claimed they haven't dumped a single BTC yet and sure they've had many opportunities at multiple peaks.
These guys are thinking a lot bigger than the average Bitcoiner. They're already loaded. They want to be richer than Zuckerberg just because they bought a bunch of BTC early on. They're not here to make $10 Million, or $100 Million. They want what Justin Timberlake wants in the Social Network, Billions.
I guess I gotta give it to them, they have mastered making money while contributing absolutely nothing of value.
Some of these guys, I believe truly exist in the currency for the right reasons, but the twinkle twins only believe in a panned out pump and dump. Who would expect anything else from them.
They claimed they haven't dumped a single BTC yet and sure they've had many opportunities at multiple peaks.
One interesting thing I noticed this time, as opposed to the last hearing, is that the Bitcoin backers seemed to be much more on the defensive. In the previous hearing, law enforcement officials came on and were the ones tackling the regulation questions. They gave a positive outlook on the situation, and the Bitcoiners really didn't face as much questioning in terms of regulation. Now, this isn't the fairest direct comparison; there were no law enforcement officials being questioned in the NY Hearings.
However, now the Bitcoiners were having to answer really tough questions. Questions they don't have an answer to, whether they admit it or not. They are being asked how Bitcoin can be regulated to prevent money laundering and illicit activity. They bring up past successful investigations by law enforcement, such as the Silk Road shutdown, but offer very little insight into how they themselves can combat these issues. They're alluding to the notion that law enforcement just needs to continue investigating the bad guys, and they'll do their best to enforce KYC.
Unfortunately, I don't think these answers were satisfactory to the panel. Granted, they're nearly impossible to satisfy here, but to give the answer "you guys just need to keep working hard at finding the criminals" made me cringe a bit. The government understands that it can expend a bunch of resources going after these guys, and if they invest enough into it, they should be able to find them. But they're saying they want Bitcoin and Bitcoin-based businesses to make sites like Silk-Road more difficult / impossible to run.
I would have said that there have been many advancements since Silk Road 1.0 was created. Exchanges were not even requiring customers to verify their identities up until Q2 2013. That's under 1 year ago. Buying Bitcoin has become less anonymous everyday, and you will not find a notable exchange which provides service to US citizens without completing KYC verification. Furthermore, the successful Silk Road raid has scared a vast majority of potential clients and sellers away from this type of marketplace. We've also seen many new illegal marketplaces shut down due to operators fleeing with users' funds. The confidence in the Dark Markets is very low right now.
If you look how far Bitcoin has come in just 2 years, where people could easily and without fear of repercussions trade contraband with BTC, to today, where only the most technology-savvy users can be confident at all in anonymity, and with the Dark Markets, it is night and day. It's unfair to expect things to change overnight, but there have been obvious and major progressions over a fairly short time span.
Furthermore, if the government refuses to accept crypto-currency and figure out a way to keep the average user happy, it will simply slip into the underworld. There is no way for the government to shut these things down. The criminals will find a way to continue on crypto with or without government approval of Bitcoin. These are decentralized instruments, and by over-regulating them, you will just kill the currency and the criminals will operate with other derivatives of crypto. By working with Bitcoin and Bitcoin businesses, you keep the volume in your playing field, where you can at least call some of the shots.
All in all I don't think this was the best showing for Bitcoin in general. The cool new feeling of Bitcoin is wearing off and the government is starting to really focus in on the negative aspects (in their POV). Realistically, I don't think we have an answer for these problems at the end of the day. The government wants absolute control, they always want absolute control, and I think they're starting to realize that crypto is a step in the wrong direction in achieving this goal. No one should be surprised. The more popular Bitcoin gets, the more it's going to get hated by governments. Bitcoin, at its roots, is designed specifically to exclude the need for authority.
Final side note, hilarious to see those Winklevoss leeches on the panel. You can just see how scummy they truly are. In nearly all questions they answer, all it looks like to me is them saying "please let my Bitcoins be worth more, please!" These twinkle twins look like they'd toss each other under the bus if it meant making a quick buck. Some of these guys, I believe truly exist in the currency for the right reasons, but the twinkle twins only believe in a panned out pump and dump. Who would expect anything else from them.
However, now the Bitcoiners were having to answer really tough questions. Questions they don't have an answer to, whether they admit it or not. They are being asked how Bitcoin can be regulated to prevent money laundering and illicit activity. They bring up past successful investigations by law enforcement, such as the Silk Road shutdown, but offer very little insight into how they themselves can combat these issues. They're alluding to the notion that law enforcement just needs to continue investigating the bad guys, and they'll do their best to enforce KYC.
Unfortunately, I don't think these answers were satisfactory to the panel. Granted, they're nearly impossible to satisfy here, but to give the answer "you guys just need to keep working hard at finding the criminals" made me cringe a bit. The government understands that it can expend a bunch of resources going after these guys, and if they invest enough into it, they should be able to find them. But they're saying they want Bitcoin and Bitcoin-based businesses to make sites like Silk-Road more difficult / impossible to run.
I would have said that there have been many advancements since Silk Road 1.0 was created. Exchanges were not even requiring customers to verify their identities up until Q2 2013. That's under 1 year ago. Buying Bitcoin has become less anonymous everyday, and you will not find a notable exchange which provides service to US citizens without completing KYC verification. Furthermore, the successful Silk Road raid has scared a vast majority of potential clients and sellers away from this type of marketplace. We've also seen many new illegal marketplaces shut down due to operators fleeing with users' funds. The confidence in the Dark Markets is very low right now.
If you look how far Bitcoin has come in just 2 years, where people could easily and without fear of repercussions trade contraband with BTC, to today, where only the most technology-savvy users can be confident at all in anonymity, and with the Dark Markets, it is night and day. It's unfair to expect things to change overnight, but there have been obvious and major progressions over a fairly short time span.
Furthermore, if the government refuses to accept crypto-currency and figure out a way to keep the average user happy, it will simply slip into the underworld. There is no way for the government to shut these things down. The criminals will find a way to continue on crypto with or without government approval of Bitcoin. These are decentralized instruments, and by over-regulating them, you will just kill the currency and the criminals will operate with other derivatives of crypto. By working with Bitcoin and Bitcoin businesses, you keep the volume in your playing field, where you can at least call some of the shots.
All in all I don't think this was the best showing for Bitcoin in general. The cool new feeling of Bitcoin is wearing off and the government is starting to really focus in on the negative aspects (in their POV). Realistically, I don't think we have an answer for these problems at the end of the day. The government wants absolute control, they always want absolute control, and I think they're starting to realize that crypto is a step in the wrong direction in achieving this goal. No one should be surprised. The more popular Bitcoin gets, the more it's going to get hated by governments. Bitcoin, at its roots, is designed specifically to exclude the need for authority.
Final side note, hilarious to see those Winklevoss leeches on the panel. You can just see how scummy they truly are. In nearly all questions they answer, all it looks like to me is them saying "please let my Bitcoins be worth more, please!" These twinkle twins look like they'd toss each other under the bus if it meant making a quick buck. Some of these guys, I believe truly exist in the currency for the right reasons, but the twinkle twins only believe in a panned out pump and dump. Who would expect anything else from them.
I agree. Thanks for your summary. +1
One interesting thing I noticed this time, as opposed to the last hearing, is that the Bitcoin backers seemed to be much more on the defensive. In the previous hearing, law enforcement officials came on and were the ones tackling the regulation questions. They gave a positive outlook on the situation, and the Bitcoiners really didn't face as much questioning in terms of regulation. Now, this isn't the fairest direct comparison; there were no law enforcement officials being questioned in the NY Hearings.
However, now the Bitcoiners were having to answer really tough questions. Questions they don't have an answer to, whether they admit it or not. They are being asked how Bitcoin can be regulated to prevent money laundering and illicit activity. They bring up past successful investigations by law enforcement, such as the Silk Road shutdown, but offer very little insight into how they themselves can combat these issues. They're alluding to the notion that law enforcement just needs to continue investigating the bad guys, and they'll do their best to enforce KYC.
Unfortunately, I don't think these answers were satisfactory to the panel. Granted, they're nearly impossible to satisfy here, but to give the answer "you guys just need to keep working hard at finding the criminals" made me cringe a bit. The government understands that it can expend a bunch of resources going after these guys, and if they invest enough into it, they should be able to find them. But they're saying they want Bitcoin and Bitcoin-based businesses to make sites like Silk-Road more difficult / impossible to run.
I would have said that there have been many advancements since Silk Road 1.0 was created. Exchanges were not even requiring customers to verify their identities up until Q2 2013. That's under 1 year ago. Buying Bitcoin has become less anonymous everyday, and you will not find a notable exchange which provides service to US citizens without completing KYC verification. Furthermore, the successful Silk Road raid has scared a vast majority of potential clients and sellers away from this type of marketplace. We've also seen many new illegal marketplaces shut down due to operators fleeing with users' funds. The confidence in the Dark Markets is very low right now.
If you look how far Bitcoin has come in just 2 years, where people could easily and without fear of repercussions trade contraband with BTC, to today, where only the most technology-savvy users can be confident at all in anonymity, and with the Dark Markets, it is night and day. It's unfair to expect things to change overnight, but there have been obvious and major progressions over a fairly short time span.
Furthermore, if the government refuses to accept crypto-currency and figure out a way to keep the average user happy, it will simply slip into the underworld. There is no way for the government to shut these things down. The criminals will find a way to continue on crypto with or without government approval of Bitcoin. These are decentralized instruments, and by over-regulating them, you will just kill the currency and the criminals will operate with other derivatives of crypto. By working with Bitcoin and Bitcoin businesses, you keep the volume in your playing field, where you can at least call some of the shots.
All in all I don't think this was the best showing for Bitcoin in general. The cool new feeling of Bitcoin is wearing off and the government is starting to really focus in on the negative aspects (in their POV). Realistically, I don't think we have an answer for these problems at the end of the day. The government wants absolute control, they always want absolute control, and I think they're starting to realize that crypto is a step in the wrong direction in achieving this goal. No one should be surprised. The more popular Bitcoin gets, the more it's going to get hated by governments. Bitcoin, at its roots, is designed specifically to exclude the need for authority.
Final side note, hilarious to see those Winklevoss leeches on the panel. You can just see how scummy they truly are. In nearly all questions they answer, all it looks like to me is them saying "please let my Bitcoins be worth more, please!" These twinkle twins look like they'd toss each other under the bus if it meant making a quick buck. Some of these guys, I believe truly exist in the currency for the right reasons, but the twinkle twins only believe in a panned out pump and dump. Who would expect anything else from them.
However, now the Bitcoiners were having to answer really tough questions. Questions they don't have an answer to, whether they admit it or not. They are being asked how Bitcoin can be regulated to prevent money laundering and illicit activity. They bring up past successful investigations by law enforcement, such as the Silk Road shutdown, but offer very little insight into how they themselves can combat these issues. They're alluding to the notion that law enforcement just needs to continue investigating the bad guys, and they'll do their best to enforce KYC.
Unfortunately, I don't think these answers were satisfactory to the panel. Granted, they're nearly impossible to satisfy here, but to give the answer "you guys just need to keep working hard at finding the criminals" made me cringe a bit. The government understands that it can expend a bunch of resources going after these guys, and if they invest enough into it, they should be able to find them. But they're saying they want Bitcoin and Bitcoin-based businesses to make sites like Silk-Road more difficult / impossible to run.
I would have said that there have been many advancements since Silk Road 1.0 was created. Exchanges were not even requiring customers to verify their identities up until Q2 2013. That's under 1 year ago. Buying Bitcoin has become less anonymous everyday, and you will not find a notable exchange which provides service to US citizens without completing KYC verification. Furthermore, the successful Silk Road raid has scared a vast majority of potential clients and sellers away from this type of marketplace. We've also seen many new illegal marketplaces shut down due to operators fleeing with users' funds. The confidence in the Dark Markets is very low right now.
If you look how far Bitcoin has come in just 2 years, where people could easily and without fear of repercussions trade contraband with BTC, to today, where only the most technology-savvy users can be confident at all in anonymity, and with the Dark Markets, it is night and day. It's unfair to expect things to change overnight, but there have been obvious and major progressions over a fairly short time span.
Furthermore, if the government refuses to accept crypto-currency and figure out a way to keep the average user happy, it will simply slip into the underworld. There is no way for the government to shut these things down. The criminals will find a way to continue on crypto with or without government approval of Bitcoin. These are decentralized instruments, and by over-regulating them, you will just kill the currency and the criminals will operate with other derivatives of crypto. By working with Bitcoin and Bitcoin businesses, you keep the volume in your playing field, where you can at least call some of the shots.
All in all I don't think this was the best showing for Bitcoin in general. The cool new feeling of Bitcoin is wearing off and the government is starting to really focus in on the negative aspects (in their POV). Realistically, I don't think we have an answer for these problems at the end of the day. The government wants absolute control, they always want absolute control, and I think they're starting to realize that crypto is a step in the wrong direction in achieving this goal. No one should be surprised. The more popular Bitcoin gets, the more it's going to get hated by governments. Bitcoin, at its roots, is designed specifically to exclude the need for authority.
Final side note, hilarious to see those Winklevoss leeches on the panel. You can just see how scummy they truly are. In nearly all questions they answer, all it looks like to me is them saying "please let my Bitcoins be worth more, please!" These twinkle twins look like they'd toss each other under the bus if it meant making a quick buck. Some of these guys, I believe truly exist in the currency for the right reasons, but the twinkle twins only believe in a panned out pump and dump. Who would expect anything else from them.
I disagree. I think it was very positive today.
Senators aren't regulators. So that was more softball, general stuff. Regulators are a different breed. The fact that bitcoins continued existence was an assumed fact speaks volumns. It sounded like the regulators were ready to write guidelines and I didn't get any indication that those guidelines would be overly suppressive. You obviously have some issue with the twins that is abnormal. The creation of the ETF is a HUGE step for the acceptance of bitcoin.
I think you assume that governments inherently hate bitcoin. I think you are wrong. Governments, like ours in the US, are run by elected officials. Their #1 priority is job security. To be reelected. Those that say governments hate bitcoin are just extremists and conspiracy theorists.
One interesting thing I noticed this time, as opposed to the last hearing, is that the Bitcoin backers seemed to be much more on the defensive. In the previous hearing, law enforcement officials came on and were the ones tackling the regulation questions. They gave a positive outlook on the situation, and the Bitcoiners really didn't face as much questioning in terms of regulation. Now, this isn't the fairest direct comparison; there were no law enforcement officials being questioned in the NY Hearings.
However, now the Bitcoiners were having to answer really tough questions. Questions they don't have an answer to, whether they admit it or not. They are being asked how Bitcoin can be regulated to prevent money laundering and illicit activity. They bring up past successful investigations by law enforcement, such as the Silk Road shutdown, but offer very little insight into how they themselves can combat these issues. They're alluding to the notion that law enforcement just needs to continue investigating the bad guys, and they'll do their best to enforce KYC.
Unfortunately, I don't think these answers were satisfactory to the panel. Granted, they're nearly impossible to satisfy here, but to give the answer "you guys just need to keep working hard at finding the criminals" made me cringe a bit. The government understands that it can expend a bunch of resources going after these guys, and if they invest enough into it, they should be able to find them. But they're saying they want Bitcoin and Bitcoin-based businesses to make sites like Silk-Road more difficult / impossible to run.
I would have said that there have been many advancements since Silk Road 1.0 was created. Exchanges were not even requiring customers to verify their identities up until Q2 2013. That's under 1 year ago. Buying Bitcoin has become less anonymous everyday, and you will not find a notable exchange which provides service to US citizens without completing KYC verification. Furthermore, the successful Silk Road raid has scared a vast majority of potential clients and sellers away from this type of marketplace. We've also seen many new illegal marketplaces shut down due to operators fleeing with users' funds. The confidence in the Dark Markets is very low right now.
If you look how far Bitcoin has come in just 2 years, where people could easily and without fear of repercussions trade contraband with BTC, to today, where only the most technology-savvy users can be confident at all in anonymity, and with the Dark Markets, it is night and day. It's unfair to expect things to change overnight, but there have been obvious and major progressions over a fairly short time span.
Furthermore, if the government refuses to accept crypto-currency and figure out a way to keep the average user happy, it will simply slip into the underworld. There is no way for the government to shut these things down. The criminals will find a way to continue on crypto with or without government approval of Bitcoin. These are decentralized instruments, and by over-regulating them, you will just kill the currency and the criminals will operate with other derivatives of crypto. By working with Bitcoin and Bitcoin businesses, you keep the volume in your playing field, where you can at least call some of the shots.
All in all I don't think this was the best showing for Bitcoin in general. The cool new feeling of Bitcoin is wearing off and the government is starting to really focus in on the negative aspects (in their POV). Realistically, I don't think we have an answer for these problems at the end of the day. The government wants absolute control, they always want absolute control, and I think they're starting to realize that crypto is a step in the wrong direction in achieving this goal. No one should be surprised. The more popular Bitcoin gets, the more it's going to get hated by governments. Bitcoin, at its roots, is designed specifically to exclude the need for authority.
Final side note, hilarious to see those Winklevoss leeches on the panel. You can just see how scummy they truly are. In nearly all questions they answer, all it looks like to me is them saying "please let my Bitcoins be worth more, please!" These twinkle twins look like they'd toss each other under the bus if it meant making a quick buck. Some of these guys, I believe truly exist in the currency for the right reasons, but the twinkle twins only believe in a panned out pump and dump. Who would expect anything else from them.
However, now the Bitcoiners were having to answer really tough questions. Questions they don't have an answer to, whether they admit it or not. They are being asked how Bitcoin can be regulated to prevent money laundering and illicit activity. They bring up past successful investigations by law enforcement, such as the Silk Road shutdown, but offer very little insight into how they themselves can combat these issues. They're alluding to the notion that law enforcement just needs to continue investigating the bad guys, and they'll do their best to enforce KYC.
Unfortunately, I don't think these answers were satisfactory to the panel. Granted, they're nearly impossible to satisfy here, but to give the answer "you guys just need to keep working hard at finding the criminals" made me cringe a bit. The government understands that it can expend a bunch of resources going after these guys, and if they invest enough into it, they should be able to find them. But they're saying they want Bitcoin and Bitcoin-based businesses to make sites like Silk-Road more difficult / impossible to run.
I would have said that there have been many advancements since Silk Road 1.0 was created. Exchanges were not even requiring customers to verify their identities up until Q2 2013. That's under 1 year ago. Buying Bitcoin has become less anonymous everyday, and you will not find a notable exchange which provides service to US citizens without completing KYC verification. Furthermore, the successful Silk Road raid has scared a vast majority of potential clients and sellers away from this type of marketplace. We've also seen many new illegal marketplaces shut down due to operators fleeing with users' funds. The confidence in the Dark Markets is very low right now.
If you look how far Bitcoin has come in just 2 years, where people could easily and without fear of repercussions trade contraband with BTC, to today, where only the most technology-savvy users can be confident at all in anonymity, and with the Dark Markets, it is night and day. It's unfair to expect things to change overnight, but there have been obvious and major progressions over a fairly short time span.
Furthermore, if the government refuses to accept crypto-currency and figure out a way to keep the average user happy, it will simply slip into the underworld. There is no way for the government to shut these things down. The criminals will find a way to continue on crypto with or without government approval of Bitcoin. These are decentralized instruments, and by over-regulating them, you will just kill the currency and the criminals will operate with other derivatives of crypto. By working with Bitcoin and Bitcoin businesses, you keep the volume in your playing field, where you can at least call some of the shots.
All in all I don't think this was the best showing for Bitcoin in general. The cool new feeling of Bitcoin is wearing off and the government is starting to really focus in on the negative aspects (in their POV). Realistically, I don't think we have an answer for these problems at the end of the day. The government wants absolute control, they always want absolute control, and I think they're starting to realize that crypto is a step in the wrong direction in achieving this goal. No one should be surprised. The more popular Bitcoin gets, the more it's going to get hated by governments. Bitcoin, at its roots, is designed specifically to exclude the need for authority.
Final side note, hilarious to see those Winklevoss leeches on the panel. You can just see how scummy they truly are. In nearly all questions they answer, all it looks like to me is them saying "please let my Bitcoins be worth more, please!" These twinkle twins look like they'd toss each other under the bus if it meant making a quick buck. Some of these guys, I believe truly exist in the currency for the right reasons, but the twinkle twins only believe in a panned out pump and dump. Who would expect anything else from them.
Excellent. Thanks for the live blog everyone. Someone must have recorded this?!
go to the link http://www.totalwebcasting.com/view/?id=nysdfs its "archived"
Do you guys really live in a fantasy world where the exchange price was following everything said at the conference in real time?
Excellent. Thanks for the live blog everyone. Someone must have recorded this?!
Good lord, the media spin already... sheesh that was fast
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/28/in-praise-of-bitcoin-with-little-regard-for-banks/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1&
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/28/in-praise-of-bitcoin-with-little-regard-for-banks/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1&
WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE POOR BANKS?!
NO.
Good lord, the media spin already... sheesh that was fast
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/28/in-praise-of-bitcoin-with-little-regard-for-banks/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1&
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/28/in-praise-of-bitcoin-with-little-regard-for-banks/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1&
WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE POOR BANKS?!
Jump to: