BTC is not going to be "stable" in the way described here until it gets much closer to its actual value, which is at least hundreds of times its current value.
This made me LOL. Thanks error.
Topic: Oddly Stable (Read 5551 times)
This made me LOL. Thanks error.
You haven't dealt with a lot of consumers, have you? The concept of an insured, high security means of exchange that doesn't have many disconnected and possibly untrustworthy entities, that can also allow you to dispute a charge when the product or service delivered is unsatisfactory, without having to resort to bringing a lawsuit, is extremely appealing...
And then?
People still use cash.And then?
Synaptic has a valid point: consumers do want a chargeback option.
sellers don't. sellers prefer to base their business model on reputation. they don't want third parties getting between them and their buyers.
consumers want transactors which save them the embarrassment of returning goods 'face-to-face'. and yes, some are thieves, or simply dishonorable.
there's room for both models - i don't see a problem.
no seller is going to limit himself to one payment system. i can see a time not too far off when Bitcoin sales are offered at a discount roughly equal to the fees from other payment processors + a pooled fraction of theft. something like that.
the good thing in all of this is that entities like PayPal will stop kissing consumer ass, and chargebacks will become much more difficult: they always should have been.
You haven't dealt with a lot of consumers, have you? The concept of an insured, high security means of exchange that doesn't have many disconnected and possibly untrustworthy entities, that can also allow you to dispute a charge when the product or service delivered is unsatisfactory, without having to resort to bringing a lawsuit, is extremely appealing...
And then?
People still use cash.And then?
Not online...
Unless they're starting to use Dwolla Grid, which the whole point of is the things I mentioned...
You haven't dealt with a lot of consumers, have you? The concept of an insured, high security means of exchange that doesn't have many disconnected and possibly untrustworthy entities, that can also allow you to dispute a charge when the product or service delivered is unsatisfactory, without having to resort to bringing a lawsuit, is extremely appealing...
And then?
People still use cash. And then?
I think you're a bit behind on the debate, friend.
It seems to me we've pretty much come to a consensus that centralization of certain bitcoin functions is inevitable, and even desirable.
The whole anarcho-libertarian cryptastic orgycoin concept is only appealing for a very select minority.
So, it's very very likely that demand could dry up quite quickly unless such centralization takes hold.
I don't understand how any of you got the idea in your heads that decentralized currency was ever in demand...frankly, the entire world minus you an d a couple of your buddies we could write down in a small notepad, simply do not give two flying fucks about crapto-currency.
You haven't dealt with a lot of small business owners, have you? The concept of a low-cost means of exchange that doesn't have a single authority that can arbitrarily reverse a transaction six months after a sale is extremely appealing.It seems to me we've pretty much come to a consensus that centralization of certain bitcoin functions is inevitable, and even desirable.
The whole anarcho-libertarian cryptastic orgycoin concept is only appealing for a very select minority.
So, it's very very likely that demand could dry up quite quickly unless such centralization takes hold.
I don't understand how any of you got the idea in your heads that decentralized currency was ever in demand...frankly, the entire world minus you an d a couple of your buddies we could write down in a small notepad, simply do not give two flying fucks about crapto-currency.
You haven't dealt with a lot of consumers, have you? The concept of an insured, high security means of exchange that doesn't have many disconnected and possibly untrustworthy entities, that can also allow you to dispute a charge when the product or service delivered is unsatisfactory, without having to resort to bringing a lawsuit, is extremely appealing...
And then?
I think you're a bit behind on the debate, friend.
It seems to me we've pretty much come to a consensus that centralization of certain bitcoin functions is inevitable, and even desirable.
The whole anarcho-libertarian cryptastic orgycoin concept is only appealing for a very select minority.
So, it's very very likely that demand could dry up quite quickly unless such centralization takes hold.
I don't understand how any of you got the idea in your heads that decentralized currency was ever in demand...frankly, the entire world minus you an d a couple of your buddies we could write down in a small notepad, simply do not give two flying fucks about crapto-currency.
You haven't dealt with a lot of small business owners, have you? The concept of a low-cost means of exchange that doesn't have a single authority that can arbitrarily reverse a transaction six months after a sale is extremely appealing. It seems to me we've pretty much come to a consensus that centralization of certain bitcoin functions is inevitable, and even desirable.
The whole anarcho-libertarian cryptastic orgycoin concept is only appealing for a very select minority.
So, it's very very likely that demand could dry up quite quickly unless such centralization takes hold.
I don't understand how any of you got the idea in your heads that decentralized currency was ever in demand...frankly, the entire world minus you an d a couple of your buddies we could write down in a small notepad, simply do not give two flying fucks about crapto-currency.
...you were saying?
I was saying that Napster failed and Bittorrent succeeded for the same reason that PayPal failed (to achieve the founders original intentions) and Bitcoin will succeed - centralized control.The only thing that can kill Bitcoin is insufficient demand for it. As long as people desire a decentralized currency the technology will outpace efforts to eliminate it.
I think you're a bit behind on the debate, friend.
It seems to me we've pretty much come to a consensus that centralization of certain bitcoin functions is inevitable, and even desirable.
The whole anarcho-libertarian cryptastic orgycoin concept is only appealing for a very select minority.
So, it's very very likely that demand could dry up quite quickly unless such centralization takes hold.
I don't understand how any of you got the idea in your heads that decentralized currency was ever in demand...frankly, the entire world minus you and a couple of your buddies that we could list in a small notepad, simply do not give two flying fucks about crapto-currency.
...you were saying?
I was saying that Napster failed and Bittorrent succeeded for the same reason that PayPal failed (to achieve the founders original intentions) and Bitcoin will succeed - centralized control.The only thing that can kill Bitcoin is insufficient demand for it. As long as people desire a decentralized currency the technology will outpace efforts to eliminate it.
For your average Joe and Jane, Dwolla Grid solves whatever problems related to moving money that bitcoin solves, and does it unquestionably legally too. And at $0.25 per transaction of any size, it's not much more expensive that the eventual suggested .01 BTC transaction fee and that at CURRENT exchange rates.
I believe that BTC will end up being no cheaper to use as an online transaction method than Dwolla or other new cash services. And in fact will be much more expensive from a certain point of view because of the cryptic disconnect from going from USD to BTC.
At any rate, your little explanation is still an outrageously tenuous reason for justifying BTC trading at "hundreds of times its current value."
In fact, if "ease of transactions" is the pinnacle of your vast speculative over-estimation of value, you have my sincere pity and concern for your well-being.
PayPal had a lot of great ideas too until EBay bought it and made it a lot less useful. The same thing will happen to Dwolla if it gets big.I believe that BTC will end up being no cheaper to use as an online transaction method than Dwolla or other new cash services. And in fact will be much more expensive from a certain point of view because of the cryptic disconnect from going from USD to BTC.
At any rate, your little explanation is still an outrageously tenuous reason for justifying BTC trading at "hundreds of times its current value."
In fact, if "ease of transactions" is the pinnacle of your vast speculative over-estimation of value, you have my sincere pity and concern for your well-being.
You should also consider how ease of use has advanced over the last six months and extrapolate that into the future instead of basing your assessment on the current state of the software.
"BitPal had a lot of great ideas too until BitBay bought it and made it a lot less useful. The same thing will happen to BitBuddy if it gets big."
...you were saying?
For your average Joe and Jane, Dwolla Grid solves whatever problems related to moving money that bitcoin solves, and does it unquestionably legally too. And at $0.25 per transaction of any size, it's not much more expensive that the eventual suggested .01 BTC transaction fee and that at CURRENT exchange rates.
I believe that BTC will end up being no cheaper to use as an online transaction method than Dwolla or other new cash services. And in fact will be much more expensive from a certain point of view because of the cryptic disconnect from going from USD to BTC.
At any rate, your little explanation is still an outrageously tenuous reason for justifying BTC trading at "hundreds of times its current value."
In fact, if "ease of transactions" is the pinnacle of your vast speculative over-estimation of value, you have my sincere pity and concern for your well-being.
PayPal had a lot of great ideas too until EBay bought it and made it a lot less useful. The same thing will happen to Dwolla if it gets big.I believe that BTC will end up being no cheaper to use as an online transaction method than Dwolla or other new cash services. And in fact will be much more expensive from a certain point of view because of the cryptic disconnect from going from USD to BTC.
At any rate, your little explanation is still an outrageously tenuous reason for justifying BTC trading at "hundreds of times its current value."
In fact, if "ease of transactions" is the pinnacle of your vast speculative over-estimation of value, you have my sincere pity and concern for your well-being.
You should also consider how ease of use has advanced over the last six months and extrapolate that into the future instead of basing your assessment on the current state of the software.
BTC is not going to be "stable" in the way described here until it gets much closer to its actual value, which is at least hundreds of times its current value. In the meantime, early adopter merchants stand to profit greatly even with the day-to-day volatility.
What is your basis for believing BTC's actual value is "hundreds of times its current value?"
Bitcoin solves a variety of problems related to moving money; however, it is currently extremely underutilized as a solution to those problems. As its adoption continues to increase as people seek to solve their problems, the exchange rate will also increase.
For your average Joe and Jane, Dwolla Grid solves whatever problems related to moving money that bitcoin solves, and does it unquestionably legally too. And at $0.25 per transaction of any size, it's not much more expensive that the eventual suggested .01 BTC transaction fee and that at CURRENT exchange rates.
I believe that BTC will end up being no cheaper to use as an online transaction method than Dwolla or other new cash services. And in fact will be much more expensive from a certain point of view because of the cryptic disconnect from going from USD to BTC.
At any rate, your little explanation is still an outrageously tenuous reason for justifying BTC trading at "hundreds of times its current value."
In fact, if "ease of transactions" is the pinnacle of your vast speculative over-estimation of value, you have my sincere pity and concern for your well-being.
BTC is not going to be "stable" in the way described here until it gets much closer to its actual value, which is at least hundreds of times its current value.
Please stop misleading people. Saying that some hypothetical "actual value" is thousands of dollars per BTC is no different from saying that it's "actual value" is 0.
How can I find out the average weekly rise of USD/BTC until now?
BTC is not going to be "stable" in the way described here until it gets much closer to its actual value, which is at least hundreds of times its current value. In the meantime, early adopter merchants stand to profit greatly even with the day-to-day volatility.
What is your basis for believing BTC's actual value is "hundreds of times its current value?"
Bitcoin solves a variety of problems related to moving money; however, it is currently extremely underutilized as a solution to those problems. As its adoption continues to increase as people seek to solve their problems, the exchange rate will also increase.
BTC is not going to be "stable" in the way described here until it gets much closer to its actual value, which is at least hundreds of times its current value. In the meantime, early adopter merchants stand to profit greatly even with the day-to-day volatility.
What is your basis for believing BTC's actual value is "hundreds of times its current value?"
Unsatisfied political demand. That's the white elephant in the room and pretty soon you can't ignore it.
I think you VASTLY overestimate the sheep herd's ability to even manage a gesture towards the white elephant in any meaningful way...
What is your basis for believing BTC's actual value is "hundreds of times its current value?"
I think he is right, just got the direction wrong 
BTC is not going to be "stable" in the way described here until it gets much closer to its actual value, which is at least hundreds of times its current value. In the meantime, early adopter merchants stand to profit greatly even with the day-to-day volatility.
What is your basis for believing BTC's actual value is "hundreds of times its current value?"
Unsatisfied political demand. That's the white elephant in the room and pretty soon you can't ignore it.
BTC is not going to be "stable" in the way described here until it gets much closer to its actual value, which is at least hundreds of times its current value. In the meantime, early adopter merchants stand to profit greatly even with the day-to-day volatility.
What is your basis for believing BTC's actual value is "hundreds of times its current value?"
"stable" currencies is dead currencies.
diamond cost fluctuate per/week several times. for example.
diamond cost fluctuate per/week several times. for example.
BTC is not going to be "stable" in the way described here until it gets much closer to its actual value, which is at least hundreds of times its current value. In the meantime, early adopter merchants stand to profit greatly even with the day-to-day volatility.
Jump to: