Coin
Explanation
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 22994. (Read 26708188 times)
February 08, 2015, 03:59:56 AM
February 08, 2015, 03:55:32 AM
Who said there always has to be a weekend pump or a weekend dump? Usually days of the week don't matter to the traders don't look for a pattern here.
February 08, 2015, 03:46:20 AM
The weekend pump isn't very impressive.
February 08, 2015, 03:07:56 AM
Come on bears, sell.... DUMP ONTO THE.
They are only useless coins that will soon be worth nothing, right? Might as well get rid of them while they are worth something, right?
DUMP ONTO THE
They are only useless coins that will soon be worth nothing, right? Might as well get rid of them while they are worth something, right?
DUMP ONTO THE
February 08, 2015, 03:03:05 AM
The trolls still get the folks tangled up in useless discussions, spamming the forum, shitting through all the threads. why do you give so much attention, why quote them, why even wasting precious forum and/or life time on any of those fkn idiots?
February 08, 2015, 02:59:55 AM
February 08, 2015, 02:56:43 AM
To be honest you are assuming that they are not keeping a % of the payment in BTC with their payment processor.
Some merchants may do that (just as some merchants actuall accept bitcoin directly, without BitPay's intermediation). But I am pretty sure that Dell, Microsoft, Wikipedia, etc. do not. Handling bitcoins requires extra work from accoutants, which is not worth the amount of payment received. Losses from bitcoin price variations (as Overstock and Fortress suffered) would have to be reported in the quarterly reports, and would be hard to justify to stockholders.
Quote
Also what is important to note is that BTC like USD,CAD,YEN,CHY,GBP and any other currency is being accepted for payment 
SIgh. No, it is not the same thing. Dell USA does accept USD, because you can wire USD to their bank account directly. They do not accept CAD,YEN,CHY,GBP nor BTC, and you cannot send them any of those currencies directly; you must send them to some other company, that converts them to USD and sends the USD to Dell.
Jorge, can't you see that we are arguing about what 'accepting' means? Everybody agrees about the model, the underlying chain of events that takes place during and after a payment (if a company chooses to get paid fully in fiat). It's just that when a company allows you to pay for products in BTC, I call that "accepting BTC", whereas for you "accepting" apparently means whatever you are getting paid by the payment processor at the end of the process.
I didn't follow the discussion leading to this, so maybe I'm out of line, but strangely it seems I'm siding with Stolfi on this. If we're talking about what it means to accept BTC I think we have to ask why we want companies to do that. In the end we'd like to see a purely Bitcoin-based economy with the companies using the BTC they're being payed with for their products to cover their cost (machinery, marketing, salaries, consulting, raw materials, insurance, taxes,...). In case of a company 'accepting' BTC through bitpay and converting 100% to fiat, this is clearly not the case.
So no: Dell is not accepting bitcoin. They're using it as a marketing tool.
February 08, 2015, 02:35:33 AM
I suppose if you treat Bitcoin as a mere asset, it's easy to think of it as some kind of tradeable commodity, rather than disruptive technology. Bitcoin the disruptive technology is much more than bitcoins, the commodity though.
If Bitcoin were an enterprise, its IPO would still be years away. Of course the charts look ugly compared established commodities like metals, agricultural products or foreign currencies, or publicly traded shares of the kind of established businesses whose shares are already traded on exchanges. The wild "bubble"-like price fluctuations are typical of new enterprises still in the domain of angels and VCs. By the time most new endeavors reach the point of public offerings, the bumps have been smoothed out.
This.
Much more than Bitcoin, so holding Bitcoin is like an investment in this new kind of "enterprise", hardly comparable to anything before.
February 08, 2015, 01:59:59 AM
February 08, 2015, 01:35:16 AM
It is in fact cheaper for online transactions, safer for protecting your identity, simpler for international transactions, faster for online payments, and more secure
Yeah, how stupid are people for not seeing that.
What if I have to buy a chocolate worth $0.25 , i really wouldnt like paying 0.0001tx fee for it. we want btc to be used like "cash" , is it possible to make it like cash with the transaction fee?
February 08, 2015, 01:25:10 AM
Trim down these quotes, jesus christ! Did I seriously just see some guy quote like 9 nested posts to ask what the name of a wallet app (that was only pictured in one of them) was?!
February 08, 2015, 01:22:01 AM
It is in fact cheaper for online transactions, safer for protecting your identity, simpler for international transactions, faster for online payments, and more secure
Yeah, how stupid are people for not seeing that.
February 08, 2015, 12:59:58 AM
February 08, 2015, 12:01:12 AM
Bitcoin will be a success (as a currency) when a significant number of people spontaneously choose it to pay for legal purchases, because it is better for them than the alternatives. "Better" may include cheaper, safer, simpler, faster, or any other operational advantage. But I would not count people who use it just out of curiosity, because they are invested in bitcoins, for political/ideological reasons, or because they are interested in the technology.
As a jealously guarded jewel, Bitcoin is doing much better.
February 07, 2015, 11:59:58 PM
February 07, 2015, 11:12:20 PM
Jorge,
What metric would you use to consider bitcoin a success?
I mean a minimum success you would think about personal use.
Is there a daily equivalent a USD transacted that equals minimum success or a number of transactions (excluding change if that could be quantified)?
What about use for the supply chain? I.e. sell goods for btc and pay for wages or purchase supplies with that btc
What metric would you use to consider bitcoin a success?
I mean a minimum success you would think about personal use.
Is there a daily equivalent a USD transacted that equals minimum success or a number of transactions (excluding change if that could be quantified)?
What about use for the supply chain? I.e. sell goods for btc and pay for wages or purchase supplies with that btc
I was asked this soon after I started posting here, and my answer is still basically the same:
Bitcoin will be a success (as a currency) when a significant number of people spontaneously choose it to pay for legal purchases, because it is better for them than the alternatives. "Better" may include cheaper, safer, simpler, faster, or any other operational advantage.
It is in fact cheaper for online transactions, safer for protecting your identity, simpler for international transactions, faster for online payments, and more secure
But I would not count people who use it just out of curiosity, because they are invested in bitcoins, for political/ideological reasons, or because they are interested in the technology.
That's why VCs are wealthy and you are not. They recognize the value of ideas and help them get executed, while you troll.I don't see that happening yet.
But I'm sure your hindsight will be 20/20
However, since then I have come to realize that bitcoin was never intended for large-scale use,
Yes he addressed scaling in the whitepaper. but only to test whether the solution proposed by Satoshi to the "distributed ledger problem" (block reward + proof-of-work + longest-chain-wins) would indeed motivate the miners to maintain the ledger and protect it from malicious attacks.
The experiment has been running for 6 years, which is remarkable; but it exposed one flaw -- the centralization of mining -- which may require another genial idea to solve.
The experiment has been running for 6 years, which is remarkable; but it exposed one flaw -- the centralization of mining -- which may require another genial idea to solve.
You are contradicting yourself here. You say the ledger is protected from attacks and then say it is threatened by centralization. Satoshi addressed this in the white paper as well.
February 07, 2015, 10:59:57 PM
February 07, 2015, 10:54:43 PM
no pump and no dump on weekend?
It is starting to get too boring
It is starting to get too boring
February 07, 2015, 10:46:36 PM
Jorge,
What metric would you use to consider bitcoin a success?
I mean a minimum success you would think about personal use.
Is there a daily equivalent a USD transacted that equals minimum success or a number of transactions (excluding change if that could be quantified)?
What about use for the supply chain? I.e. sell goods for btc and pay for wages or purchase supplies with that btc
What metric would you use to consider bitcoin a success?
I mean a minimum success you would think about personal use.
Is there a daily equivalent a USD transacted that equals minimum success or a number of transactions (excluding change if that could be quantified)?
What about use for the supply chain? I.e. sell goods for btc and pay for wages or purchase supplies with that btc
I was asked this soon after I started posting here, and my answer is still basically the same:
Bitcoin will be a success (as a currency) when a significant number of people spontaneously choose it to pay for legal purchases, because it is better for them than the alternatives. "Better" may include cheaper, safer, simpler, faster, or any other operational advantage. But I would not count people who use it just out of curiosity, because they are invested in bitcoins, for political/ideological reasons, or because they are interested in the technology.
I don't see that happening yet.
However, since then I have come to realize that bitcoin was never intended for large-scale use, but only to test whether the solution proposed by Satoshi to the "distributed ledger problem" (block reward + proof-of-work + longest-chain-wins) would indeed motivate the miners to maintain the ledger and protect it from malicious attacks. The experiment has been running for 6 years, which is remarkable; but it exposed one flaw -- the centralization of mining -- which may require another genial idea to solve.
Some possibilities have been suggested, however I will wait and see how the block size increase will effect the network first.
Yet if carbon credits and taxation ever take a foothold that would be an immediate deterrent for centralized mining.
February 07, 2015, 10:39:08 PM
Jorge,
What metric would you use to consider bitcoin a success?
I mean a minimum success you would think about personal use.
Is there a daily equivalent a USD transacted that equals minimum success or a number of transactions (excluding change if that could be quantified)?
What about use for the supply chain? I.e. sell goods for btc and pay for wages or purchase supplies with that btc
What metric would you use to consider bitcoin a success?
I mean a minimum success you would think about personal use.
Is there a daily equivalent a USD transacted that equals minimum success or a number of transactions (excluding change if that could be quantified)?
What about use for the supply chain? I.e. sell goods for btc and pay for wages or purchase supplies with that btc
I was asked this soon after I started posting here, and my answer is still basically the same:
Bitcoin will be a success (as a currency) when a significant number of people spontaneously choose it to pay for legal purchases, because it is better for them than the alternatives. "Better" may include cheaper, safer, simpler, faster, or any other operational advantage. But I would not count people who use it just out of curiosity, because they are invested in bitcoins, for political/ideological reasons, or because they are interested in the technology.
I don't see that happening yet.
However, since then I have come to realize that bitcoin was never intended for large-scale use, but only to test whether the solution proposed by Satoshi to the "distributed ledger problem" (block reward + proof-of-work + longest-chain-wins) would indeed motivate the miners to maintain the ledger and protect it from malicious attacks. The experiment has been running for 6 years, which is remarkable; but it exposed one flaw -- the centralization of mining -- which may require another genial idea to solve.
Jump to: