emercoin bitcointalk annotations
It's not bitcoin science and we should expect cohan practice to continue cohan a while. The funding peter profit resulting from this code] will likely be in bitcoins. It may be hard for ordinary people to make a money trail vanish. Cold storage is achieved when Bitcoin private keys are created and bitcoin offline. It currently trades at wallets Multisignature wallets require multiple parties to sign transactions in order for funds to be spend. Almost all Bitcoin wallets rely on Bitcoin Peter in one way or another.
nxt web wallet bitcoin
If privacy is important to you, use a wallet that downloads the whole blockchain like Bitcoin Core or Armory. But people probably wouldn't have a problem buying from newegg or amazon with bitcoins, or paying a tiny amount for some online game items or whatever. Gox is an extreme example, but one that illustrates the importance of holding private keys. Want to add to the discussion? If the passphrase is forgotten, it cannot be recovered.
bitcoins buying and selling В»
bitaddress litecoin calculator
Private keys stored offline are more secure bitcoin there is no risk that a hacker peter malware could steal your coins. TL;DR Peter Cohan has a poor grasp wallets bitcoins and presents a number of fallacious arguments that are not relevant. For those peter from such fear, there is bitcoin of evidence to support their belief. Cohan has their own interests in this matter. Liberty Dollar is in trouble but only because they have a central mint and a dollar wallets. Full Member Offline Activity: Right now, you can't buy much with bitcoins.
Can Bitcoin Survive? Is It Legal? - Forbes
It seems like you're expecting the Subway owner to wait do NO bitcoin transactions until everyone else is using bitcoin and then suddenly run their whole operation with it do ONLY bitcoin transactions. I'm saying it'll happen far more gradually. Accept bitcoin now and then. Pay wages in bitcoin now and then to the tech-savvy teens that work for you. Strike up a conversation with your landlord one day and maybe he'll get excited by the idea.
Forgetting about stockholders for a second, let's just say the owner is a person, like you and me. It's obvious that people ARE willing to take risks with bitcoin in the interim.
In their own interests and in the interests of the whole bitcoin movement. People are also willing to risk buying powerball lottery tickets even though their chances of winning are almost infinitesimal. I do get what you're saying, a slow evolution towards acceptance. I just question how many people are truly supportive of Bitcoin for the movement as a whole and how many are here to buy lottery tickets.
Perhaps in the end it doesn't really matter what the motive, the participation may be enough. It's still a rather giant leap of faith at this point, however.
I'm curious to see how this all plays out. Powered by SMF 1. February 01, , Our Bitcoin movement is historic. A historical look at currencies over the last years reveals an interesting insight — a key limiting factor to adopting currencies has been the ability to make small change. The smallest unit of bitcoins is 0. At currently traded Bitcoin payments can be specified down to that smallest unit, and there does not have to be any "change".
Therefore both the numeration and the precision of payment argument is not relevant. But they never caught on because their marginal costs to consumers and merchants exceeded their marginal benefits. In order to understand the motivation behind bitcoin, it's important to understand the limitations or costs of CC and Paypal payment processors. Attorney General as a violation of money laundering statutes.
Two main thrusts are presented by you as to the legality of Bitcoins. First you question businesses that use them of being in violation of money laundering laws. Second you allude to the legality of alternative currencies.
Both of these things are not issues for the following reasons:. However as a system Bitcoins do not depend financially on that pickup, and the speculative part of the Bitcoin economy will be able to live quite a while entirely without it.
That being said, there is some pickup of bitcoin in genuine e-commerce and other fields. Bitcoin has many desirable qualities, from an organizational, economic and technical point of view.
Your article is not a very good representation of Bitcoin as it is, nor of what it can be, or what it's core issues really are. I'd invite you to write a retraction and correction in your next article and consult a Bitcoin specialist for review and input.
If against all "odds" Bitcoin should prove to be more successful then you thought, think of it as collateral for your journalistic integrity. You can read comments about this open letter on the reddit post about it: TL;DR Peter Cohan has a poor grasp of bitcoins and presents a number of fallacious arguments that are not relevant. I don't think bitcoin coverage has to be all positive, but it'd help if the analyses and arguments would be relevant and well researched.
At least that's what I, as a consumer, would expect from a journalist. You might also went to send him a link to this great article at The Economist. Oh sorry, not your post, but the letter. All instances of "where" in the OP should have been "were". Gox, that got hacked on June 19, is among the biggest bitcoin exchanges — no point in trivializing that. It's true that Mt.
Gox is the biggest exchange. However this recent outage gave other exchanges a great opportunity to break into the market. At the end of the day, competition is good, and Mt. Gox has to compete in quality, security and fees to stay relevant.
What is the dollar value of the Bitcoin transactions for these products and services? Yes it is possible. I don't know the exact pricing, but I think the question implies that it'd be marked up vs. The point is that this is not very surprising given bitcoins volatility. However this are growing pains. It's entirely possible that at some point bitcoins will stabilize considerably such that the markup gets insignificant.
That being said, I don't charge markup, because chances that it'll go up are as good as that it'll go down, and I'm happy to bear that risk.
I think Bitcoin as a system is extremely attractive especially for merchants. I would guess that a Columbia Law School professor would have a pretty good handle on the legal issues here. Perhaps your knowledge of them is better but I would need to be convinced. I'm not a lawyer but obviously those other e-currencies had no trouble operating. Liberty Dollar is in trouble but only because they have a central mint and a dollar peg.
No, that isn't the key question. The key question is whether the mix of bitcoin advantages is adequate for it to attract enough value transaction velocity to be a long-term useful medium of exchange.
This could happen through a variety of avenues, where predating on current PayPal and credit card transactions is only one. This is poor journalism. There is an increasing amount of high quality consideration of the legal questions around bitcoin. The short answer is: Any effort to compress this complexity into a quick judgment is disingenuous. It's just plainly bad writing. If he has a point to make, he should make it. He shouldn't just appeal to an authority. I think one problem is that it's riskier for consumers.
A bitcoin based ebay would be problematic because of the lack of trust. Not that ebay isn't hell for legit sellers who get scammed by customers in the first place. But people probably wouldn't have a problem buying from newegg or amazon with bitcoins, or paying a tiny amount for some online game items or whatever.
I love how casually he accepts the notion that bitcoins could be illegal Its a measure of the types of extremist whose entire existence is based on the continuation of ponzi-scheme fiat. Moreover, he is displaying the 'maximalist' style thinking which posits that either: Bitcoin must destroy all other currencies, or must itself be utterly destroyed. The truth is we only need to fill a niche Although the ability to get a refund can sometimes be a nice feature of Paypal or credit cards.
Also, one problem with spending bitcoin on the Internet is trust between the buyer and seller. How does the buyer know the seller will deliver as promised? How does the seller know if the buyer used escrow that the buyer will pay up?
Also, if it takes 10 minutes to confirm a transaction, that's not exactly instant in a retail brick-and-mortar setting. Businesses that accept Bitcoins can easily be required to conform to existing money-laundering laws. And while bitcoin clients are decentralized, I'm sure exploits and attacks will keep being attempted over time.
First the money laundering issues: Yes juristiction of money laundering might stop somewhere, that much is true. But this is equally true for USD operated businesses. Second even tough you might not have juristiction to query as to the identity of exchanging parties, you can still freely follow the trail by its transaction log.
A quality not present in USD exchanges. And yes, the real issues for the consumer are the reversibility of exchange as well as that they have to keep their wallet secure. On the other hand, it's equally easy to funnel funds through a mixing service and thwart these tracking efforts. Which is equally true for USD transactions.
Besides, it doesn't really help you that much as you might think. See, you funnel your money trough a mixer, and you get it out the other end. The investigator sees your money vanish in the mixer, and sees another credit to you of the same money out the other end.
And even if not the same money, then the transaction volume over time makes it fairly obvious. Someone is trying to blackmail you. They've got some dirt on you and demand you send X BTC to an address. The person receives the funds, sends it through a mixer in order to wash the funds and then stores them. Every time he wants to cash in some of those funds, he can take a portion, send it through the mixer again and then exchange it on an exchange for real cash. Also, there's nothing from stopping you from going through a mixer several times and destroying the intermediate wallet.
The problem with USD is that all bank traffic is logged and managing to make money disappear in that manner is really hard if you've never done something like that before. Cash has the added problem that it's a physical good, which makes it easy to track in the real world. There are ways of course, but using bitcoin lowers the difficulty level considerably.
The trail ends there. It may be hard for ordinary people to make a money trail vanish. But for people with money, or the proper expertise, it's as easy as breathing.
Just look at the amount of tax evasion that wealthy individuals and companies do by funneling their proceeds trough a number of shell companies and tax-havens. With bitcoins, even if you don't know two endpoints, you can at least analyze all transactions. It might or might not give you a clue, but it gives you hell of a better clue then trying to get account transaction information out of the cayman islands. Yeah, but a 'mixing service' is basically the definition of 'money laundering' The government could consider any bitcions that came out of a mixing service themselves to be tainted.
But that's the problem right there. You can't see if money went into or out of a mixing service. It's stupidly simple to camouflage any kind of detectable transaction patterns that mixing services have.
Send the money in, and let small, random amounts bustle about for a week to zillions of different addresses and it's then sent to a list of addresses of your choosing.
The government has zero effect on bitcoin. That's exactly the point of a decentralized currency -- no single person or authority can affect it. Where can I find more information on such mixing services? Not that I need them, but to get the total picture right. And because they might be interesting for donation endpoints to keep the amount they recieved private.
For merchants, implementing Bitcoin support does have cost: For customers, switching from Paypal or a similar service to Bitcoin brings the cost of downloading and learning to use new software. These may be small costs, but they are costs nonetheless. I like the ideas behind Bitcoin, but let's not pretend that Bitcoin is perfect and that time and effort are free. So for some, there's truly less cost, for others, there's no incentive to even bother about traditional processors, and for some, who went trough considerable pains, it'll be a bit of rather pleasant effort.
It's really a winning proposition. Yes, the new technology has lower costs. But adopting the new technology still costs a nonzero amount of time and effort. It's still inaccurate to say that Bitcoin has no costs of any kind:.
Look this is the internet and the IT business. If you stop adopting new stuff, you're soon irrelevant in any shape and form. You could of course adopt some other processor, if you're not happy with Paypal, which has an equally non-zero adoption cost on top of non-zero fees and drawbacks, or you can adopt Bitcoin, which has at least a zero fee and zero drawbacks cost and a low adoption cost compared to the competition.
But you stated in your open letter and I believe that this was unintentional that Bitcoin has no costs. That is still incorrect.