Bitcoin Forum

Circle, Bitreserve, and BitPay are turning their backs on bitcoin

http://uk.businessinsider.com/circle-bitreserve-bitpay-struggle-lack-of-bitcoin-adoption-2015-11

After reading the article I wouldn't say that these companies are turning their backs on bitcoin, it is more of a not putting all your eggs in one basket scenario, they all are still using bitcoin but are developing other ways to use the blockchain.

It is a good point raised that the adoption has been slow and not as immediate as was expected but bitcoin awareness is on the up, Coinbase suggest there are 5000 + new accounts opened with them each day whether these numbers are correct or not I do not know.

I'm pretty sure there's a back-story for every of those companies' decision to expand beyond Bitcoin. BitPay for example had very strange business model which couldn't possibly give them enough revenue to cover their massive spendings (football sponsorship, celebrity hire etc). They had to change it one way or another.

I think Fred Ehrsam nailed it on the head with this comment, see below, suggesting that this is mainly due to investors putting pressure on these firms to look at alternatives in order to generate returns.

Companies backed by Goldman Sucks are no big loss for Bitcoin!
It's good those f**kers leave our ecosystem.
Liers and thieves are not what we need to prosper!

Funny how they all want to use blockchain technology.  But I have yet to see any form of this implemented that doesn't include bitcoin.  A private blockchain defeats the whole purpose and its not a blockchain anymore.

I am disappointed to read this statement from Circle's CEO. In a way, he is saying he used bitcoin as a springboard to get funding and now he has got what he wanted, he is now moving away from (beyond) bitcoin. He is re-inventing paypal, nothing interesting.

Now that you mention it and I read that statement again it does sound quite poor in that their intention was always to move beyond bitcoin after getting their funding.

Wait till bitcoin becomes more successful and when they decide to come back to bitcoin, we will refuse to use Circle because of what he said today. I will rejoice on the day they finally fold.

I do agree that they are feeling pressure from investors to start making money.  Most bitcoin company's will go under like the dot com boom. 

Nothing wrong with that I do not see. Just the company trying to diversify its activities and not to depend on one of them.

What I don't like is circle totally turned their back on bitcoin.  The word bitcoin is no longer found on their site.

Like a cheap Ho... pull out of their cheatin' ass soon.

The investors in those sites are not passionate Bitcoin supporters, they funded those projects, because they saw a opportunity to make a quick return on their investment. These companies have not seen any of these <boom> day figures in adoption, that was predicted and are branching out their services to keep investors happy. The excessive and expensive regulations, is not making things easy for these businesses.

They still support Bitcoin, but they are just diversifying their operations.  ::)

There's nothing strange about that, it was always going to be a matter of time before those early Bitcoin startups realize that the blockchain tech is more useful and reliable when applied to existing infrastructures. Why would they stick with Bitcoin when they can merge with existing techs and have access to the whole world?
Bitcoin will only find its place within the system once it is bound by laws and regulations.

Why? (your post simply makes the assertion, and does not provide any evidence for your claim)

What makes you think that a successful digital money system can operate without rules? Bitcoin has rules. If you don't like Bitcoin's rules, choose something different. Unlike fiat currency, no-one is attempting to force you to use it.

But if you don't like Bitcoin's rules, and you decide to express that by saying "the problem with Bitcoin is the lack of rules", then fair-minded people will know how to treat people like you from here-on-in.

Haha I hope you are not including yourself in that category. The fact that you lack the intelligence to understand something seems to somehow give you the right to start a lynching party. Or perhaps that's your definition of fairness? :D

Of course Bitcoin has rules but those are simply rules within itself that allow it to exist as an entity. You need a different set of binding rules to allow this entity to exist in harmony with the whole. I've discussed this topic numerous times on here and I don't feel like getting into it again now.
But here is perhaps a clearer picture of what I'm trying to put across:
Cancer cells exist according to rules within themselves, however they don't bother to abide by the global rules that bind the rest of the cells of the body in harmony.

If their technologies can be applied in conventional monetary system, there is no reason for them not to do so. To them, bitcoin is just another kind of money.

Er, so presumbaly you are including yourself in this fair minded, intelligent category then? Based on the above, I beg to differ.

Accusing people you don't know of being a lynching, small-minded idiot is a little rude. No?


Your analogy is not valid.

Cancer cells in a multi-cellular, carbon based organism do not in any way equate to a consumer class whose ability to save their wealth is being prevented by the imposition of a wealth storage vehicle that loses it's value. Cancer cells, and all other cells in an organism, have no sentience, and therefore no agency with which to make spending and saving decisions.

Furthermore, the bodies of organisms are natural totalitarian dictatorships. When the dictator loses control, that means the entire system breaks completely: it's not like any one cell can go back to being the single-celled individual that it evolved from (as happens when societal systems break down).

So your analogy serves no useful purpose, even in the limited context in which you presented it. Which leaves the only remaining actual content of your post: childish insults.

I wish they would take Coinbase with them...

@Carlton Banks  I am speechless. You are obviously a lot more intelligent than I originally thought, your understanding runs deep and you clearly know what you're talking about. I apologize if I offended you in any way, it was not my intention.
On that note I will respectfully remove myself from this discussion. 

Really? I am a little wary of unlikely sounding apologies, but you do seem sincere.

I wasn't offended by what you said, although I was of course being pugnacious. I certainly didn't intend to offend you, but I am all too happy to denigrate that particular argument, regardless of who makes it.

The point is that I see the issue of where and how rules/laws apply to modern societies to be a contentious one, whereas you presented the prevailing model as a fait accomplis. I would be happy to debate the merits of top-down prescribed order v.s. bottom-up emergent order, but we're going way off-topic here.

When Circle first appeared, I did some research.

The same bastards that started Circle were in the lucrative business of school loans, and providing credit to students so they could dig a nice deep hole and get charged interest on top. Not exactly highway robbery, but still dodgy enough that I didn't even bother trying to open an account with them.

The fact that these people are "pivoting towards the money" isn't surprising, they are geared to do so, its the traditional way a company gets steered by profits instead of vision.

They'll lament the fact later, but if they want to commit financial suicide by snuggling up to the existing flawed system, more power to them. They'll be fine examples for those who will come after to pick their bones clean.

There will be more companies interested in bitcoin and serve the industry. I do not care about the three companies.

Thanks for your input, but try not to dig up the old topics in 'press' board. It pushes the fresh news down.