Bitcoin Forum

http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2013/04/18/bitcoin-buzz-draws-western-union-moneygram/ (http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2013/04/18/bitcoin-buzz-draws-western-union-moneygram/)

aaaaaand....speculate!


http://mashable.com/2013/04/02/western-union-bitcoin/ (http://mashable.com/2013/04/02/western-union-bitcoin/)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324493704578431000719258048.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324493704578431000719258048.html)

I don't understand what they're proposing they do. Using Western Union to transfer BTC would be like using a team of horses to deliver a car.

LOL! I'd say the best thing they could do would be become a local exchange. A place to quickly sell and buy bitcoin in perhaps even large amounts. I've never used the company so I have no idea how they work, but local exchanges already located in cities across the world would be incredibly useful.

Perhaps the company itself would use bitcoin as a tool to transfer funds internationally, and as a result cut down on their overhead so they can put more money in their own pockets while charging customers the same fees?

I think you guys fail to understand the gravity of the situation.

WU literally could, with extremely little effort, turn every single WU place into the equivalent of a Bitcoin ATM.

Or they could reduce their fees. The first one to embrace Bitcoin would get a jump on the competition

It would require them becoming an exchanger to do so, unless they want to suddenly stop working the moment gox goes down.

Yeah, that is pretty much what I was saying with the 'local exchanges'. They already have the infrastructure across the globe. :D ;D

I think they are mainly concerned with the competition. (No not Bitcoin itself, stupid), but rather the lots of small electronic cash providers who are attached to Bitcoin in one way or the other.
Paxum, Dwolla, OKpay, and so on.

That is a good point and they would be smart to act quickly.

This is true. With their existing infrastructure they could instantly become the defacto Bitcoin exchange and Bitcoin bank while barely lifting a finger and expand their business into a whole new world. Western Union could in essence be Bitcoins "killer app".

And they could also make a killing in fees until some competition arises.
A match made in heaven. I never thought I would say that, but go Western Union!  ;D

Oh god please this.

This would murder Gox in one swell foop.

Western union simply realizes that bitcoin will make their entire business model obsolete. Which leaves them 2 options "beat um" or "join um." since bitcoin is decentralized they cant "beat um" which leaves only "join um". So it isnt really relevant specifically how they use bitcoin, they just know that they have to find SOME way to use it or they are doomed.

Sent them an e-mail. Any kind of integration with WU would be huge for bitcoin.

I'm not sure but my gut says they won't. Their profit margin is simply too high to be thinking about direct completion. My bet would be some sort of marketing campaign.

It's a pretty smart move, if you think about it. Customers would still just work with their fiat, and WU would insulate them from the bitcoin part of it, while the bitcoin is used simply to speed up the transfer. Then the customer can be told their $ can now be transfered in mere minutes.

Not even close.  Take a look at their 7-year stock ticker.  They're hurting.

http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/wu/interactive-chart

Bitcoin as their back end transfer mechanism could save them a ton - and the logical step from there would be to own the exchange market more solidly than Gox has ever dreamt of.

They could do a lot worse.  Actually, they are...

I don't know enough about stocks to judge that.
But I imagine their shareholders wouldn't react too kindly to something like that, even if it were possible. Those people probably are holding the stock because of it's a "conservative" one, those who are looking for a speculative stock are long gone anyway, and I doubt they will look back.

Price go down = bad.

 :-X

thanks!  :D

Seriously it's not that easy - I think. All I know there is more to a stock that the price, like dividends, the way they are payed out, the distribution of shareholders, etc..
And there is more to a company than its stock - obviously.
What I also know it's not like the price of bitcoin.

The biggest thing that could affect a stock's price that wouldn't necessarily show on that chart is a split (1 stock @ $20 becomes 2 @ $10). WU has never split. Dividends are just profits paid out to shareholders at some rate per share.

But since WU has never split, It's enough like the BTC price to say "Price go down = bad."

But what about those dividends not actually payed out, or reinvested, shares hold internally, or internally reinvested profits not subject to dividends?
What I mean by this is: The amount of dividends shoudn't necessarily be fully proportional to the stock price.

This.

Yeah myrkul!  What about that - HUH?  HUH?

Because...

I am asking for somebody to educate me what is so hard to understand?  ???

It isn't hard to understand at all.  Your claim of ignorance about the basics of financial information suits your current argument.

But when bitcoin-bashing... well...


[22     Economy / Speculation / Re: Yup, still feeling bearish.    on: 2013-04-18, 16:15:05 ]

You don't play fair, I don't play nice.  Simple.

All of that is taken into account by the investors, making the stock price a fairly good indicator of investor confidence in the company. If the investors (who as shareholders, are typically in a good position to know) think the company's circling the drain, they'll want to sell. Just like in bitcoin, a lot of sells tend to push the price down.

Of course, there's always the chance that the company could be lying to it's stockholders (see: Enron) but no company is going to claim to be doing worse than they actually are. So, to expand, Price go down = bad; Price go up = good (usually)

BTC Books, your point?


thanks, that makes sense.

I made it.

All I see is a hint that you don't like me.

To actually defend myself from this idiocy: I know little about economics and make use of the things I know, being confused about a subject is a normal process in learning something new.
But that doesn't mean that I can't use the things I am comfortable with.
Now if you have a problem with that that is your predicament. And if you were interested in the subject at all instead of looking for a fight you would have addressed the other issues I raised of why I think western union will not do something like Bitcoin ATMs.

yep this is what is happening. they know there time is up. they are going to die here within the year or two so better buck up and turn there company into an exchange place. it will be like an atm. you put your money in and then type the bitcoin address in and bam five-ten minutes and you have your BTC(money)sent to whomever you need to. and just like you say no need to change it to yen/euro/frank/lirea etc just sends it. you know what this means??? for dear god hold onto your bitcoins they are literally worth gold now. ok no literally but they will be in one year just you wait.

As much as it pains me to say it, Bitcoin is not yet ready for a Western Union sized business to use Bitcoin.

They live in the world of fiat money and fiat accounting structures. They are able to balance credits and debits and show money on paper that they do not actually have, and still be able to spend that fictitious money because it will be there in the future.

They would have to do a huge infrastructure change to deal in a currency that has to exist to be spent. And they would have to come up with some huge operational steps to allow people or systems access to private keys to move bitcoins.

We are definitely in beta when it comes to companies using bitcoins. We have seen the early results when people did not yet use cold storage.

It would not be as simple as them just starting to accept bitcoin at their kiosks or paying out bitcoin in exchange for cash.

If they did do this, it would be huge. However, if they do, expect insane exchange fees, like 5%.

I wonder what their withdraw limits would be. If you could get out huge chunks of money quickly from them I would take the 5% fee instead of waiting damn well forever for gox to wire the damn money.

For walk in convenience?

Worth it.

you really think 5% is that bad? i was planning on charging 5% with my vending machine and i thought i was being reasonable =(

5%? Thats almost 10 times the goxxian fee. When you take into account the fact that there is two sides to any exchange that means they are essentially taking 10% on every trade. If 10% fees aren't ridiculous I don't know what is.

Give cash, get bitcoins, pay 5%

Wait 3 weeks for bank transfer, get goxxed, pay .6%

I know which I'd pick.

Don't worry, they'll still charge you the normal WU fees.

Its just like any other form of currency exchange. Normal transfer fees PLUS exchange fees.

Still worth it. ;)

time is money

huge for bitcoin and huge for WU, and WU cares about being good for WU curious as to what your email was as they are already showing interest in btc.

This makes me excited!

Yes, this. Their immediate interest can only be in boosting their profits in existing business, not jumping into Bitcoin exchange as a business (hardly anyone uses Bitcoin yet!). Bitcoin can drive their back end invisibly from the customer's perspective.

Or customers could choose a "fast cash" option "powered by the Bitcoin network" that is cheaper and faster than usual.

We have people emailing them...we need to appeal to their bottom line, not try to convince them to get into Bitcoin as a business. Once they start using it they may make that decision on their own, but for now it's just a tool to streamline their operations (massively).

its a shame that you feel that way =( Buying gift cards and a vending machine and renting a spot in the mall and paying electricity and driving back and forth to empty out the machine is all pretty expensive. I'm praying that ill turn a profit at 5%.

For you, 5% is reasonable. Significant capital outlay and overhead. For WU, 5% is a bit excessive, given that they would have almost no marginal cost to add Bitcoin processing.

true

Price ceilings are set by competition, not cost.

Price floors are set by cost, though. ;)

They could somewhat easily act as escrow,

Sender add the signature of the contract in the transfer note.

BTC Seller sign the message of "10btc at 1500$ via WU to "buyer address"" with the address the BTC are to be sent from.

When Mr Seller goes to get his money verification is made that the transaction has been made.

There will never be any ambiguity so verification shouldn't add much to the cost.

Edit : There need to be a publicly available confirmation that the buyer sent the money with the correct note.