Bitcoin Forum

It seems that Eric Schmidt did just talk about P2P money on his MWC Keynote.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/28/technology/google_future_of_internet/index.htm

http://www.electronista.com/articles/12/02/28/google.chief.talks.phones.and.robots.at.mwc.2012/#ixzz1ninmGB00

Bad thing is, he thinks P2P money is illegal in US. On the other hand, i am not so sure if we ever want money in the hands of Google :)

of course Google couldn't create its own currency; it would be centralized and prone to gov't intervention.

Bitcoin is not.

its not illegal until there is some sort of ruling. and even then...

Is there video of this anywhere?

Free advice for Eric Schmidt:

1.  Buy a bunch of bitcoins.
2.  Integrate bitcoin into Google Wallet.
3.  Go to sleep.
4.  Wake up.
5.  Eat breakfast.
6.  Check the price of bitcoin on MtGox.
7.  Profit.
8.  See step 7.
9.  See step 8.
10.  See step 9.

conspiracy theory idea: google created bitcoins and open sourced it after realizing they wouldn't pull it off as google bucks

Eric is Satoshi! </tinfoil>

I've mentioned a similar theory about amazon.com before.  While unlikely, I don't think it's completely out of the realm of possibility.  

I must say, I do like the fact that the chairman of a major corporation has just endorsed Bitcoin as a "great idea."   ;D

Edit: In fact, if someone can get the exact quote, it should be put on the front page of bitcoin.org, weusecoins.com and lovebitcoins.org.

Here is the video,  but it is long.

Link removed.
(Sorry wrong year)


I'm not sure which section has the quote,  but I am watching it now.

the first major existing company to adopt Bitcoins will definitely make immense profits.

I don't think all of the video has been posted yet.  But, I went searching for video on Schmidt and google bucks.  He talked about Google Bucks at the 2011 MWC keynote as well.  The segment is between 8:45 and 11:20 in the following video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYxP5bLY5gI

The interesting part about this segment is that he mentions "Larry and Sergey have periodically mentioned we should offer something called Google Bucks and I pointed out the regulation issues, etc…and, uh, probably not going to happen."  Schmidt was also very quick to dispel any notion that they were interested in being a "bank."  From his mannerisms, I'm guessing that they wish to avoid that topic not because they don't think they could be very good at banking, but quite the contrary…that they could be very good at banking.

I think Bitcoin is Google Bucks.  And Larry and/or Sergey is Satoshi.

Once more, just FUD

Nothing sure, just "in many countries", wich mean nothing. What countries? Syria? Lybia when there was gheddafi?

Of course we must trust you on that because ehi he would never lie uh? I wonder wich US LAW is being violated. Oh, no one?

In the context of a large corporation, these statements may very well be true. Not to mention that Google also has large teams of lawyers available to them to look at this kind of stuff all the time.

In the context of something decentralized... well to put it simply, it's murky.

What does P2P mean if not decentralized?

I'm not sure Eric even realizes what Bitcoin really is. Google isn't a big enough company to control the block chain. It would be susceptable to many types of attacks.

This is the wrong video. It was uploaded in May 2011. The keynote happened in 2012. Nevermind.

Read the comment you've quoted.


"Google's own blockchain" is a topic that's been around since I first started using Bitcoin in 2010. My common answer is, it makes more sense for Google to wait and see, and adopt Bitcoin itself if and when it proves to be useful, rather than create a competitive product. This is what big companies do. It's good to know that the higher-ups of Google are keeping an eye on Bitcoin. That says to me, if Bitcoin overcomes some of the regulatory issues, it has a good chance of being adopted by Google.

http://live.theverge.com/Event/Eric_Schmidt_keynote_at_MWC_2012?Page=2

I don't think he is particularly talking about laws even. What he means is that the State will not want to let people have free money, and that's a war they will not fight. Decentralized money has both freedom of use and independence from economical control.


I thought he was talking about closed systems that require authentication to access content.

No, precisely, I agree. However I'm with Schmidt on that one, the more information that is directly reachable, the better. Yeah, it's good for Google, and he could be all about profits, but it's an open situation. Who's to say a decentralized search engine won't replace Google one day? I would like it to be able to index as much as possible too. With that kind of segregation, it would be impossible to index the web without making deals with giants like facebook, and that won't work for an open search engine.

"Balkanize the internet" refers to splitting it up into separate networks under different control/jurisdiction and that they don't play well together.

For example, the SOPA stuff with rules for foreign websites vs. US websites and other similar ideas. You could end up with hundreds of national networks that may/maynot link with each other according to national laws. Basically he's saying we should try our best to avoid going down that road.

Obviously for Google that would be terrible but also for many other companies and just the general public. But it may be what legislators want due to special interest lobbying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkanize

I think effective segregation requires that there will be preventive measures against this too (it would be prohibited for at least one of the points). On the bright side, it would effectively make decentralized (and even dark) search engines much more appealing. :)

YaCy.net (http://yacy.net/)  :)
Seeks Project (http://www.seeks-project.info/)

google is not toasted yet tho  :-[

This is interesting.  Do you have any more evidence?

I don't think Seeks is a distributed search engine. I'm running YaCy on and off for the last couple of years though. Has a long way to go (Why is almost every good bit of such software written in Java? I hate it!), but it's in the right direction.

it's a good language for prototyping isn't it  :D

Google thought about issuing its own currency http://www.itworld.com/networking/254124/google-once-considered-issuing-currency (http://www.itworld.com/networking/254124/google-once-considered-issuing-currency)

Bingo

It's up now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DKLSO8wYzk

Here's were the Bitcoin discussion takes place: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4DKLSO8wYzk#t=2048s

Thanks for that.  The Bitcoin question starts at 0:34:10.  Bitcoin got 90 seconds of prime time.
 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DKLSO8wYzk#t=2050s

He sounded genuinely pro-Bitcoin, even a little defensive towards it, though he quickly disavowed it's legality. It's funny that he works with technology that is changing not only civilization, but our own physiological evolution, yet refuses to openly acknowledge the potential of Bitcoin. I think he's a closet Bitcoiner that is in it just enough to not be caught at it.

Yay for Eric Schmidt and the "free" market!

Funny how so many hold google in high esteem. Remember Alta Vista? Who killed Alta Vista?

State sponsored capitalism = facism

google makes money how? They give most all services away for free? They have vast warehouses of compute power and pay for it how?

Searching isn't enough, but knowing what the urchins are searching for is gold.
Let's see initially for gmail you had to get an invite. So they had a chain of trust/blame.


Yes store all your email on their servers.
Store all your docs there.
Store your calendar there.
Store your address book there.

They track you by pretty much any website you visit. Try dropping google traffic at your firewall and then go browsing.

It's all free! (Well your tax dollars are hard at work)
Don't forget all those millionaires sprung from google.

Advertising. En masse. It is 97% of their revenue, and making it targeted is in the interests of the advertisers.

What does Schmidt say at one point, Bitcoin is "nuts"?

It sounds like he is responding to someone off mic.

So did anyone read up on what this "faircash" is? Since the guy asking likes P2P payments but think that Bitcoin is nuts it would be interesting to know what his system is about. I found the web site (http://faircash.org/) but I haven't had time to read through the technical details yet.

He is parroting what the off-mic person said, it doesn't appear to be his own sentiment.

Thank you, that is what I meant.  :D
I hope he finds a niche use for Bitcoin in the Google empire.

I had a look at the site. The technology is absurd, requiring the use of a VPN to update a document that says the transfer has taken place. It is also patent pending, which makes me assume that they have invented some algorithm instead of using open source ones like Bitcoin, which are proven to be secure. Besides the fact that Bitcoin requires no trust.

Hadn't heard of these, definitely makes sense to do p2p. It seems p2p is the right model for all things. But anonymity is like randomness is like security.  They are all hard to come by. If your bits are going over someone else's physical network then what stops them from sorting out who's who?


But p2p search is a good start.

When I first heard it, I immediately translated the colloquialism "is nuts" as being a good thing, albeit he may have wanted to say, "Bitcoin is the nuts!"

Your source?

SEC filing: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312509150129/dex992.htm
Article of interest: http://gigaom.com/2009/07/17/where-does-google-get-97-of-its-revenue/

Trust those sources if you want and trust the bankers and the u.s. chamber of commerce while you're at it.
And trust google too.

Tinfoil much? An SEC filing is a legal document, if it is substantially incorrect then Google would have some 'splainin to do, Lucy! and they would be paying some massive fines to the government.

It's not so much about trust, it's pretty plausible to believe that they make enough money through targeted advertisements to more than cover their expenditures. Targeted ads are powerful. That also justifies their accumulation of information. Nevertheless it's a good idea not to be spied on. :)

Another unrelated point: He's saying "pure" p2p currencies are illegal in most cases. It pretty much shows he has some experience on the subject.

Name calling, too funny. You probably believe in unicorns too. Yes the SEC would never lie nor would google. Believe what you'd like.
I'd bet you don't know too much about the current world financial events. If you did you'd find it hard to believe anything about the
stock market or wall street. What do you think is the motivation behind BTC? Don't answer that, it's rhetorical. Believe in any fantasy that you'd like
and like I said make sure and put all your data on google's servers like a good citizen.

State sponsored capitalism = facism

Well whatever you say, is there some other reason you don't agree that advertising couldn't possibly be 97% of their revenue? That is the root of this debate, after all. I mean seriously - you search for something, you don't pay them for that service, where does the money come from? Even the hardware they sell (phones) are at breakeven because they are used as targeted advertising platforms, and fulfill that role excellently.

my comment from http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/qblwb/video_of_eric_schmidt_talking_briefly_about/

Actually, I think the reason more people are not speculating on Bitcoin is because the rich are already too rich and the poor are too poor. The rich only need Blue Chip investments to stay rich. Bitcoin is a revolution, not an IPO.

Maybe Google is sato, who is shi & Naka & moto ? :)

What if Google starts mining with 50%+ hashing power?

I question Google's ability to do that. I suppose they could do it if they spend enough, but it would cost them millions. We could delay transactions until we have sufficient power to push back. Worst case scenario, we could fork the chain and move to a Google-unfriendly algorithm. But with the current atmosphere, I feel that it's more likely for such companies to quietly come to the rescue of Bitcoin rather than try and destroy it.

While I doubt Google would ever even entertain doing this they are theoretically well positioned for it. They have hundreds of thousands (or millions?) of low-end systems in open cage racks that could quite possibly handle one gpu each without much re-building. The cpu and traffic overhead on top of handling queries would be low. I suspect they also have heaps of systems being cycled out for newer ones and could easily assign the old Celerons to this purpose (assuming they even have PCIx slots). They also likely have lots of hw techs on staff already and I have no idea how busy they are. My guess is they spend a lot of them replacing hard disks.

i doubt that they would retrofit existing systems to do mining. there are too many issues, plus google has enough cash to just build another data center dedicated to mining.

some issues (pulled out of thin air):

• existing power grid and batteries for UPS would maybe be too weak.
• heat management is already non-trivial and they planned their data centers for their target load. adding GPUs would also mean adding new cooling system.
• cpu and network load is already a non-trivial issue for their map/reduce algos. spilling p2p traffic on top of that would not really help.
• if they invested in hardware it would not be GPU but FPGA or even ASIC.