It seems that a lot of people see us as "EVIL" and the next bad thing to kill or abolish... Well this is "normal" after all, MtGox has been the leading exchange since quite sometimes now and despite having many different new players coming in we are still on top, so yes we understand that to some we can be seen as monopolistic despite the fact that we are just a drop in the Bitcoin Ocean. Mt.Gox is not Bitcoin and will never be, we are just an exchange with a huge volume and more track records that many others today. Today it is us, tomorrow it may be someone else and we live with it, but we are working hard to keep our edge with our Merchant Solution and this new Trusted Vendor program.
Personally, I do not see Mt Gox as evil and I applaud the work that they are doing in the front lines of where BTC meets national currencies. Furthermore, their non-US legal jurisdiction should serve them well in the future. |
|
|
|
Another good step in the right direction would be to actually pay people the funds they withdrew.  This is the essence of the issue, really, for any BTC exchanger or vendor. As bitcoin moves into the area of Tor and 'lex mercatoria' with less dependence on State-invented regulations like AML/KYC or the BSA of 1970, trust without jurisdiction moves to the forefront. We are reminded that money laundering is an artificial crime totally made up and non-existent about 20-30 years ago. Before it was invented as a term, it was merely called "banking". http://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/doug-casey-cashless-societies |
|
|
|
Paypal has an Iphone app, and they don't pay Apple a royalty.
I don't see why Bitcoin apps wouldn't be allowed when Paypal is.
I suspect that Apple is preparing for a proprietary NFC payment app and I doubt that the iPhone/PayPal functionality would be extended to include that. With bitcoin QR code scanning at the point of sale, BTC poses a threat to any planned ApplePayments roll-out, not to mention the fact that BTC is a neutral, nonpolitical currency unit. |
|
|
|
Not sure if you are serious? Lets add the caveat of Bitcoin apps for existing smartphones can still be used. But this claims to offer bitcoin connectivity without a mobile carrier and without local electricity, but requiring a gateway access that needs local electricity and local internet connectivity, both of which could be considered single points of failure under a repressive regime. Unless the goal is for people under repressive regimes to cross the closed borders to open regimes and sync their devices with the blockchain via a gateway and then return to the repressive regimes.  Well, partially serious. It's all relative, I suppose. Imagine a scenario where only a few gateway computers with Internet connectivity do exist inside of the Nation-State but not necessarily available to the masses. A wireless mesh (or ad hoc) network is not new technology and it operates on an unregulated part of the bandwidth spectrum. In this scenario, reliance is not placed on the mobile telecom provider which has been a target previously in the countries that have wanted to quell social networking. Eliminating, or reducing, points of failure should be the goal. |
|
|
|
Was it hosting the block chain in the app? Maybe AT&T and Verizon said get rid of it because of data or something.
No, we got the same answer from Apple. We're using the appeal process, for the second time, we got stonewalled the first time. We're not excluding a lawsuit since, as paying customers (developer licenses are not free) we believe we are entitled to either : - get told where the legal issue resides, - OR get an official developer guidelines update explicitly stating that Bitcoin is not cool on the AppStore (which would mean lots of press!) Have you heard anything back from Apple on your second appeal attempt? |
|
|
|
Looks awesome, and of course- I want one. (Or many!)
Still begs the question as to why it's better then having it already in the smart-phones people already own. I think it will be hard to get people to both adopt a new currency AND carry a new wallet around.
But it looks nothing short of awesome. :-)
Bitcoin apps for existing smartphones can still be used. But this claims to offer bitcoin connectivity without a mobile carrier and without local electricity, both of which could be considered single points of failure under a repressive regime. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is voluntarist, not socialistMay 17th, 2012 by Irdial [...] Anyone who contends that Bitcoin is a socialist idea is fundamentally mistaken about how Bitcoin works and its true nature, or is trying to redefine socialism so that it can fit in with and be the standard bearer of the inevitable rise in Bitcoin. You can detect this when you read the phrase, “my idea of socialism is” in this context, which means that the speaker wants to abandon the bad smell of socialism and re-brand the word to mean something that it is not, so that he can remain ‘a committed socialist’ and be a part the real world at the same time. Bitcoin is the antithesis of socialism. Bitcoin transfers, the ownership of Bitcoins and the rules governing exchanges are not administered by a central State authority, unlike a system designed by a socialist, where who can own what, how much of it, and what can be done with it is absolutely regulated by a group of violent bureaucrats. [...] http://irdial.com/blogdial/?p=3326 This is a blog post, by someone fighting with Bitcoin misconceptions and myths. Other posts by Irdial include: +1 |
|
|
|
Now, someone make a list of all USD heists, thefts, hacks, scams, and losses resulting in loss >$5,000.
Exactly. +1 |
|
|
|
Of course, I support Bitcoinica and the concept of leveraged speculating/hedging. We need more of them (regulated and unregulated so you can pick your flavour). You may not see it but large entities are planning on entering the bitcoin economy in a major way; margin exchanges allow them to hedge their currency exposure without having to sell out of their BTC positions.
A regulated entity does not always inspire trust. Just look at the poor MF Global customers.
I will just borrow the words from someone else: "It is mathematically impossible to get high leverage to work in a thin market." Until we have a much larger market, high leverage is absolutely nonsensical and will always lead to huge failures. This breach (and potential failure of Bitcoinica) had absolutely nothing to do with leverage or margin trading. It was a policy and network security issue and it could have happened to an un-careful Faucet. Unless you don't believe that it was a security breach from the outside. Bitcoinica's broad customer base is testament to the fact that there is a huge pent-up demand for that type of service. |
|
|
|
I was very disappointed to see both you and Max Keiser praising it.
Bitcoinica was always a disaster waiting to happen just like MyBitcoin(ica), and any high leverage Bitcoin bucket shop will be.
Of course, I support Bitcoinica and the concept of leveraged speculating/hedging. We need more of them (regulated and unregulated so you can pick your flavour). You may not see it but large entities are planning on entering the bitcoin economy in a major way; margin exchanges allow them to hedge their currency exposure without having to sell out of their BTC positions. A regulated entity does not always inspire trust. Just look at the poor MF Global customers. |
|
|
|
Don't forget Betabeat, Bitcoin Magazine, BicoinMedia, The Bitcoin Trader, and that random guy on Forbes!  LOL. Random guy on Forbes now following this unfortunate event. |
|
|
|
|
Yes, if you are short and if Bitcoinica is applying conventional trading terminology, then a limit buy order would be filled at 4.50 or better. A buy stop order would be placed above the current market price to protect your short position against an adverse move.
|
|
|
|
Although, I think this comment has lots of merit too: Maybe it was an act of civil disobediance by a FBI analyst who also sees the value in Bitcoin? Also don't count out a counter-insurgency type move. The leak could be intentional by the FBI. A way to point out to potential investors and businesses that Bitcoin is on the FBI radar to keep it marginalized.
They know that we know that they know that we know.... Yes.........but do they know what they don't know? FYI, here's an actual FBI leaked document on 'Legal Aspects of Online Gaming Financial Transactions' (20 June 2011) that also cites the 'Cyber Criminals Exploitation of Real-Money Trading' (8 June 2011) mentioned in page 3 of OP's Scribd document. http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/attach/10/10400_FBI%20Cleveland%20.pdf |
|
|
|
|
Hi Patrick,
Congratulations on the new role at BitInstant! I followed your work at EngageLegal. Does this mean that you are exclusive now or can you still take on other bitcoin-related clients?
|
|
|
|
|
Although it is doomed to be hacked within 24 hours of release, it is still useful in the sense that its failure emphasizes the positive aspects of open source (non-black box) approaches. If an article accurately points out pros and cons of Bitcoin vs. MintChip, then I think it's relevant; otherwise, it's FUD.
|
|
|
|
I hardly see how another mining tool add any value to the bitcoin economy...
Why not focus on the SMS-payment service instead?
I was told that the SMS-payment service encountered regulatory issues which is why they put it on hold for the moment. |
|
|
|
|
Remember, someone is happily coming up a winner and getting the money, because it's a zero-sum game like the futures market. If Zhou is taking the other side of the trades, then he better win more than he loses. I don't fault the operator unless he fails to deliver.
I agree that most people might be happier if they just had a big party with their trading funds. You know the way to make a million dollars in margin trading? --- first you make $2 million then lose half.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
