In theory...would this allow a merchant to pay 0 fees?

An individual's primary moral obligation is to achieve his own well-being—it is for his life and his self-interest that an individual ought to adhere to a moral code.


"I swear—by my life and my love of it—that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." -Ayn Rand

I do not believe that Bitcoin is yet ready for government level use. It is not yet ready for a large business.

Companies/governments need to have staff that spends money. Right now those large businesses have processes in place for how to track all of the money going through the system and how to keep people accountable for spending (two signatures on checks, receipts, ledgers, etc.).

Imagine someone in accounting having a Bitcoin wallet on their desktop. Not only would the accountant be able to copy that wallet and take it home for later use (or skipping the country), but so would IT and possibly anyone else on the corporate network.

I am not saying that Bitcoin is not able to be used in such an environment. Just that the processes and software/services have not been properly vetted yet to do so.

old thread is old

The article mentions that this is just a "new record". Meaning that they have done it before, just faster this time.

So the fact that they have cracked it before and Bitcoin was still considered secure would lead me to believe that this time it should not cause much of a ripple.

Ya, I have no idea...

I like the idea of being able to use any card for the transaction. That would help with implementation by saying "want to skip the bank and credit card companies? run this app".

I was wondering if there would be a way to set up the software so that you just check for that card on the OpenPay network before checking the other (debit/credit) networks. That way you would not need to choose "OpenPay" when paying and it would be seamless for the user. And it would be compatible with all merchant machines that way.


Also, where is that initial .01 BTC sent from and whom to? From the merchant to the customer BTC client?

Basically, Fujitsu just bought Bitcoin.

Good concept.

Could the PIN portion of it not be solved by using multisig?

Merchant sends a message to send .42 BTC to XYZ address. The client receives the request and attempts the transaction. The multisig transaction is attempted and awaits the second sig method before it finalizes the transaction.



Some side suggestions of other ideas I had that would apply here.


I had previously suggested something similar to a domain name server but for Bitcoin addresses. Instead of saying "Send the BTC to 1X8JS8SXM42A9W4AJOWQ4262PEW" you would say "Send the BTC to elwarsspendingwallet2012". You could take this concept and have a number DNS setup.


And secondly, the concept of award points. A merchant accepting BTC could pay 1% of each transaction toward a reward program that is tied to the spending address. This would be geared toward people who do not use Bitcoin but would be willing to use it in order to get better rewards than the other cards.

I can no longer mine Bitcoins on my computer's CPU in the background.

For this, I hold the GPU miners responsible. Please stop GPU mining.

My wife's store accepts Visa.

She has a card swiper connected to her laptop. She logs into a webpage that has the credit card transaction set up. She swipes their card and it fills in all of the card information. She types in the price and submits it. It then prints out a receipt.

Will your system work with this?

(though she can already accept Bitcoin payments via her smartphone, but just curious)

Entirely valid points.


Anyone who has used a credit card or debit card has had to make the decision on which card to use and which bank/company to use.

Some people make that decision based upon reward points.

If it was not true, they would not exist.

If it really does make as much as you say it does, it will be inundated by competition and the prices will have to be reduced.


As for your toll bridge. Had it been privatized, those tolls would have decreased.

Last time I uncoupled the Heisenberg Compensators I got sent back to 1958 in my Delorian.

But would you use the same address for spending if you knew that over time you could get an ounce of silver or a gold coin for using that address at certain merchant websites?

Because I may need more Bitcoins or more dollars as any given point.

Could you not use one wallet as your spending address and transfer money to that wallet when you want to spend BTC and get rewards?

Why would I want to rely upon other people's needs for BTC or dollars to determine my own ratio of BTC to dollars?

Some people say (I use that like Fox News to avoid libel) that Bitcoinica purposefully fluctuated the price with large amounts of buys or sells in order to knock people out of their highly leveraged trades.


Say there are 1000 people on Bitcoinica leveraged at 10:1 at 4.9 with enough Bitcoin to cover a drop of .2 BTC while there are 200 people leveraged at 10:1 to short at 4.9 with enough to cover a rise of .2. Bitcoinica jumps on MtGox and sells a buttload of BTC making the price drop to 4.6. All 1000 people just lost their positions and got Zhouted. Those 200 people start to get excited but what always happened? It shoots right back up. Bam, it is now at 5.0 and now Bitcoinica has 200 people leveraged at 10:1 at 4.9 to short while the price is at 5.0...another little bump up...bam, they get Zhouted.

Bitcoinica now has everyone's coins that they originally received with no payouts. They can now take those BTC and put it back into MtGox to put toward some even larger swings in price for the next victims.


Sure, not everyone was hedged at 10:1 and may have had more of a swing covered. Some may have even jumped off during one of the crazy swings at the right time and made a bit of money. But all they had to do was keep an eye on how much of a swing was necessary to make the most people lose leverage and strike when the timing was right.

Some people called these swings "the manipulator".


Am I against the concept of Bitcoinica and leveraged shorts/longs? No. I agree that it is healthy.

How have those big swings been since Bitcoinica went away?

Ok, thank you for clarifying the disconnect. I understand the multiple receive addresses.

Why would a consumer use different addresses to buy the same thing?