As people get more tech savvy more people will use Bitcoin. In it's current state Bitcoin is simply to complicated for the average customer.
The smartphone apps are actually pretty easy to use. It's still to complicated to get Bitcoins though. You can't simply buy them with your credit card.
I think the opposite needs to happen for bitcoin to go "mainstream" People in society are too lazy today to want to learn about new things. They want instant gratification. When wallets and apps are more user friendly (they have already come a very long way and the level of technical knowledge necessary is very small) the many more people will start to use bitcoin. I think Circle is going to help in that regard. Realistically the average person is not going to go download BitcoinQT and download a multi gigabyte blockchain. But using a service like Circle makes it much more likely that average people would be able to try bitcoin out without doing anything too difficult. Circle could very well revolutionize "money" and how people interact with bitcoin. Circle will use bitcoin as a method of payment but "balances" and the amount sent is based on dollars (or local currency). |
|
|
|
Myth. Double-spending requires having more than half of the network hashrate.
As long as the attacker can use their hashpower to confirm a block that contains the double spend then the attack will be successful. The success rate of executing this attack increases as your hashrate increases until being 100% success when you control more then 1/2 the network. Are you agreeing this is a myth or disagreeing? Anyway, it's not just "confirm a block", it's make an alternative longer chain after the seller waited for n confirmation. Myth. The important factor is the amount of time spent waiting for confirmations, rather than the number of blocks. (Still a myth if instead of actual time you look at #blocks * average time per block). This could be true if the seller was willing to accept a 0/unconfirmed transaction. A seller would want to wait some time for the transaction to propagate throughout the network prior to releasing gods as an attacker could potentially release a TX to a very well connected node then one second later release a transaction to a poorly connected node that the "attackee" is suppose to believe will go through. For some period of time both transactions will appear to be valid on some parts of the network but after some time the TX will likely fall out of the pending pool on nodes. Note that this is an analysis of hashrate-based double spending, not double-spends of 0-conf based on network topology. I am trying to give clarity to the facts that contradict the myth. You don't need 51% to be successful in double spending coins but the more hashpower you have the more effective this attack will be. |
|
|
|
It's like the stock market have you every played the markets? You sell into resistance which is overhead and buy into underneath support and set your stop at risk above or below those buy and sell orders
Stops are basically getting out in the other direction if it moves opposed to your direction at more then your willing to risk so you cut a loss but you may still be in the coin depending on which direction you bet.
That is not entirely accurate as a lot if not most if not all alt-coins are subject to manipulation. |
|
|
|
I just want to know will they announce how many bidder before the auction??
They will let the winners of the auction know that they won on the 30th (3 days after the auction closes). The prices will likely be disclosed at this time as well. |
|
|
|
Very nice to see there are more ATM's popping up. I'll be sure to buy some coins when I'm in Amsterdam.
Hopefully companies (small businesses) based in Amsterdam will start to accept bitcoin in masse. |
|
|
|
Yes, if more companies accepts Bitcoin like a payment method, there is some probabilty that the employee of Fortune 500 will be paid in Bitcoin !
I think this may be a "what came first, the chicken or the egg" type of situation. If people are paid in bitcoin then there will be an incentive for companies to accept bitcoin for payment. The reverse is true as well as if a lot of merchants accepted bitcoin for payment then people would wish to be paid in bitcoin. |
|
|
|
What if I told you send me all your money and I will send you the BOT tomorrow, or what if the bot is working as being marketed, it's still a scam though.
That is not what was happening. Whoever controlled the bot would enter into an enforceable contract that would stipulate as to how the buying would take place. It was very much like anyone else would buy on an exchange just in much large quantities and in an automated fashion. |
|
|
|
So it's ethical to overcharge for a lamp, but unethical to overcharge for healthcare?
What is your definition of over charging? Buyers don't buy based on price alone. You need to take trust, after sales service into account. Let me rephrase the question. Is it ethical to overcharge for a lamp, but unethical to overcharge for healthcare? The term "overcharging" cannot be easily defined. It is fair to allow people to make a profit off of the time and capital they invest in their business. The only true way to "overcharge" someone for something is to charge a price that is above the market rate, but if you charged this much then you would not be able to sell your product/service. |
|
|
|
Rise of 1100$ last year was caused by two BOT of Mt.Gox, know you?
People are overestimating the power of two bots. Look that two Bot can be much dangerous for the market, especially if you have many Bitcoin. Bot can only manipulate short term price on one exchange, they can not manipulate long term price on exchanges all over the world. If the spread between exchanges is large enough then people would start to use arbitrage between exchanges, causing the price to rise on other exchanges. Exactly. Now there isn't much spread between exchanges  Price of Btc-e is very similar to price of Bitstamp ! The reason that gox had a premium late last year and early this year is that it took forever to receive fiat form them so people would repurchase the coins they sold, withdraw the coins and sell on another exchange. |
|
|
|
gold is a fantastic value store (MUCH better than Bitcoin) but no good at all as a currency ...
Bitcoin is a terrible value store (too volatile) but a fantastic currency.
I keep most of my assets in gold (80%) and the rest in BTC .. which I am prepared to lose, if it goes down.
Gold is probably the best investment if you think inflation will be high over the period you plan on holding it. |
|
|
|
It doesn't matter where your online casino is based, it matters where it does business.
Anyone that does business in the US needs to comply with US law, and the same is true for any other country.
This is true but it's absurd. There should be no silly boundary called "country" in the virtual world. Countries, nations, and government are so getting obsolete, they are becoming more ridiculous by the day. You should think of it as if the website has a physical store in the country it was doing business in. If you were shopping in a store on main street in the town you live in would you expect it to comply with the local laws? |
|
|
|
I don't think that is possible. Keep mind that when all of bitcoin will be mined, there will be powerful hardware to mine bitcoin. So I think that is not a problem, the important is that bitcoin will can pay miners  Bitcoin will ALWAYS be able to pay miners based on the simple fact that difficulty can decrease if necessary. It will likely be a long time before difficulty will decrease as the cost of electricity is low compared to the block reward when analyzing data for the newest and most efficient machines. |
|
|
|
Are bitcoin gambling sites illegal in USA?
(sub-question: Does it make a difference where they're hosted, ie. if they're hosted outside USA?)
Lastly, If an online game involving money and payouts requires skill more than luck, is it considered gambling? And is it illegal?
To USA everything that doesnt involve giving the a part of the cake is illegal, or if its not, they will make it illegal. So much about your "freedom" Correct. According to the Boston University Law Review, U.S. regulations pertaining to online gambling are about how much money the government can make or lose and blocking competition. You, the consumer, are oppressed, as you have to pay higher prices (higher vigs and rake) and have less choices, when you have to buy from monopolies and oligopolies. You can get full explanation at http://stockbet.com/#/support/gamblingThis is not necessarily true. If a casio can reach an economy of scale then they can charge less from consumers in the form of lower house take. |
|
|
|
The reason they might allow btc is if it enabled greater business for them. The other point is paypal has to pay costs, they arent the biggest fish; they must pay visa, mastercard and various bank fees
I believe that paypal charges additional fees when a buyer uses their debit/credit card for a transaction. |
|
|
|
Rise of 1100$ last year was caused by two BOT of Mt.Gox, know you?
People are overestimating the power of two bots. The two bots contributed to massive volumes of BTC trading. From what I can tell the bots were acting on behalf of large buyers that wanted to buy massive quantities of bitcoin without disrupting the markets. |
|
|
|
bankers need oil to back the usd as a reserve currency
since usd is off the gold standard
if all the oil is not using usd.. usd will experience hyper inflation and the usa will have to close their offshore bases and cut back on military. they will effectively be neutured
As an American I would love to see our government "neutered." Our military should defend the homeland and that is it. We tried that in WW2 and as a result the Nazi's (and axis) were able to easily defeat most of Europe and was able to control most of the pacific. We got attacked even though we tried to stay neutral. Let them take Europe, not really our problem. It would be our problem. Economically because Europe is a major trading partner with us. Militarily because of our military presence there, the fact that most of Europe is our ally, because without Europe as our ally it would be very difficult for us to fight any war in that part of the world as we would have no place to stage a war (build up troops) |
|
|
|
If this is survey is administered to all their users (mainstreamers) pay pal will realise that 95% of the population sees no need for bitcoin
That would be true today but that is only because people are so accustomed to paying the hidden "tax" of using payment processors that process paypal, credit/debit card transactions and the like in the form of higher prices. People arent that stupid. Everyone knows that they are paying and how much are paying. PayPal is not hiding it. It clearly shows exactly how much it takes from every transaction. Thing is, PayPal has something that buyers want....buyer protection. So ppl are ready to pay large fees to feel safe, and PayPal knows it (paying for safety is really pretty much normal thing for our civilization). Anyway, PP will enbrace BTC and it will enable them to lower fees and become even stronger than they are now. You will have relativly lower fees and safety. Standard "Joe" dreams of it every night. You would be surprised to know how many people think it is free to process Credit Card transactions. If you had never sold or received money with paypal then you may not have looked into how much they charge merchants. |
|
|
|
I think the only way Bitcoin can be back by GOLD is when Gold stores allow customers to buy their gold using Bitcoin.
This makes no sense at all. When you "buy" gold for bitcoins, you're not backing it, but rather exchanging one for the other. Both are limited in supply, so there is no need to back one with the other. I think the title and the OP are saying two conflicting arguments. |
|
|
|
Any contract that you enter into is something that may need to be enforced in the future and you would need to use the state to enforce such contract.
The best way to setup smart contracts on the blockchain would be to set up a trust that holds a particular asset then have the trustee direct the "benefit" of the trust to the holders of the BTC address that contains the outputs linked to the contract.
I won't use the state to enforce a contract. I won't enter in to the contract if my only option is state enforcement. It's not an option. I hold access to the relatively small amount of BTC we have saved. I have the key, and the wallet files. She knows the key, but does not have physical access to the wallet files directly. A good friend of mine has access to the encrypted wallet files, but does not have access to the key. They could collude to access it, it's not likely at this moment. If it becomes likely, the arrangement would have to change. For now, she is likely to benefit from 100% of the stash. She'd benefit from less than 100% if she were to make some deal to access them. I have no reason not to trust her, but my feelings have no place in my security protocol. On another note, is there a printing shop takes BTC as a payment? We sent out announcements a couple months ago, but formal invitations need to go out soon. How would you enforce a contract without the state? If one party were to default on their side on a contract you could contact them to try to work things out but if you are unable to reach a resolution you would need to involve the courts to get your contract enforced. If you are not willing to do this then the other party has little incentive to honor their part of the bargin. |
|
|
|
Majority of people are lazy and also, not so many have wallets on their smartphones and also I can't find items to be paid for using BTC IRL.
Many people are lazy, but those people also want something for nothing. If a merchant is offering a discount for paying in BTC, and has a way to procure BTC right there then most people would have very little reason not to get this discount. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
