Do they not have to split up all the BTC between everyone gox owes BTC too...?
As already discussed here many times, unfortunately that is not going to happen. As a part of the liquidation process, the authorities will auction off the remaining Gox coins and convert them to fiat. There is no real precedent to liquidating bitcoin (or other electronic currency) in a bk proceeding. It appears that the law would probably have the coins be sold, but it would not be too much of a stretch to say a new precedent could be formed. |
|
|
|
My question is if u see something u would like to buy and this item is offered at a lower price if paid using bitcoins, providing that you don't already have a wallet or coins would you take the time to set up a wallet and buy bitcoins just to be able to receive a discount on the item u wish to purchase?
I believed atm most people would not bother and pay full price,
WHY IS THIS SO?
But it's not just for the first time -- if you start having some BTC on hand, you will always get these sort of discounts. IMO, in the future, some market niches (adult entertainment industry, for one) will use BTC and will give discounts for people to use it. No chargebacks... The "immoral" industries, like porn, legal pot, certain medical procedures, alcohol have a huge incentive to accept bitcoin. Not only would it be much more difficult for them to get robbed (when they deal with cash) but they would not have to deal with chargebacks which can eat into their profits significantly To answer the OP's original question, yes after learning about the benefits of Bitcoin I would certainly buy a product using bitcoin. |
|
|
|
This is completely false for the free market. A trade in the free market is always a win-win. It is the definition of the free market. If a trade is not win-win, it will not be completed.
Sorry, but this is false. example: A trade can also happen, because you think it's a win for you, but in reality it isn't. (e.g. a retiree that buys a useless insurance) Or because you lack other options. Your sentence is wishful thinking, but reality isn't like that. All trades on the free market should be a win-win for all parties involved. In order for this to happen there needs to be a sufficient amount of transparency and neither party is able to cheat. Unfortunately this is often not the case. |
|
|
|
More 'cypruses' on the way.
Cyprus is what originally caused a lot of interest in BTC in early 2013 and it's run up. It allowed people to see the benefits of being able to control you money the way that BTC allows. |
|
|
|
Buy 1-2 btc and invest in Just-dice.
Some investors get paid off handsomely.
Put very blatantly, SOME investors. I can't picture a lot of investors actually making money of a gambling site, regardless how much they put in to it. If you invested in something that was less "luck" based, it would be far better. Purchasing mining contracts (depending on how you feel about them) could be a good investment, or it might be better to trade other crypto's back and forth. I do that, and I'm made some decent profits off of it. It depends if you can play the markets well, however. You can end up failing miserably and lose all of it. Choose whatever method you like! Work, faucets, investing/trading, it's all up to you! I think he was talking about investing in the site like making the site's bankroll bigger, and share in the profits. Assuming you are not investing in a scam, this is the closest to a sure thing in the Bitcoin world. |
|
|
|
Although it's obvious quite a few people will be ignoring this and continuing on paying for things in btc and not giving it a second thought, this does pose a problem for quite a few people who plan to do it the legal way. What needs to happen is a wallet that fully integrates the IRS guidelines and automates whatever requirement they have so that you can simple include that part of your taxes with the full report. I expect there will be a sizable market for a wallet like that and whoever can implement it effectively will get the first shot at the market of people who plan to follow the IRS's regulations.
The IRS is going to have a very difficult time enforcing capital gains on BTC, especially with relatively small users. IMO they will likely focus their attention on people who have made a lot of money with BTC and are buying things like cars and houses with BTC, but their "day job" income would not support these purchases. |
|
|
|
Ebay will never associate with Crypto's especially Bitcoin. Ebay owns PayPal and PayPal is completely against crypto's.
When you take into consideration how much eBay charges for listing an auction and how much they charge for an action successfully closing plus the paypal fees they are almost getting away with highway robbery. |
|
|
|
Investors would have been burn so badly they will be not likely to trust someone else with their money.
Hard asset and cash on hand would be more likely asset investors want to hang onto.
Exactly! After a stock market crash, investors will be very risk adverse and would not want to risk what funds they have left in something that is more risky then stocks. |
|
|
|
Does anyone have a comparison on the number of people that use Uber vs. the number of people using BTC?
This figure would not be entirely relevant. You would need much more data to help understand each's value. For example if each person that uses bitcoin only buys once per week and then buys a coffee with it and the coffee shop instantly sells the proceeds on coinbase, while each Uber user uses Uber every day both to and from work. Granted this is an extreme example, but the point is you would need to know how much the average person uses each. Even with this information you would not be able to make an apples to apples comparison as bitcoin does not generate any revenue while Uber does. |
|
|
|
If such a deposit was found, companies with vested interests in the price of gold remaining high would keep the news hush hush and hoard what was found, much like what is happening with diamonds today.
In today's 24 hour news cycle it would be very difficult to keep this kind of information private, especially from people who make a living off of trading gold. The price would not be affected unless the entity mining the gold were to sell it in the open market in mass. If the company/entity that mines the gold were to hold it as an investment then the price would not be effected, as neither supply nor demand would have changed. |
|
|
|
Nice new, that and the dish accepting bitcoins but actually the price is going down currently  The price of BTC will likely not react instantly to new companies accepting bitcoin, but it would rather be a long term positive effect as over time more people will be inclined to purchase (and use) bitcoin. |
|
|
|
-US Government Shutdown - USD Death Fear looming - Circa October-November 2013
-Willy Bot @ MT. Gox Took advantage of the situation
However, bots like Willy are not uncommon but let's just say Willy could have been designed to take advantage of the situation.
Was it good timing thing? Well, I'd be willing to bet that many people, out of fear were getting into Bitcoin. It could have been an experiment too... governments are notorious for that, at the expense of its people. No government body nor bank can control the Bitcoin network, so this scares them in a sense that crooked governments don't want to see wealth in the hands of its people they are trying to control.
I don't think it was bots that caused the price to go up. The bots were essentially acting on someone elses' behalf buying real BTC with real fiat. The bots were trying to buy BTC without charging through all of the offers to sell. It is likely that a lot of institutional buyers were buying during this time via the bots. |
|
|
|
oooh professor bitcorns time is running out!  There is speculation that the professor was paid to say what he did. This speculation is based on his demeanor during his speech. He didn’t seem all to calm and actually appeared nervous during his prediction as if he was all too confident. His prediction was just a ploy to get attention and that is what he got. By making a lot of noise he probably got some amount of funding for research that was not necessary. |
|
|
|
There's no apparent need in cutting the portfolio. It will decrease naturally as bonds mature.
If there's a need in soaking up the excessive liquidity they have a range of other instruments, namely repos and manipulating rates on excess reserves.
The fed would need to reinvest the proceeds of matured bonds into new bonds or else liquidity would dry up. When US treasury bonds mature the treasury must issue more bonds to repay the bonds that are maturing. If the Fed does not buy some of those bonds then the effect would be the same as if it had sold the bonds in the open market. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin ATMs are very expensive. The cheapest ones run around $5,000 and the more expensive ones cost upwards of $20,000.
If the ATM is one that disburses fiat then the operator would need to invest tens of thousands of dollars in fiat to be disbursed.
Depending on the agreement with the ATM seller the operator may need to invest money to have on an exchange to buy BTC when someone buying BTC with the ATM (customer deposits fiat into ATM, ATM operator automatically buys BTC on exchange, ATM operator automatically sends customer BTC to their address, ATM operator takes fiat out of ATM and deposits back into exchange).
You also have the regulatory and compliance environment that is not at all business friendly.
Bitcon ATMs are very profitable, it is just that operators need to invest a lot of money into them.
|
|
|
|
|
If you have no specific need to have 100's of addresses in one wallet then it would probably be better to have several wallets with a less number of addresses in each wallet.
This would be to protect your funds in the unlikely even that something were to happen to your wallet file (get corrupted with destroyed backups, forget/lose wallet password, wallet password gets cracked, ect.).
This would also decrease the time it would take when you "reset the blockchain" for that specific wallet, however it would increase the time to reset the blockchain if you were to reset all of your wallets (you now have more and have to reset them individually).
|
|
|
|
I have the grand total of 0.068 in my wallet in Multibit - when i try and send them i get the error message "There are not enough funds in this wallet to send 0.068 (£4.08) Note that you can only spend confirmed transactions Remember that the sender pays a fee."
Do i Have to little in my wallet to send to another address or is it an error?
I know its only 0.068 but i need it to be sent elsewhere.
Any ideas?
regards
Multibit forces you to pay a miner's fee even if it would not be necessary for the TX to be confirmed. Try reducing the TX amount in increments of BTC .0001 until it allows you to send. |
|
|
|
|
IMO charging users a mandatory fee is not constant with Bitcoin principles.
Bitcoin is suppose to be a very low cost way of sending money. Even the miner's fees are optional (although a TX may not get confirmed if it is non-standard).
I would support an optional donation fee (even if it was set to "on" by default) to support their organization
|
|
|
|
No known security hole in latest version. Be sure to keep updating as new versions come out. The development team does a GREAT job patching problems that occur.
I figured so, but I just wanted to make sure  It is advisable to check the multibit website https://multibit.org/ and check for updates periodically. If you know how you should verify the PGP signature to verify that it is a legitimate version published by multibit. Any security issues would likely be addressed via updates. |
|
|
|
Had 2 wallets in Multibit, sent coins from the 1st to the 2nd. Now half of the coins have disappeared. And I can tell its gonna be a nightmare to get help from the dev. Back to Electrum, after a 7k loss  Could you post some kind of supporting evidence? I have transferred coins within a wallet on Multibit before, it looked weird on the transaction history but did not have any issues with the change address. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
