Iceland "declares" independence huh.   

The author needs a little history lesson on the Icelandic krona.  Or is independent the new politically correct term for bankrupt?   

Well that's why I said indirectly.  A shareholder speaks with their wallet.  If I disagree with ATVI's vision, I sell.  Same as any other shareholder, institutional or otherwise.  

So adding a payment method is not a decision made by the owners of a Company?  It affects revenues.  Maybe if Bitcoins only added users but you have to take into account existing users switching from their current form of payment to Bitcoin.  Now you're talking about switching relatively stable revenues to relatively volatile revenues.  Management's main concern with a public company is the preservation of their stock so it is indirectly a shareholder decision.  Everything is.

We can go back and forth on this but I don't think it's worth the effort.  The ironic thing is I'm an owner of both Bitcoin and ATVI, believe it or not.  I'm just trying to look at this objectively.  

The average adult is absolutely your target.  Your average adult is the one with a brokerage account, 401(k), IRA, etc. etc.

You seem to be forgetting who the owners of the Company are.  Senior management is not answering to "precocious kids" they're answering to shareholders.  You know, the average adult?

Another issue besides volatility is the fact that only a very small fraction of the populace has even heard of Bitcoin at this point.  Forget about the kids playing the games because they're not the ones that matter.  They don't own the stock and they're already paying to play right now so the current options have to be working to some degree.

So now Activision-Blizzard comes out and announces Bitcoin adoption.  Lets be REALLY generous and say 10% of outstanding shareholders have heard of Bitcoin.  The rest are finding out through disclosures in Blizzard's 10-K, press release, or other medium.  Okay so now Blizzard has introduced a new exposure risk that 90% of their shareholders have never heard of.  Obviously, they're going to do some research.  We already know how the media has painted Bitcoin.  You think these shareholders are going to be thrilled reading these articles with keywords like "drugs" "guns" and "child pornography?"

And Blizzard is going to take all of this risk because of credit card transaction fees?  Beyond delusional.

Look, I'm not saying what the OP is doing is bad.  It's just wasted effort.  Blizzard is the wrong type of company to be aiming for right now.  Bitcoin is in its infancy and people have to come to grips that a company like Blizzard is not going to be an early adopter.  You need to focus your efforts on a company that has a minority amount of shareholders that is willing to take some risks.  Not a company worried about their stock plummeting on the NASDAQ.  

I'm assuming you mean border.  And Blizzard is not in the business of trading.  If you meant hedging foreign currency exposure then yes that problem has been solved in a derivatives market for which one does not exist (on the proper scale) for Bitcoins. 

The problem is a company like Blizzard is not going to be an early adopter.  It's easier to explain transaction fees to a shareholder than speculating in a new currency.  

These false walls have been put up and down for a while now. 

Exactly.  People need to stop using the transaction fee angle because it's nonsensical.  The amount they pay in fees is a small fraction compared to the volatility exposure they would face with Bitcoins in its current state. 

It's not about being secure in whether you'll win or not.  It's the fact that even if you DO win, you can STILL LOSE.  See my example.


Cypherdoc.  Who I quoted.  Not you.  Not that the amount of BTC's is relevant anyway.

In Bitcoins, yes.  But a bear would believe Bitcoins would lose value otherwise why take the bet?  As an example, lets say in a year BTC's are worth $5, so technically the bear wins.  This would be the transaction:

Bear buys 100BTC today at $1,400 (approx.)
Bear wins 100 BTC one year from now.
Bear takes his 200 BTCs from the escrow and cashes out at $1,000.

So even though he won the bet, he lost $400, not to mention the time value over the last year.  Only a moron would take that bet.

Yeah there's a point where they win, as long as the price stays between whatever they buy at and $20.  But the odds are still heavily in your favor.  

True the law of substitution should come into play.  The famous simon-ehrlich wager comes to mind.

However, you can run out of a resource.  There's plenty of extinct animals due to poaching to prove that.

Assuming a bear would not have any Bitcoins, they would lose either way.  They would have to buy Bitcoins now, ~$1,400 at current prices give or take, then put it in escrow.  If they "win" then their coins are worthless (or at least worth a lot less) and they lose the $1400 paid for this stupid bet.  If they lose, they're out $1400 plus whatever appreciation bitcoin sees in a year.

You'd have to do a straight USD bet to make it fair, which is kind of ironic considering the wager.

Blizzard is a publicly traded company, you're better off soliciting a smaller, private company.  The volatility in BTC is just too great right now.  Blizzard =/= World of Warcraft.  And even if it did, such a minor fraction of that playerbase would know about Bitcoin at this point making it completely pointless.  I won't even go into the shareholders....

OP, I'm not trying to discourage you, just being real.  Try and start with a little smaller fish.

Isn't Bitcoin supposed to be a next gen currency?  I'm not understanding why it's being compared to a commodity.  And specifically, gold.  Why not silver?  Or copper?  All which have real world uses and thousands of years of history as a store of value.

Believing one Bitcoin will be at parity with 254 ounces of gold is beyond delusional.  

Not everyone, just those who believe that's the trading range.

I am of the opinion that in order for Bitcoin to gain wide acceptance, we need to have a larger merchant base.  Established, high volume merchants, not start-up companies no one has heard of.  The start-ups are fine, and have a place in Bitcoin, I’m just talking about taking BTC to the next level.

The primary problem that I see is the volatility in the current BTC prices compared to <insert currency of your choice>.  Speculators are driving the price of BTC’s all over the map, making BTC’s an unfavorable medium of exchange at the moment.

Rather than fight the market and the speculators, perhaps we can have an exchange that both merchants and speculators can use.  This is where derivatives may be able to come into play.

Any business worth their salt will do pro forma projections on future cash flows.  This is particularly important if they want to receive financing, a line for working capital for instance, from a bank.  A pro forma would be incredibly difficult to do in Bitcoins current volatile market.

What if someone were to set up some sort of futures market?  Merchants could buy contracts that essentially lock in their Bitcoin price, allowing them to price their goods accordingly.  Essentially hedging BTC's volatility.

Speculators can trade these futures contracts, allowing them to “play the market.” 

I don’t want to go into too much detail because really I’m just brainstorming and I don’t know if this topic has come up before but I thought I’d throw it out there.  If it sounds feasible, I’d be willing to put in the time to make a more concrete plan, I just don’t want to waste my time if no one thinks this will work.  Thoughts? 

Witty 

When you stated, "more and more stable all the time," it implies some sort of linear progression towards stability.  At Bitcoin's current volatility, I don't see how you can come to that conclusion.  Just my opinion. 

Why would anyone want to hold the Euro?  Greece is essentially bankrupt with Ireland, Italy, Portugal, and Spain also in crisis.  The world does not exist in a vacuum.  There's much more than the USD at critical levels right now.