|
Bitcoin is completely impervious to state control because governments don't give a shit about bitcoin. Trading bitcoin for fiat is when governments gain absolute control over Bitcoin just as they do when any other commodity is traded for fiat. They don't begin to care until their money becomes involved.
|
|
|
|
The media is reporting a "Civil War" in the Bitcoin community.
Development solution == "Increase the blocksize and leave it alone", we do not need "developers" paid by a company to control the future of Bitcoin. Also, we do not need bloatware with dangerous new features. Bugs and other issues can be handled like any other successful Open Source project. Oh wait... "Bugs and other issues" lead to fights and more "Civil War" to entertain the masses.
Can we ever have Bitcoin without tons of drama and BS?
How, exactly?
No, no we can't. Bitcoin translates to "drama" in Japanese. I can't remember one year in the last six that wasn't filled with drama. |
|
|
|
|
I started using it because I wanted to buy oxy on Silk Road. I started mining to collect some coin for a purchase but before I could buy online I found a nice family doctor with a willing prescription pad so I didn't need Silk Road. The price started climbing so I got heavily into mining and hoarding coin. I believed all the hype about bitcoin for a long time until I started watching every respected member of this forum slowly turn into scammers and crooks. Now I just want to guess the top of bubbles and make as much money as I can. I thought we were due for a downswing so I sold 230 btc as soon as it went over $1,200. If we go below $800 I'll buy them back, rinse, repeat.
|
|
|
|
|
Is that why it's crashing? I was wondering what happened. I thought the Chinese probably got tired of Bitcoin and moved on to a new game of chance.
|
|
|
|
You can't say bitcoin is money then argue about what it can buy. If it's money then there's nothing it can't buy.
Bitcoin, at this moment, costs about $8 a transaction. Seen from the other side, bitcoin lets you EARN $8 per transaction a user needs to make. https://blockchain.info/charts/cost-per-transactionIt even used to be more expensive before the block halving. You can say: yes, but most of it comes from the block reward. True, but this inflation tax is ALSO paid by the users: those HOLDING bitcoin. The fees are paid by those transacting. But bitcoin is a system where a transaction costs $8. We didn't see this because of the influx of greater fool speculators, who paid most of this. But that's the reality: bitcoin SPENDS HEAT at the rate of $8 per transaction. Someone is paying that. There's no free lunch. So what do you think you can buy with bitcoin ? Only expensive stuff. Of course, you can say, but if we can increase the number of transactions, then we can also lower the cost per transaction. But the people in charge of this change are those on the receiving end of this cost. Why would they ? Then you believe it's just a commodity. |
|
|
|
|
Wow, this is a serious necro thread. There's been an ocean of water under the bridge since September 2010. At this point I think it's safe to start a new thread.
Bitcoin has been used as both a commodity, currency and money and it can and has performed all in the past seven years (but works best as a commodity).
|
|
|
|
|
Is bitcoin a competing currency or a speculative commodity? I can use dollars to buy a coffee, a car or an island. If bitcoin is supposed to compete with dollars, it should be capable of buying anything any other currency can buy. If bitcoin is mainly for speculation but can also be used for limited purchases then it should be reserved for large value transactions to reduce stress on the network.
You can't say bitcoin is money then argue about what it can buy. If it's money then there's nothing it can't buy.
|
|
|
|
|
How is this news? All large countries uphold AML/KYC laws.
|
|
|
|
The Most Common Causes of Failed Open-Source Software Projects https://handsontable.com/blog/articles/the-most-common-causes-of-failed-open-source-software-projectsSatoshi = Lack of Interest - this is specific to a lack of interest by the original developer/author, not users or the community. Whatever it is that causes the developer/author to start losing interest in the project, it inevitably ends with the project being abandoned. Everyone on this forum = Creative Differences - any open-source project worked on by two or more people risks facing a creative differences moment which, if not managed properly, could lead to a split, and the project being forked. And if the community is too fragmented after the split, both projects risk being abandoned. Mike Hearn, Gavin Andersen = Lack of Patience - some users and communities can be quite demanding when it comes to requesting features and updates, and a developer without the temperament to manage this will more than likely walk away (and worst-case scenario, delete the project too).
Half of the original dev team = Change of Profession - any change in career or profession by the developer/author can jeopardise the future of an open-source project as their priorities and focus shift. Bitcoin has had all of the below happen Project Related Failures
Technology - as a developer you would need no reminding that technology is constantly changing, and even large corporations can be affected by this, as evidenced by Adobe Flash and Microsoft Silverlight effectively killed off by HTML5.
Scale - sometimes what starts off as a small project eventually evolves into something too large for a single developer to manage, and unless the community steps in and assists, the project risks limping towards abandonment.
Legal Problems - very few open-source software developers have the resources to confidently respond to legal challenges from larger businesses, inevitably resulting in their project being abandoned and deleted.
Acquisition - standard acquisitions don't necessarily mean a project has failed, especially if the original project remains largely open-source, but with greater access to resources. But there is a trend towards acquihiring, where the original project is shut down, and the developers assimilated by the new company.
Poor Documentation - documentation that is either difficult to understand, or written by a non-native English speaker can hurt an otherwise great piece of software, especially if it is then ignored by the community.
Poor Execution - similarly, a project that fails to deliver will eventually be ignored by the community too. These includes projects that are difficult to install, setup and use, poorly coded projects, and projects that still use old technology.
Usurped by competitor - developers always need to be aware of what their competitors are doing, and this includes indirect competitors. Failure to do so can result in a competitor releasing a far superior product that includes features your users have asked for, but you have not yet implemented. |
|
|
|
one of my posts was deleted for being off topic. yet numb nuts repeats the same post 7 times and nothing and no one says nothing.
I'm in a zoo, with monkeys. I have no bananas left.
 |
|
|
|
|
I'm thinking if there's a world war in the nuclear age I don't give a shit what happens to any form of money. My only concerns will be, does this cave in this mountain go deep enough and should I have looted one more grocery store before I drove to this cave.
|
|
|
|
Of course the price wasn't effected. Currently the Bitcoin price is almost solely and completely controlled by the Chinese. Why would the Chinese care at all about the approval or disapproval of an American exchange traded fund?
The little downward movement that followed the announcement was the westerners response to the news but that was nothing because the Chinese don't care.
So are you primarily implying the Chinese have succeeded in monopolize Bitcoin ? If that's the case then what's the purpose of decentralization? It's as decentralized as any free open thing can be. Chinese have shit loads of money, they choose to buy bitcoin and no one can do anything about it. No one should really care either. It's making all of our coins more valuable. Besides decentralization doesn't come from ownership, it comes from control of mining or control of development. Think of it this way, if I owned every bitcoin in the world except for 10 and I was spending 1 thousand bitcoins a day bitcoin would still be decentralized. Even though I'm the only person still using bitcoin all the miners would still be in place trying to get a share of the block reward and the fees from my transactions. Development would remain a hodgepodge group of unrelated coders honing their skills on bitcoin. At this point bitcoin is so widespread there's no reason to ever talk about centralization again. |
|
|
|
That was a fun read. This is my favorite part. "Truly innovative business models don’t need to resort to old-fashioned law-breaking, and when Bitcoins, like any traditional currency, are laundered and used to fuel criminal activity, law enforcement has no choice but to act." Prohibition: Creating innovative business models since the dawn of government.  Thanks, it was fun writing it because Preet Bharara is a egomaniacal butthole. He never did anything while in office that wasn't aimed at furthering his career. Governor Andrew Cuomo knew it and that got him continuously investigated. Even though no impropriety against Cuomo was ever discovered Bharara had no problem abusing his power to attempt to discredit his detractors. Poor Charlie was the classic example of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I'm not excusing what happened at BitInstant, but with all of the massive mainstream evil being perpetrated by crooked New York banks during the economic collapse of 2009-2012 little fishy Charlie is the one he chose to jail. Bharara's priorities were more than a little self serving and pointless. I wonder if the stupid prick even realizes he was chasing the little exchange operator Charlie for a million bucks while the big exchange operator, Mark Karpeles, was about to screw people out of a half billion dollars. |
|
|
|
|
Of course the price wasn't effected. Currently the Bitcoin price is almost solely and completely controlled by the Chinese. Why would the Chinese care at all about the approval or disapproval of an American exchange traded fund?
The little downward movement that followed the announcement was the westerners response to the news but that was nothing because the Chinese don't care.
|
|
|
|
|
For those of you that don't know or remember Charlie Shrem, he was the founder of a New York Bitcoin exchange called BitInstant and a devoted advocate of Bitcoin. Charlie started his career as a modest retailer of fine collectibles and cutlery in the marketplace of this forum. With great entrepreneurial spirit he secured the support of investors (the Winklevoss twins) and opened a bitcoin exchange in the economic power capital of New York. He also was co-owner of the only bar in New York to accept Bitcoin and one of the stars of the first bitcoin documentary film.
Unfortunately, our hero Charlie was placed under the microscope of an up and coming new U.S. District Attorney named Preet Bharara. Bharara's career in that office began about the same time our beloved Satoshi was inventing the world changing currency we all love (2009). Bharara was desperate to make a name for himself and further his career. No one was safe from his greedy pursuit of career making attacks. Under Bharara, federal prosecutors conducted public corruption investigations against Democratic and Republican officials, securing convictions against the Speaker of the New York State Assembly, Sheldon Silver and the Majority Leader of State Senate, Dean Skelos. One of Bharara's chief adversaries was Governor Andrew Cuomo, whom Bharara's office investigated. Under Bharara, the U.S. Attorney's office was also known for its terrorism prosecutions. Bharara's office had international reach, pursuing defendants located in many countries outside the United States.
Bharara prosecuted and attacked poor Charlie Shrem, not because it was the right thing to do, not because there were no others laundering money on Wall Street worthy of attack, but simply because it would give him the nationwide media attention he so desperately wanted to further his career. Bharara stated in an interview: "As alleged, Robert Faiella and Charlie Shrem schemed to sell over $1 million in Bitcoins to criminals bent on trafficking narcotics on the dark web drug site, Silk Road. Truly innovative business models don’t need to resort to old-fashioned law-breaking, and when Bitcoins, like any traditional currency, are laundered and used to fuel criminal activity, law enforcement has no choice but to act. We will aggressively pursue those who would coopt new forms of currency for illicit purposes." Interesting that all around him in New York City the HSBC's and Wachovia's were laundering at least 1000 times the drug money that supposedly poor Charlie was laundering. But HSBC had clout and money to fight back, attacking them was not a good easy career move.
Fast forward to the present, Preet Brahara was just fired from office by Donald Trump's administration. On March 11, 2017, he was fired, after refusing to resign like the pussy that he is, as a result of Attorney General Jeff Sessions' request for all remaining 46 US Attorneys appointed during President Obama's administration to resign.
Does this make New York a more "Bitcoin friendly" place to do business? Does this mean Trump's administration is Bitcoin friendly? Will it have no impact on Bitcoin commerce in New York? Since he's out of work now, will Preet Brahara open a gay nightclub in Manhattan?
|
|
|
|
It could be that they're an over-regulated piece of crap company in an over-regulated country but try their help page here: https://support.coinbase.com/customer/portal/emails/newThis message is on the above page so I don't know how fast their help will be. Notice: Our support team is currently under heavy load and may take several days to respond. Please check our help docs and forum for solutions to most problems. It is incredibly funny that those type of support messages began showing up on the MtGox website a few months before they went out of business. |
|
|
|
If I had to use escrow every time I used my credit card to buy something online I would cut them in half and throw them away. Credit cards would be useless for me then.
I use credit cards with fraud protection for those items.
Kind of contradicting yourself there  No contradiction at all. Bitcoin escrow is too slow when all I want to do is order a pair of Levi 501s. I log on, make the order, enter my CC info and place the order. 5 minutes involvement tops. The CC company keeps me safe because I signed a contract with them that guarantees my safety wherever I shop (plus the 20 other benefits I get like flyer miles). That's not escrow. That's a legally binding contract that I can sue over. Setting up an involved escrow is too much work for a pair of jeans. The bitcoin escrow services I've used in the past were more expensive than the 2% merchants get charged per transaction. I used to trust JohnTheDong's escrow but I don't know if I trust any others. Searching for an escrow that I trust isn't worth the time for me. If I do find an escrow person that I use regularly they can still rip me off eventually (that's happened many times before). Its just not worth it for me, you're mileage may differ. |
|
|
|
Assuming a merchant accept Bitcoin,
You as a shopper, place an order, and that merchant did not deliver, or sent to the wrong address, or sent a fake product.
You can not reverse the payment, you can get your bitcoins back, and the only thing you can do it leave a negative feedback.
Of course, there are many other scenarios, like phishing websites, fake websites, selective scams, and so on
What are your thoughts and ideas to prevent these scams.
We cannot get our bitcoins back modify the op. My idea to prevent to this type of scenario is just always use escrow when transacting to merchants. This is the only way to prevent merchants to do this crazy act. And when it comes to phishing and fake websites, just always be cautious and learn to look at the url to protect yourself. Yes but using escrow for every purchase is a recipe for the failure of bitcoin. I'm a big online shopper. If I had to use escrow every time I used my credit card to buy something online I would cut them in half and throw them away. Credit cards would be useless for me then. I'd much rather take my chances on losing my btc than use escrow for every purchase. I just don't buy costly items using Bitcoin. I use credit cards with fraud protection for those items. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
