its still the most efficient way of sending money internationally
God, the stupidity. There is nothing efficient about losing money between the time you convert dollars into BTC and the time you get your goods and services. It is an extremely inefficient way to preserve value. |
|
|
|
I totally get how, on its surface, Bitcoin can appear like an electronic version of the kind of cash currency people are familiar with.
This "familiarity" is really important. It's about trust in its store of value being stable compared to the goods people buy with it. But I think this conception of Bitcoin has led to much of the difficulty preventing its wider acceptance because it does not really act like a very good proxy of local currencies.
It doesn't "act" like a good proxy because it's not a good proxy. I can't rely on it as an exchange medium because it doesn't allow me purchase goods with any kind of regularity (it can't purchase anything I truly value, like my tax obligation, my groceries, and my rent). The one time I suggested an exchange of goods with Bitcoin, the seller told me that he would not, in fact, actually accept bitcoin because its value is changing too rapidly. For the undereducated: "I can't accept bitcoin because what you pay me with tomorrow has the potential to be worth way less than I am willing to accept for these goods today." This is the problem. A lot of the lament from many users is related to the dissonance between how their widely accepted, government backed, local currencies work and how Bitcoin actually works when they try to use it as a proxy for their native currency.
I recognize that government backed currencies are very much manufactured in the sense that their value is based on policy, powerful individual decision-making, taxation-backed, etc. And centralized fiat currency definitely has the potential to be manipulated in a way that ruins life. See Zimbabwe inflation. But the fact is, USD has not done this. It's very well understood in the US elite Fed crowd that a reliable store of value (read: stable in terms of the goods it can buy), plus wide adoption (salaries and taxes paid in USD) matters enormously. Trust, based on stable currency-to-good exchange is paramount. I like the idea of an unmanipulatable currency. This really is Bitcoin's strong point. But you need much, much more than this. You need stability in terms of goods, you need predictable access (regulation and assurance that you get what you pay for), and you need reduced barriers to entry to make any exchange medium useful. Bitcoin has none of this compared to USD, and there's nothing inherent in Bitcoin to ursurp a well-established system that just works, on a day-to-day level. This isn't some grand conspiracy. Bitcoin sucks as a way to pay for things. And for this reason, it will either remain a speculative toy, or die out like many, many attempted stores of value. Basic point: the most reliable, safe, and easily accessible currency will win out in exchange. Anything else is a pure commodity rife with speculative prices. |
|
|
|
No, don't. Try proofreading next time, then try to say it right without endless do-overs.
I wasn't wrong. I just know you, in particular, can't read right. I said it just fine, but I knew you would probably misinterpret the demonstrative as well as tell me that the "uniqueness" of the last remaining bitcoin transaction holds more value than any single barter with any two items. I know you really, really want to be right. I'm sorry, old_engineer. |
|
|
|
|
I was actually also speaking explicitly about Bitcoin beyond the exchanges. In fact, I was referring to Bitcoin the way all of you do: as a useful currency. If you haven't noticed, I'm consistently trying to dig at this pervasive, irrational need for bitcointalk members to make up every excuse in the book to support "bitcoin will live forever"-type thinking. Nothing guarantees your conception of tradeable hashes on any useful scale will conitue.
Case in point: Small shells still exist, as do Roman coins, but you can't pay your taxes with them (NO, IT'S NOT A PREREQUISITE, JUST AN INDICATOR).
One miner (painter), one sender (me), and one receiver (you) may be all I need to exchange my sexy Mario Lopez portrait for a pound of your tasty meat, but it sure as hell isn't a currency.
|
|
|
|
I think it's clear that Bitcoin has a few niche uses, though broad acceptance seems unlikely because non-reversibility is so unforgiving.
Do you really think this is the big hangup? I think you're implying a bit more. It's the non-reversibility in conjunction with wild west non-regulation and internet anonymity. Cash is just as non-reversible, but we have regulation (in the US) to protect transactions regardless of the medium used. Edit: actually, I think I'm just splitting hairs. It's the combination of what I'm saying above that makes BTC so non-reversible, yeah? Actually, I was referring to bitcoin itself, not the exchanges, nor the usage of an anonymity network like Tor in conjunction with running bitcoin. While there is precedence for a global "undo" when a bug was found and 2 billion coins minted, there's no one that has the power to undo any specific transaction. It's like running a bank without a backup of the main ledger, and no possibility of ever having a backup. While you'll never lose a copy of the blockchain, there's no backup in the sense that an old copy can't be restored if you find an erroneous transaction, whether it be a mistake, theft, or whatnot. Non-reversibility is both a feature and a bug, and for most transactions, this "bug" isn't worth the risk. Sure, you can build other things on top of bitcoin that provide this feature, but then you're no longer talking about bitcoin. Most people want reversibility in their transactions, whether it be credit card chargebacks, returning spoilt milk, or nabbing the pickpocket and getting your money back. Perhaps more instructive is to examine one user group that loves non-reversibility and other features of bitcoin: the black market. Though the possible anonymity (technically pseudonymity) aspect tends to be highlighted, non-reversibility is also a prerequisite when buying prohibited items (ie Silk Road). Someone could require ransom in bitcoins, and then they know that the bills won't be marked, everyone can see if ransom has been paid, and no risky meeting place has to be arranged. Bitcoins are also perfect for unregulated money transfers between countries, and since there's sometimes no legal way to reverse a transaction between countries. Bitcoins for country-to-country money transfer is basically like a Hawala network, which is the primary money remittance system used in many parts of the world (and is, of course, illegal in the USA): http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/terrorist-illicit-finance/Documents/FinCEN-Hawala-rpt.pdfThere's a reason that Nigerian spammer/scammers are in Nigeria: there's no way to undo a transaction, or prosecute the scammer. From most people's point of view, bitcoins "features" don't represent progress, though they are clearly useful in limited cases. Then again, is the world better off with nuclear weapons and nuclear power? Perhaps not. I even think that the advent of agriculture was not necessarily good for humans, forcing us out of a hunter-gatherer lifestyle and into a sedentary farming lifestyle that we aren't well suited for. But bitcoin is here to stay: it's up to us to figure out what the hell to do with this new and disruptive technology, and hopefully we'll find productive uses over the coming years. Minus the bit about the coming years, this is interesting. Thanks. |
|
|
|
I think it's clear that Bitcoin has a few niche uses, though broad acceptance seems unlikely because non-reversibility is so unforgiving.
Do you really think this is the big hangup? I think you're implying a bit more. It's the non-reversibility in conjunction with wild west non-regulation and internet anonymity. Cash is just as non-reversible, but we have regulation (in the US) to protect transactions regardless of the medium used. Edit: actually, I think I'm just splitting hairs. It's the combination of what I'm saying above that makes BTC so non-reversible, yeah? |
|
|
|
TIL: Secure, fast, low-cost, unregulated international transactions == bartering your favorite half-nude Mario Lopez portrait for pound of beef jerky.
Sorry, I should probably clarify. There's nothing of value at the stage where one person is mining, one person is sending, and one person is receiving BTC. At that point, my half-nude Mario Lopez portrait (yes, it's mine!) is just as secure, fast, low-cost, and unregulated. It's a dumb argument to claim that as long as something can be traded by two people, it's a fantastic libertarian ideal currency. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin's low transaction costs have the potential to enable Coasian externality resolution, to succeed where the state currently struggles.
There is nothing inherent in BTCs "low transaction costs" (i.e. skipping physical exchange costs, finding buyers, etc.) that solves the tragedy of the commons. You have to be joking. it will bottom out to the point where owners of bitcoin don't care any more what price it is, when the only trades on the exchange are for those who buy in, transfer, buy out.
You have to be smart enough to realize that any point at which people "don't care about" its value means it's literally worthless. You can't have a medium of exchange without people caring about its value. Right now, that value is represented by its exchange value for USD (wildly fluctuating). Until BTC is what you get paid in, and pay your taxes in, it will always be represented by USD/BTC ratio. And that has more opportunity to tank to 0 before any real adoption. I will laugh in a year when there is nothing left, and you can reflect on this and reorient your expectations for the future like the rest. |
|
|
|
Just a reminder that the price of A STABLE bitcoin is irrelevant if you are using them instead of hoarding them.
Fixed that for you. Thank you, I was about to tirade. It's obvious that if your store of value deflates (or inflates) wildly, it matters enormously. The mentality that it doesn't is an indication of the true ignorance many hold surrounding bitcoins, currency, and value in general. I pray for your families if you can't grasp the basics of this. God help your retirements. |
|
|
|
Yes, as it has been said many times on the forum, all bitcoin needs to continue is one person mining, one person sending and one person recieving.
There is nothing unique to Bitcoin at this stage. It is nothing more than bartering your favorite half-nude Mario Lopez portrait for pound of beef jerky. Peter, I hope you don't have holdings in BTC. |
|
|
|
There are other exchanges. You think they will all close? People will still be able to trade bitcoins outside the exchanges, it just is a bit more difficult.
It's not "just a bit more difficult," it's magnitudes more difficult. And enormously more risky, considering you need to trust people with complete anonymity. Don't expect the past diehards to keep things rolling. I've watched many of them bolt. You and everyone else need to stop pretending like BTC was anything other than one more internet meme. |
|
|
|
I think you're underestimating the former number of people who do not understand the true risks of BTC.
In fact, I am not. I'm sure it was massive. But past tense doesn't stay in the past in this case. People remember that their money is not safe in BTC. People read and hear about all the shady crap going down. It's a losing PR battle, and without easy transaction tools because of their failure, there is no confidence to support use. You must have confidence. You may be the last man standing. |
|
|
|
You are right, but value cannot simply drop forever. If it goes to 0.5 many people will buy. And it's up to $1 again. If it goes to $1.5, fewer than "many" will buy, but still the price can stabilize or rise to 1.7. Anyway, we need stability after this decline.
Yes, it can. Volume can drop to the point that MtGox decides the cost of running the exchange outweighs the money they make, and they close up shop. I promise you nobody will be around to dance with your BTC without MtGox. |
|
|
|
Really? I expect the next bubble will be enormous.
I think you're overestimating most people's stupidity. The composition of the last bubble was not just geeks, it was anyone with the basic tech to follow a guide on how to get BTC. It was people who either didn't understand the true risks of BTC (hacks, theft, scams, above and beyond just volatility), or people who did and love high-risk gambling (me). The former are gone and will not come back, and there will be no more adoption until regulation and reassurance that some asshole already convicted of mortgage fraud isn't collecting coins for a "project" that will never be realized. This will never happen, because some large degree of market cap is necessary to initiate any kind of regulatory pressure. Chicken and egg in the negative direction. Look at the world you're living in: there are "businesses" advertising that they are ponzi schemes. I don't understand how you all can miss this, log chart trends or not. |
|
|
|
This talk of a "long-term channel" is all bunk.
Clearly, there are two things going on. For a good look at what the long-term history of bitcoin is, go to bitcoincharts, get the mt. gox data on a log chart with just the 30-day average. Bitcoin is inflating, so with a steady interest/adoption, the price goes down assyptotically aproaching a fundemental value. As more people adopt bitcoin, that fundemental value goes up. There have been waves of bitcoin adoption, each pushing the value up onto a higher curve which it follows downward. As time goes on, the rate of inflation lowers, so we should see the downward curve leveling off, and future price moves will be more determined by interest/adoption, rather than the inflation.
Your "waves" of bitcoin adoption were based mostly on speculative interests. If you're looking for fundamental value, you have to discount the speculative aspect that will follow any and all price fluctuations more fervently than dyed-in-the-wool interests in BTC usefulness. The last people standing will not be fundamentals. They will be speculators (think big, Bitcoinica). That is what is propping up BTC demand. When MtGox tanks, say goodbye. |
|
|
|
Or maybe it's captain fat-fingers putting an extra zero on figures
Some personal experience, Captain? (+1) With your mom :-P Yeah, actually I was suggesting you were the fat-fingered captain putting an extra zero on figures. But if you think my mom enjoys that, have at it. |
|
|
|
Or maybe it's captain fat-fingers putting an extra zero on figures
Some personal experience, Captain? (+1) |
|
|
|
Besides, practice makes perfect.
As long as your "practice" isn't doing the same stupid shit over and over... Good luck with this, Atlas. |
|
|
|
That's the system.
Explain. I mean, an individual has to be making these large scale orders, considering how fast they rise and fall. Maybe it's an early adopter with a massive stockpile, maybe it's another exchange or Bitcoinica's hedging, but other than that, what explains 10k coins going up and going down instantaneously? This isn't piecemeal market behavior. I refuse to jump on the bandwagon that it's some massive conspiracy crap, but "fake" walls of this size and frequency are perception manipulation, pure and simple, unless I'm missing something significant with the way the exchanges work. If this is the case, I'm really curious. |
|
|
|
I've been looking for something to keep me busy since I automated my mining rig. Thanks for the link BitMagic -- this will quell my simple mind all the way to bedtime!
Well, to be fair, you haven't shown me anything to believe you need the help like old_engineer. But, you know, if you need something... Seriously, shut up, Crypt_Current, unless you have a legitimate gripe about title insurance and property sold for BTC. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
