looks very nice... though "Free money" will make everyone think its a scam.
good point. "We're giving away some bitcoins" will work. I have a girl in NYC that can go deliver this on the stump. Is anyone else actually close to Wall Street? Do it! But make sure there's a high quality video! |
|
|
|
One of the beauties of bitcoin is that there's no way to know  I'd guess not that many, just because Bitcoin is still very niche. The number will grow. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin IS dangerous to the establishment financial system, but these little DDoS attacks are not done by some grand secret malicious organization.
When banks feel threatened by Bitcoin, they'll start attacking it via the regulatory and legal system. That's how they work. They'll get the senators mad about Bitcoin, and the cries will go out as in South Park, "there oughtta be a law!!!"
Occam's Razor is very important when pondering "what may be going on."
DDoS happens... doesn't really need much more explanation than that.
|
|
|
|
Wow, didn't realize how many libertarians were here. That's...unsettling.
Yeah look out for them!!! They might leave you alone!!! |
|
|
|
If the person voluntarily agreed to be bound by X terms, and X terms are followed, then there is no moral problem.
Except that this only happens in situations where prevalent working conditions in a society are so bad that they are effectively forced into slavery. Either that or starve to death. Well, it's technically a choice, right? Libertarian ideas of "freedom" are scary as fuck. And what is your solution? To not allow desperate people to make the choice in the first place? What exactly is the alternative you are advocating? When a sweat shop is closed... who is helped? |
|
|
|
So long as a corporation is not enslaving workers at its factory (preventing them from leaving if they so choose) then there is no moral problem - and indeed one should realize that the corporation is providing the best option for employment. If a better option existed, the workers would pursue it.
Is this a moral problem? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_slaveryBecause history has shown that the less regulation we have, the more of that we get. If the person voluntarily agreed to be bound by X terms, and X terms are followed, then there is no moral problem. However, the practice of bonding a child to the debts/obligations of a parent is morally wrong, and such a contract is not valid. In the US, we call this phenomenon Social Security. |
|
|
|
Workers that fight for their rights and form unions and what else aren't very efficient.
That's why a lot of industries moved to china or other poor countries (now they are moving AWAY from china, since it's no more so poor), to exploit their cheaper workforce with less rights.
All people in a marketplace seek the lowest price for a given good. You don't pay more for bread than you need to. A company will not pay more for labor than it needs to. So long as a corporation is not enslaving workers at its factory (preventing them from leaving if they so choose) then there is no moral problem - and indeed one should realize that the corporation is providing the best option for employment. If a better option existed, the workers would pursue it. You use the term "exploit" - but companies aren't exploiting workers any more than you exploit the baker whose bread you buy. |
|
|
|
Actually, you can. You prove your experience and skills, solicit investors and in a free-market you can facilitate the construction of a oil company; anybody can if they have the desire for the required knowledge.
And when the private army of Monopoly Inc. murders you for trying to horn in on their profits, there's nobody to punish them for it. Presumably the people will get very angry and boycott Monopoly Inc. just as soon as they read about the murder in the newspaper, which is also published by Monopoly Inc. There is no example in history of a monopoly forming and harming its customers - except in cases where that monopoly was granted to the firm by government protectionism. The idea that a company could get so large and powerful that it no longer responds to the preferences of consumers is a fallacy. It has never happened, and can never happen, unless a government precludes competitors from the industry. |
|
|
|
If a small-ish group of people can buy the daily supply with a smallish amount of money, I would say that the system is in it's death throes.
According to your logic, Bitcoin was dead 2 years ago. But let's examine something. If the price went back to $1, Bitcoin would be just like it was when it was previously $1, except for the following: - many new exchanges - many new merchant solutions - many new vendors - stronger hashrate - stronger brand recognition - longer lifetime (more reasonable to trust) - stronger client software - no displacement by multiple competing chains - etc. If Bitcoin was viable when it was previously $1 WITHOUT all those subsequent improvements, it'd be reasonable to think it's viable at $1 WITH all those improvements. The enumeration of improvements is exactly why I consider the solution to be dying. It is a bad omen to me that even with all of those things you've outlined, the whole systems capital creation can still be purchased for a small outlay. You're letting the massive speculative bubble up to $30, and the subsequent fall, cloud your judgement. Consider the market price to be made of two components, the fundamental value and the speculative value. In an asset like Bitcoin, the speculative value will be a very large portion of the market price, because the investment case for Bitcoins is extremely strong (ie - if Bitcoin succeeds, the price of a coin will skyrocket, and if it fails, it will fall toward zero). The result is that the fundamental value component is obfuscated by the extremely volatile speculative value component - and thus the fundamental value may be far higher or far lower than the market price at any given time. For evidence of this, consider that the fundamental value of Bitcoins didn't increase 30-fold when the price went from $1 to $30. Similarly, when the price fell from $10 to $5, the fundamental value did not halve. It is the speculative component which drives market price right now, and for the foreseeable future. Bitcoin is simply too disruptive a technology to avoid this phenomenon. The price falling to current levels is indicative of a change in speculative assessment, not fundamental assessment. It takes a wise, patient investor with nerves of steel to understand this and act accordingly - buying when the speculative value has dropped the market price below the fundamental value. The simple lesson is this: a falling price does not indicate a less valuable Bitcoin, and a rising price does not indicate a more valuable Bitcoin. Ignore the market price, try to discover the fundamental value of these things, and then act/invest accordingly. I think the fundamental value of this technology is massive, and until a serious security flaw is discovered in the protocol, my long-term outlook for the market price of a bitcoin is very bullish. Short-term, I have to take a shot of tequila sometimes to calm the nerves and like you said, don't invest more than you can be comfortable losing. |
|
|
|
If a small-ish group of people can buy the daily supply with a smallish amount of money, I would say that the system is in it's death throes.
According to your logic, Bitcoin was dead 2 years ago. But let's examine something. If the price went back to $1, Bitcoin would be just like it was when it was previously $1, except for the following: - many new exchanges - many new merchant solutions - many new vendors - stronger hashrate - stronger brand recognition - longer lifetime (more reasonable to trust) - stronger client software - no displacement by multiple competing chains - etc. If Bitcoin was viable when it was previously $1 WITHOUT all those subsequent improvements, it'd be reasonable to think it's viable at $1 WITH all those improvements. |
|
|
|
|
Looks like my post didn't end the debate at all! =)
I will say, as sure as I am that Bitcoin is a commodity and is a money - I've even more sure that it is NOT a security. It's not backed against any promise from anyone to pay anything. A security requires an issuer.
Of all the categories that Bitcoin could fall into, security is not one of them.
|
|
|
|
The Bitcoin system, which is a very ingenious system, has the potential to provide a direct service, but does a bitcoin itself provide a direct service to people? The only direct service the Bitcoin system that one could argue it currently provides is to "send" bitcoins to others. But if a bitcoin does not provide a direct service, why are people willing to exchange goods for them? I believe there is among Bitcoin users a widespread misunderstanding of Bitcoin, and after so much discussion on this thread, a misunderstanding of the concept of money itself. This calls into question the value of the Bitcoin system since it's only direct service is to allow people to "send" an alleged good which provides no direct service.
I could create a ledger with some paper and a pencil, calling the numbers in the ledger "nums", and after someone fulfills some requirement I can write +50 "nums" to their account. Then, for example, they can then have me write -25 "nums" to their account and +25 "nums" to someone else's account. But what direct service do "nums" provide? Why would anyone want to pay a cost (whether it's meeting some arbitrary requirement or offering a good) to acquire any "nums"? The only difference between "nums" and bitcoins (and this difference is actually irrelevant) is one of who or what is trusted. Even assuming you had full trust in me and my ability to keep the ledger accurate and secure, "nums" still provide no direct service to anyone. My ledger service has the potential to provide a direct service, but the "nums" it keeps account of do not provide any direct service, so would my ledger service actually be providing a direct service to people by keeping account of "nums"? I don't think so.
Your system requires that people trust you as a third party. Bitcoin requires no such trust. A transaction system which requires no trusted party - this is as revolutionary as email... and like email, it'll take a while for people to realize the ramifications. |
|
|
|
Imagine what you could do if bitcoin did go to $0.0001 ...you could buy all the bitcoins in existence for less than $1000. You could then peg the price of bitcoin at around $1 ...selling for $1.05 and buying for $0.95. People would then know the price of bitcoin wouldn't fall below $0.95 (assuming they trust you to maintain the peg). They also know you will be selling more as the price rises above $1.05. Bitcoin would be used to facilitate private p2p transactions as it was intended and the coins would slowly return to circulation and you would make a fortune. This of course is why it would be next to impossible for someone to corner the market on all bitcoins like this.
Brilliant point Steve. |
|
|
|
|
OP - your sentiment is understandable. I agree that a large amount of the comments on these forums are immature and spiteful.
However, I do think it's "healthy" for there to be a higher than normal paranoia about scams and fraud. Forum members who spent hours digging up dirt are sometimes wrong or misguided, but it provides a valuable service in an ecosystem which is new, fragile, and vulnerable to the untrustworthy.
The sometimes excessive interrogation is a form of inoculation. It will fade over the long term, but for now at least I'm glad there are people who want to "out" others - even if they're being immature and vitriolic.
But there's no reason for people to be unprofessional and rude. A man with a solid argument need not resort to the behavior of a child.
With that said, be careful when pointing fingers. Some of the statements in your post amount to little more than name calling.
|
|
|
|
The larger issue still remains.
The advantage of bitcoin is that there is no counterparty risk. For a business that means no risk of customer fraud, chargebacks, etc.
If a very large business uses bitpay then they are trading one form of counterparty risk (chargeback) with another (bitpay gets hacked, robbed, goes bankrupt, owers run away with the coins).
Why would a business accept that risk? For what benefit?
I believe Bitpay typically has only 1 day's worth of sales in their system. So such risk is very limited. They're not going to be holding two fiscal quarters of revenue =) |
|
|
|
Have faced the same issue. Two suggestions that have been mentioned above are good: 1) Hire a programmer who is totally unaware of Bitcoin... preferably someone in India or Pakistan. Use oDesk.com. Don't make a big deal about the project. If you think it's going to be very profitable, don't let on. 2) Make the programmer sign a simple NDA. Again, don't make a big deal out of it. Also remember that ideas are a dime a dozen, really. Implementation is king. The best way to protect your "idea" is to have beautiful, professional design, a strong brand identity (compelling brand name and domain name especially). Make it so that even if someone steals the idea, yours is more attractive and professional. That's really the best protection you can get. The reason I say to hire an Indian or Pakistani programmer, is that in my experience they have reasonable technical skill but are god-awful at graphic design. If one copied your idea, it'd be so ugly you need not worry about it. This is a generalization of course, but one based on experience |
|
|
|
This is communism, I thought the FSP was against that on principle.
Voluntary donations are the very opposite of communism. If we were stealing your money and sending it to our members, that'd be more like communism/USA. |
|
|
|
|
Awesome! Be sure to mention these specific plugins if you can on the bitcoin wiki (people might search for zen or magento and they need to see your name).
|
|
|
|
haha, they just changed it now to promote bitcoin  I was just about to write some snide remark making fun of the currency system they proposed. But, they changed the page to Bitcoin! Clearly they do have some good judgement, and now they have my respect  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
