Well considerig that BTC has been in a bubble since November 2013, albeit a deflating one, anyone that bought any time in the last year and change could be said to have bought it in a bubble.

http://www.btcreporter.com/2015/03/03/who-is-doing-what-to-preserve-our-privacy-hint-not-google-who-already-backtracked-from-a-6-month-old-progress/


Not Bitcoin-related per se, but given that privacy is an important issue across the board, and one that Bitcoin users tend to feel especially strong about, not to mention that the security of whatever cryptocurrencies we happen to own depends on the security of our smartphones and computers, I felt that taking a detour into Google’s broken promise with regards to the strong default encryption it once touted would be appropriate.

It wasn’t even that long ago – just last fall, in reaction to the flurry of revalations concerning the NSA’s behavior leaked by Ed Snowden, Apple stepped right into the middle of the controversy by announcing that future versions of iOS (its operating system for iPhones and iPads) would feature strong encryption enabled by default. Law enforcement agencies across the country piled on criticism against Apple for taking that step.

(NOTE: By “strong encryption” I mean encryption that ONLY the devices user can decipher – rather than the more common approach, which has been to generate a User encryption key that that is also decodable by the hardware provider, whether they are Apple, Google or Microsoft).

Shortly after the announcement, and in a blatant “me too!” maneuver, Google announced that they, too, would be enabling strong encryption, turned on by default in the next version of Android.

Finish reading: http://www.btcreporter.com/2015/03/03/who-is-doing-what-to-preserve-our-privacy-hint-not-google-who-already-backtracked-from-a-6-month-old-progress/

Thanks for the catch - will fix!


If you're buying Bitcoins, you need to transfer cash to the exchange before you make your purchase. If you're selling Bitcoins, the exchange needs to collect the cash before it can send it to you. You can't hold cash in a decentralized manner. In its physical form, it is owned and held by someone. In its electronic form, it exists in bank accounts which need to be linked to either people or companies (and individual people within those companies).

So, if exchanges are the means of converting cash to Bitcoins and back (that's my definition of them, at least), then no, problem not solved.

Doesn't matter if you leave it there for a second or for ten years, they scan your emails contents the moment it arrives on their servers.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/15/gmail-scans-all-emails-new-google-terms-clarify

I assume you don't use Android or any of Googles other services, either, right?

"Decentralized" is the buzzword of the day, especially insofar as Bitcoin goes. In the real world, though, it losses it's applicability.

Sure, someone could build a decentralized crypto--to--crypto exchange. Maybe. Even then, I'd have lots of questions, but there's no point in rattling them off until someone actually creates one.

But a decentralized Bitcoin to fiat exchanges? Impossible. The global financial system won't accommodate that. There will need to be a bank account or many bank accounts. Cash balances held. Wires sent and received. Which means there needs to be a person or company that owns and manages those accounts.

Decentralized could work in theory for a fully virtual currency, but once you have to handle fiat currency, the decentralized idea falls apart.

I call it legacy because its one of my earliest addresses. Don't ever seem to get anything but spam there anymore...

And of all of those, I'd say that Outlook.com is "best".

It's got the standard IMAP/SMTP plus webmail as everyone else, and I'm taking Microsoft at their word that they're not scanning my inbox and building a profile all about me - they've got an extremely profitable business model selling software after all, whereas G's model is centered on learning as much about us as possible. So that's a personal preference. Plus you get OneDrive (ala iCloud drive and Google drive), and a very clean webmail interface.

I also like apples, but realize that it's a no-go for all of those that own their products...


Gmail, I tjink, has the most obtuse interface of them all, but that's just personal preference. Their inbox scanning and targeted ads are also against my personal preference...

I'd rather support a company that says that privacy is a human right than one who's CEO says "if your'e worried about people finding out what you're doing, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place".

REally... For every bash on Apple on this subject, Google is ten to a hundred times worse.

Any why he doesn't have an Android phone either...

Why are we all of a sudden trying to figure out which addresses are Satoshi's?

If he indeed stole, what in the world makes you think he should offer some form of compensation? Does away with the entire concept of "theft" doesn't it?

Wow. If that's the thing that worries you, Bitcoin is fine...

Not to say that Exchanges won't be hacked, now or in the future...

But as Bitcoin continues its existance, companies handling other peoples Bitcoins will be more and more regulated.... Banking might not be the best model to name, so lets say Stock Brokerages... They typically hold billions and billions of other peoples cash and investments, and there isn't really a fear that they're going to close up shop and steal all of their customers assets...

That said; I am absolutely opposed to the idea of wallet services or storing ones coins on exhanges. Bitcoin seems like it's perfect to do away with that form of middle man, so I'm always surprised that so many people do, or that so many people expect that other would... Yes, if you need to buy or sell, by all means, transfer to an exchange, do your transaction, but then transfer the proceeds to a bank or wallet under your own control.

I do suppose that there is a problem that Bitcoin exchanges have that brokerages don't have - rogue employees; a rogue employee of a brokerage can transfer shares, yes, but as soon assomone notices that happened, they can be transferred back. Likewise for cash - bankers etc can wire their customers funds to outside accounts, but A) the transaction would be immediately linked to them or their login and B) the owner of the receiving account can be identified with relative ease.

Bitcoin does away with those protections... Supposing coins in a hot wallet aren't stored in multi-sig addresses, a rogue employee at a Bitcoin exchange could pretty easily step in and transfer the hot wallet elsewhere... Private keys and the blockchain don't require any identifiers from a user, so if someone happened to have access to the private key, coins could be sent without there being a direct link to who actually initiated the transaction. And figuring out the owner of the receiving address could be next to impossible.

But, these are all issues today, which is specifically why I don't think storing coins with another party is appropriate. And probably why the bitcoin exchanges, even in the future, could face a daunting challenge in trying to get affordable insurance coverage...

If you ever do have a million dollars in bitcoins, now or in the future, and needed to use an exchange... Or just wanted to leave them there, I'd hope you'd shop around and not leave them at a place like cryptsy... or even BTC-E, as solid as they seem, and having been responsible stewards of their users funds for years now, it's still difficult for me to feel comfortable leaving big balances there without knowing who the operators are. I'd end up opting for a U.S. based entity, where the ownerhsip is known and there is a strong rule of law... Not like that helps if coins get stolen and the exchange doesn't have enough reserved to repay, but one would think that a future scammer would realize the woes he could face here and would avoid setting up shop in the U.S. in the first place...

To circle back, though... Nothing you say doesn't already apply right now.  As more and more wealth is stored on the blockchain, though, hopefully those that acquire it will have the know how to secure their coins themselves... paper wallets, offline machines, etc, or at least will trust their fortunes to the exchanges whose operators are least likely to be malicious actors...

I have waay too many;

Primarily, I use A me.com address from Apple

Then I've got a bunch of domains using Outlook.com as their email host (back when it was free to sign up to do so)

A "legacy" yahoo address

A gmail address, along with a bunch of other accounts for their other services (webmaster tools, Adsense, etc)

My iPhone and Mail.app both consolidate all of the inboxes, so when im reading email I don't miss anything, nor am I ever 109% sure what address a given email was sent to

My roommate just launched a business though, so ill probably chat with him about switching over to business service, should that happen, I'll probably move some of the outlook accounts to being hosted here instead.

Bitcoin is not conducive to banking. If you bank with it, you're turning your coins over to someone else, which (I think) is the antithesis of Bitcoin. Yes, banking services could spring up around Bitcoin, but I'd have the feeling that it wouldn't go anywhere - people would deposit funds and then immediately request full withdrawals in order to "test" the banks solvency, making it impossible for the bank to carry on the rest of its ordinary banking activities ie, lending.

I also Woud question the notion that bitcoins are the superior currency for mobile banking; all currencies are just as easy to transfer digitally, but all the other currencies can exist in physical form as well, something that Bitcoin can't do.

So, no, I'd be hard pressed to see Gates' statement as being even an indirect endorsement of Bitcoin. But then, I don't think its the storage and transmittal of money that will lead to change in the third world, it'll be things like micro lending, allowing people to access credit in order to invest in their own businesses that have small capital requirements, giving them a chance to do something besides haverst cocoa, work in the oil industry, mine gold or gemstones.

So, I reuse an address, and then the other person with that private key scoops out my coins?

Not like there is the remotest possibility of that happening, but...

There are good and bad users everywhere. People I think are good users are of no interest to you, because of that big puddle in between us. But LBC has feedback, why not check that out? If you're intent on needing to buy 5 or 10BTC asap, but wanting to strike up convos at the same time, I'd suggest you strike up some convo with sellers on LBC.

A push system makes things like recurring automatic payments difficult, if not impossible, no?

p2p exhanges are a myth. Sure, the crypto coins can all be held in a decentralized manner, multi-sig, etc... But the real world financial system doesn't "do" decentralized - for every "decentralized" exchange, there'll need to be at least one person, one company, that isn't decentralized at all, but instead holds all the fiat and transacts fiat as people need.

What are you talking about?

Exchanges "should" only be quoting the bids and asks posted buyers and sellers. So, of course, if the price moves down on one exchange, it'll go down on all of them - otherwise, everyone would leave the more expense exchanges in droves when the price got too far out of whack.

How exactly do you propose that the community, the markets, and the world value Bitcoin if not for exchange pricing, which tracks the prices that willing buyers and sellers are willing to transact for? Dollars, euros, oil, all of those are quoted on exchanges as well. Why should bitcoin be different/exempt?

Have them be issued by a reputable organization...