signature verified using electrum; wouldn't personally fill the loan myself with the given collateral though. if you have any other major altcoins you could offer as collateral, shoot me a pm or an email.

i think its less about volatility and more about decentralization; in fact i think the volatility has very little to do with their hesitance to integrate it. plenty of online vendors have already integrated bitcoin payments into their systems, such as newegg and microsoft (bitcoin to add store credit or something iirc), not to mention the rumors of amazon planning to integrate bitcoin payments in the future. but decentralization is one of the core tenants of bitcoin, it's the main quality of it that many organizations and companies do not like about it. this, i think, is the biggest reason many companies oppose the very idea of bitcoin. paypal, in this instance, has become one of the most dominant payment processing systems online, and holds a great deal of control. i can see them offering paypal credit in exchange for bitcoin should bitcoin go mainstream in the future, but its likely that it would cause too many complications.

Bitcoin Talk Name: subSTRATA
Bitcoin Talk Profile: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=68036
Rank: Legendary
Post Count (including this post): 3911
BTC Address: 1AXsSrN4K9PAd7wModQY9e2rjDSyQjCeFZ

its not cryptography that we need to worry about when it comes to security, its the people using it. the very nature of cryptocurrencies makes it so that cracking an address's private key is nearly impossible, based purely on luck, and would take millions of years to brute force even with the best computers. when it comes to people however, that's completely different. computers and their security only goes as far as its users, and most people tend to be retarded when it comes to cybersecurity. easy to guess passwords, lack of knowledge, and bad general practices overall. to make bitcoin safer, we should be concentrating on spreading knowledge on safe usage practices and better security practices if you ask me.

i honestly think that a very small portion of the bitcoin userbase is currently mining; with the cost of hardware for it to be efficient and profitable, and the relatively small amount one gets out of mining, only a few hobbyists will go into mining for the relatively small amount of money they can get out of it. honestly, i think the majority of users either straight up buy the coin with their personal funds, or acquire them through work and services. as far as china goes, sure, they offer a huge potential userbase and avenue for growth, but china isnt everything. there's still the rest of the world that we can rely on, that's the beauty of decentralization.

it can grow, but the real question is how shunted bitcoin's growth will be without china. china alone has an excess of 1.3 billion people, that's a huge chunk of a potential userbase we've lost.

so what exactly is your point here? that bitcoin's potential use for crime makes it weak? so what? anyone can walk up to their neighborhood weed dealer and pay with cash, does that make the dollar / euro / whatever weak? criminals can pay for illegal weapons with a suitcase of cash, does that make cash weak? im sure when paper money was first introduced people thought it was a 'scam' as well, after all its just paper, it's worth nearly nothing, why would it hold this much trading power? because the government said so? sounds fishy doesn't it. all the points you're trying to make can be said the exact same of the currencies in use today, you're not giving it nearly enough thought. there's something more, for the lack of a better phrase, as to why bitcoin has its strength and weaknesses, and why people aren't picking it up on their own.

sure, the chance this will happen might be low in the present, but how it will be in the future is all that matters. as it is, bitcoin is gaining momentum, and as time goes on, it only makes sense that bitcoin begins to take its place in becoming a part of society's norms. to be honest, i see bitcoin perfectly filling the archetype of the sci - fi world's currency (galaxy credits, space dollars, you name it), and i can only see it becoming more and more likely to be normalized as the world becomes more technologically advanced. we can't cling to how the world works as is now forever, we must always strive to adapt and evolve.

what if fiat is no longer a viable form of monetary value in the future? sure won't matter then if the system caves in.

not so sure about the near future, the world just isnt at the point where that could easily happen, there are too many barriers to that as it is now.

you can exchange any currency to another, you know that right? i can exchange the dollar for the euro, won yen, or pound if there was a service available that would do so. stop thinking halfway, always think through your statements before you write them down. in every country i've traveled to, there has always been a currency exchange available at and near airports, and most banks will process these exchanges as well.

so? its pretty easy for me to use and earn dollars, whats the difference here? i could say that i can use bitcoin and therefore its better than money, and it'd mean just as much as what youve said in your comment.

pseudoanonymous. but that aside, decentralization is one of the things i like about bitcoin the most as well, it gives me some sense of security at least that major events and attacks won't destroy bitcoin, and it can always bounce back with the backing of the users, not a bank or a government (although it would help).

sounds too good to be true. probably is. dont fall for it. use your brain.

i personally think they're going to be in the early stages for quite a while, the infrastructure to support widespread use just isnt there. first off, basic internet access needs to be a thing for the great majority of the population there to even access bitcoin. secondly, the people must have money. not just money, but spare funds they could use to get into bitcoin. without financial security, there would be no incentive to keep bitcoin and not sell it to cover living expenses. bitcoin, as it is, isnt usable everywhere, especially for basic necessities such as food. the last fundamental requirement i think would have to be education; without the general know - how on safe bitcoin use, i dont see many people picking it up, and even if they did, they'd be discouraged from ever touching it again if they were to get hacked / scammed, which a lot of newcomers do.

ico's aren't bitcoin, what's not to understand? if this were to go through, they'd ban a shady at best crowdfunding method for companies (or scammers) to start up a project. bitcoin itself is still seen in a good light in japan, its not as if banning ico's would directly result in the termination of bitcoin's growth is japan, can't say the same if bitcoin itself (and other cryptocurrencies) were to be banned however. don't see that happening anytime soon though, it's too well received in japan at this point for a reversal without a drastic change in the cryptocurrency world.

i've said it again and again, this is the more likely reason that a ban would ever go through in japan, to give the government a chance to come up with a system to regulate these practices. with a safe environment for people to experiment in, cryptocurrencies would thrive.

considering how accepting japan is about bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, this ban, were it to happen, is probably intended to protect potential investors from becoming victims of a shady 'ico.' this being considered, i dont think that this would change the japanese government's stance on bitcoin's legality and wont result in a ban on bitcoin in the future.

dunno about that one, the ico scene is pretty shady at times; some group of people asking for a couple million dollars promising to deliver something resembling a plan that may or may not even actually be finished? tad iffy if you ask me. it would be ideal if this ban was only temporary, and would only remain in place until the government organized legislation and means to regulate the ico scene creating a safe environment for its citizens to invest in.

why is an internet connection the deciding factor here? if im going to make a large purchase, say, a fridge, am i going to carry a thousand dollars (just an arbitrary value, going with a large kitchen fridge for the example) in cash to the store? or am i going to just carry a piece of plastic that i can scan on a machine to pay? probably the latter, and im sure 99% of people would say the same. but what does that piece of plastic depend on? thats right, the internet. without a connection, that card reader won't be able to contact the credit card company or bank to process the payment, and i won't be able to use it. this is an argument people use quite often when asked this question, yet they always, always fail to actually give the answer more than half a second of thought. it's also worth nothing that most people probably use a card 99% of the time over paper money.

please. the russian government has nothing to worry about when it comes to money laundering, pretty sure putin does it himself (read panama papers and putin's involvement in them, he had offshore shell corporations to do this through). if anything, its the exposure and use of a digitized, nearly untraceable currency (or asset, whichever you prefer, im using currency for the purposes of this explanation) that they cannot control. the lack of control for what is pretty much an authoritarian government is is a huge threat, it's pretty obvious why putin and his regime wouldnt like the idea of cryptocurrencies. as for laundering money, you can do that with any existing currency or asset. you can just fake purchases at a literal laundromat for 50 tailored suits a day and probably get away with it. if you're saying governments are afraid of bitcoin's potential or use for money laundering then youve either got a serious lack of knowledge and arent equipped to have this discussion, or youve just no idea what money laundering actually is or entails.

thats not true at all, just look at how the british pound tanked when the results of the first brexit vote were announced. the pound dropped something like 20% (not entirely sure, someone can look it up exactly and correct me if they wish) within 24 hours. availability? i cant use my dollars if i dont have my card or physical money available, the same way i can't use my bitcoin if i don't have access to my wallet and private keys. availability? credit cards dont work without an internet connection, neither does bitcoin. no cash? can't spend, and there are 'paper wallets' that can be created with bitcoin private keys as well. none of the point you present are consistent in the context of the subject, do some more thinking.

dunno if this one's been listed already, havent really kept up.

clby (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1080891)
Ubey (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=945766)
Hx352 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1082031)

same sellygg shop link and skype ( https://selly(dot)gg/@UbersHF | skype: ubers.hf)

clby posting selly link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2097233.msg20959287#msg20959287 | http://archive.is/vbbp2
ubey posting selly and skype: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1821425.msg20155523#msg20155523 | http://archive.is/xgvrq
hx352 posting selly and skype: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2048226.msg20409999#msg20409999 | http://archive.is/WTPQM

bump

eh... dunno about that one. we live in a world where most of our money isnt even physical, its all digital numbers (in total, not just for the individual). as for credit cards, they're not worth anything themselves, its just a worthless piece of plastic with a mag stripe and maybe a chip. it serves as a way to access your money when used with a card reader. we dont even 'own' movies or games anymore for the most part, it's all digital downloads and streams. your logic here doesn't really hold when you look at the bigger picture here; this isn't the reason people don't find bitcoin secure, it's their lack of knowledge and resistance to change.

i reiterate this point quite a lot when questions similar to op's comes up, sums it up quite nicely.

exactly this; as far as mainstream exposure of bitcoin goes, it's mostly presented in a negative way, or is presented negatively inherently because of the topic in which bitcoin is included is negative. just look at the most obvious examples: dark net markets (drugs, weapons) ransoms, all that good stuff. with something like that being the first exposure someone's had of bitcoin, its no wonder they wouldnt even bother to take the time to look more into it. of course, there are the curious exception who will do it anyways, but the grand majority do not. as bitcoin grows larger, and gains exposure, i think the public will come to accept it more as awareness and knowledge spreads.

i personally think it only serves to make the company more money, more payment options means more venues for income, and with the low fees associated with bitcoin transaction, this probably benefits valve more in the long run. not to mention the bitcoin fanboys that the addition attracted. honestly, it does make it easier for the customer as well, there's no need to sign into a different payment system, or enter your credit card info. though, i would assume that they would require one confirmation, which is the shortfall of bitcoin, and may be all the inconvenience that some consumers need to deter them from using it.

paying for games is to support the developers and such, they did put work into it and all. but to each their own.