Staffing site "Outbounders" adds Bitcoin option: " International payments are a problem when it comes to small transactions. First banks like Paypal take their cut of 3%. Then when we convert USD to other currencies we take another 2% - 3% hit. And sometimes they also incur a fee on their side to withdraw it. By accepting Bitcoin and paying in Bitcoin we can make much smaller payments, more frequently and save on the transaction fees on all sides. In the near future this will enable us to pay out staff on a DAILY basis, which of course staff will love; this is unheard of right now." Says Outbounders.com CEO, James Stinson.
http://www.finextra.com/News/Announcement.aspx?pressreleaseid=50521&topic=retail |
|
|
|
I have been excercising for a while to lose wait now and eventually I've lost some weights. However the fat around my belly hasn't been burned. Please advice me what to do.
What kind of excercising have you been doing? Just be stubborn. Running, squash, rock climbing, boxing, healthy meals - all of it in moderation. Do not overexcercise. Ask yourself: what is a reasonable time frame to reduce the belly you've been putting on for years? |
|
|
|
Lets BitAttack those who say Bitcoin is useless, rubbish, illegal, and even those who spell it 'Bit Coin' or 'BitCoin'.
Even better, let's put you on the "ignore" list. |
|
|
|
|
What Mylon said. This convoluted discussion boils down to two separate transactions, each with its own legal aspects and cans of worms. Not saying any cans of worms would get opened, but who knows.
User "seller" says he owns bitcoins, and owes dollars. Instead of selling his bitcoins for dollars, and paying off the loan, he is creating a complicated third-party-payment situation.
If he doesn't like the price he can get at an exchange, he is welcome to make an offer and wait, or to make an offer OTC or through local markets and wait.
|
|
|
|
|
Technically, you cannot pay off your USD loan by having somebody else pay it off in exchange for whatever (bitcoins, blowjob, a used car). This distinction may become important in case of either of the two deals going bad.
|
|
|
|
|
Help me here. Let's say I'd like to live in a society that can be best described as communist. However, I require all my adult comrads to be there of their free will, absolutely without State coercion of any kind. Does this make me a communist or an anarchist?
|
|
|
|
|
As long as I can use it, I'll keep using it. In other words, my "exit point" would be if I were not able to spend or exchange it easily - however, if this ever happens, it won't make sense to spend time "exiting" - just keep the coins as a suovenir.
This metric (being able to use Bitcoin) has only been getting better over the past few years - there are more and more places accepting and exchanging coins, more and more users, and there is even some progress on the regulatory side (growing pains mostly, but nevertheless). I don't expect giving up any time soon, and I am perfectly content with ups and downs ahead of us.
|
|
|
|
Banco Ambrosiano - actual murders, in addition to the usual money laundering and financing terrorist groups.
|
|
|
|
I only started a mining a month ago and difficulty has gone from 12 to 19.3 in that short period.
Will difficulty rise so quickly that single GPU miner's like me will have no profit all? Especially when ASICS become widely available. I only started as an experiment.
Soon only the rich will be able to mine - Ah capitalism!
Your thinking is flawed. If I invest 500 dollars into mining hardware, I might realize X% return over say one year. If I invest 5000 dollars into same hardware, I will be realizing the same X% return over the same period. Sure, vendors provide a certain discount for higher-priced hardware, but this is insignificant compared to other variables and unknowns, plus is easily addressed by buying shares in a large mining operation. Mining is currently a level field for all, rich or poor. Even if and when Bitcoin becomes big enough to spawn specialized mining firms who develop proprietary ASICs for exclusive self-mining, you could still participate by means of a mining co-operative or a publicly traded company, or a partnership... |
|
|
|
That was a good response man - but do you not feel that making it specialised goes against why it was created in the first place? The more specialised it becomes the fewer people can get involved and then we end up with a situation similar to the current banking model where a select few are in control?
I used to feel that way, but then I grew to realize that Bitcoin, much like any other technology, is ideologically neutral. Anyone is free to use it however they see fit, and boy is it versatile! While a majority of us in this forum likes to see it as a tool to more freedom from central powers, it can very well be used by central powers to achive level of financial control impossible today. It's not a popular thing to point out around here. In Bitcoin's defense, the public nature of the ledger does enable tracking, but it enables it for everyone. But I digress. The point is, Bitcoin can be useful in many ways, and you might not like all of them. Think radio, or printing press, or the Internet. These are similarly enabling, revolutionary technologies, that throughout history went through different phases, from freedom-enabling, to propaganda, to education, to surveilance, to central control, to revivals, back-and-forth... Ideas that Bitcoin is based on are no different. It will be whatever people make it to be, and you and I have only so much influence in the big scheme. Ultimately, do what you think is right, and don't worry. Mining included. |
|
|
|
Dude come on ? Just because it has not happened yet it will not happen. That is insane.
To give you an analogy - because my house has never burnt to the ground it is therefore not a problem and will never burn down?
The potential is always there.
Give me some real facts why it could not happen.
No. It's more like you are saying that every building is doomed because you just realized that it might happen that firefighter crews are busy at two other building which are on fire at the same time, and it happens that the remaining crew gets stuck because of a mechanical breakdown of the truck en route to the site. That is insane. My argument was not insane. Why it could not happen: for the same reasons it hasn't happened up to this point, even though pools were hacked, DDoSed to death, huge farms of GPU and FPGA and now ASIC miners came online. It hasn't happened because in reality bitcoin mining is much more resilient, and network does not come down "like a house of cards" when a major miner goes offline. Sure, if Bitcoin continues to grow, mining will inevitably become a specialized (but not necessarily centralized) industry. There will be no more hobby miners, much like most of radio today is a regulated big business. But we are not there yet. There will be proprietary, closed-source ASIC miners competing with each others, there will be large co-operative companies where you or I can join, there will be Bitcoin businesses who also mine simply because they have vested interest in securing the network, there will be a rush to cheap electricity once technological bottlenecks are reached, there will be technological breakthroughs, there will be ASIC heaters in cold regions... It's good that you are worrying, but man you are worrying about the wrong things. |
|
|
|
The ethos behind bitcoin is fantastic but their is a fatal flaw that is being highlighted at the moment and that is the difficulty. It only leads to one logical conclusion the centralisation of mining and transaction processing as that will be the only way you will be able to generate any coins.
ASICMiner has some problem at the moment and because they are so large it has impacted the entire network. If another big mining pool goes down we may be looking at 40 mins between blocks maybe even longer - transactions are not processed if no blocks are solved.
The whole resilience of the network is being brought into question here - If these guys go offline for what ever reason with the difficulty where it is now everything is going to grind to a halt. A couple of business should NOT have this impact on the network.
What are your thoughts on this?
Pooled mining has been going on for almost three years now, and the problem you are describing has never happened. Therefore, it is not really a problem worth worrying about. |
|
|
|
How do you transfer Bitcoins without an Internet connection?
Use firmcoins.  |
|
|
|
I've been using OKPAY to receive trading profits, but now that they are going to stop accepting funds from exchanges I need to find something else that doesn't rape me on transfer fees. What do you guys use for amount of under $1000 per month?
Mike
Please move your thread to Service Discussion. |
|
|
|
|
As pointed out in the cross-post, even without the watch-only feature, you should never accept a wallet or private key of any kind as a final payment. If you get involved in such stupidity, only when you sweep (send the contents to an address you control) should you consider the payment final. Even better, don't waste time with anyone claiming not to know how to transact in bitcoins. Let them learn, or help them learn, then have them transact with you as Satoshi intended.
|
|
|
|
if you look back the history of BTC mining, the price of BTC is related to mining difficulty.
I did look back, carefully, many times. I even applied cross-correlation algorithms. I even corrected the data for technology leaps from CPU to GPU to ASIC. Mining difficulty mostly follows price, not the other way around. Google search volume mostly follows price, not the other way around. What price follows, in order of importance, is (1) chaos, (2) insider trading and information, (3) paid and orchestrated media campaigns as part of pump'n'dump attempts As I clearly explained in my previous post, miners absolutely cannot play any significant role in exchange rates. The numbers are rock solid. So, what is you though about ASICs? are they really does has any positive impact on price ? what I thought is this time is different, because CPU or GPU to stop mining are not any cost issue lock them to do so ,but as I stated ASIC are totally different concept , you can't use CPU or GPU to judging that ASICs will has the same impact as those two. In fact, that since last time price drop we will see a steady build up through time, Again, people are buying BTC instead of mining. the only thing we need to discuss is whether BTC will continue maintaining people's trust. if it does, then the question will be very clear, if price below profit level, miner will continue mining , but not selling. My argument is related either no bad news and no good news ,everything is remains the same.. the join ASIC will secure the price of BTC and with a positive impact. Yes, ASICs are obviously different from (im)provisional mining hardware that has some use and value outside of Bitcoin ecosystem - although, do not ignore the heat that ASICs create - in certain regions you could recoup some of the heating cost by mining... I cannot, however, come up with any specific connection with bitcoin exchange rates. I tried hard, believe me. Emergence of ASICs simply indicates that Bitcoin has become important enough to warrant development of dedicated hardware and mining firms. Still, so do the sex toys, fishing equipment, and amateur astronomy - not that big of a deal in the larger perspective. What you should focus on is the total investment of the mining industry. That is an important indicator, as that is what ultimately secures the network and shows the level of confidence in Bitcoin. ASICs got people excited, and it seems that total value of mining equipment today is higher than ever before. That is the good sign. The next good sign after ASICs will be the start of an arms race, and emergence of closed-source, proprietary ASIC farms operated by mining companies. This will also spell an end to mining as a profitable hobby we do at our homes. I speculate that this will start happening once the price enters the $800-$1,200 region (if ever). Again, all these developments are mostly driven by price - they don't drive the price to any significant extent. |
|
|
|
if you look back the history of BTC mining, the price of BTC is related to mining difficulty.
I did look back, carefully, many times. I even applied cross-correlation algorithms. I even corrected the data for technology leaps from CPU to GPU to ASIC. Mining difficulty mostly follows price, not the other way around. Google search volume mostly follows price, not the other way around. What price follows, in order of importance, is (1) chaos, (2) insider trading and information, (3) paid and orchestrated media campaigns as part of pump'n'dump attempts As I clearly explained in my previous post, miners absolutely cannot play any significant role in exchange rates. The numbers are rock solid. |
|
|
|
Trezor is an important step forward, especially if they start offering enterprise-level support to prospective major players/investors. Next, we should not forget other related projects - Firmcoins and perhaps bitcoin card. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
