Bitcoin is not a currency, and we all know this... so why is it treated as such?
Check your premises. You may find that Bitcoin is, in fact, a currency. Upon finding this, you will no longer be confused as to why it is treated as such. |
|
|
|
Mining Bitcoins is about being paid for securely processing Bitcoin transactions. The block reward is designed to be replaced by transfer fees. So, even without a block reward, there will still be incentive to mine. Time will tell how much incentive the transaction fees provide. This of course relies on the acceptance and use of Bitcoin in the future.
^ This. And indeed the transfer fees will be much larger than 50 btc when the bitcoin economy gets going. That said, difficulty will be so high that the "amateur" miner will likely not be involved accept for geek/tech enthusiasts. "Mining" will be carried out by the most efficient companies and clever students that hack their university render farms =) |
|
|
|
|
Keep your eyes on bit-pay.com. It's still in testing right now but is going to be a very cool ecommerce solution I think.
|
|
|
|
Simply by using current online payment systems, one should readily see how superior the coin is. I send my friend in another country money via Bitcoin... 5 min delay.
And then how long for them to convert it into real money? IF said person wished to convert back to fiat money, it would take a while which again emphasizes my point. What perhaps is lost on you is that one will increasingly be able to use BTC in place of fiat currency, and thus the desire to transfer back will diminish. And why do you call fiat currencies "real money?" Because the government tells you to? Real money is whatever is chosen by the marketplace. USD, as a paper fiat currency, would never be chosen by the marketplace. It is used purely because men with guns force its adoption. They could force us to use Monopoly money also... would that make such money "real money?" |
|
|
|
|
Companies will hold their "large wallets" off-site, managed by new companies that form to protect against issues such as those mentioned in the OP.
Many people will get wealthy solving these types of security problems.
|
|
|
|
|
Speculators are just people who risk their own money on ventures, as opposed to politicians who risk other peoples' money. Not surprisingly, the latter is constantly demonizing the former.
The world would do well with more speculators, and fewer politicians.
|
|
|
|
Of course, the flip side other benefit is that with bitcoins you are totally on your own. No margin for mistakes or stupidity by other people.
Fixed it also  |
|
|
|
|
I've bought:
- 2 pairs alpaca socks
- domain name (directly from a registrar, not a resale)
- 2 shirts
- Amazon order through spendbitcoins.com
- Wallet QR code cards
- Paid a friend back for some drinks
- donated to two different organizations
- Paid two developers partially in btc for a project we're working on
I'd like to buy an Android phone very soon using coins. Any sellers?
|
|
|
|
|
The irony of waiting on Dwolla USD-based transactions in order to convert into Bitcoins is not lost on me.
Simply by using current online payment systems, one should readily see how superior the coin is. I send my friend in another country money via Bitcoin... 5 min delay. I send myself money from my own bank in my own state to my own account via USD... 3 days. It is faster for me to drive to Canada to pay someone there with cash than it is to wire the money directly to that person's bank. Absurd. Markets do not long tolerate such inefficiencies when alternatives exist.
As Victor Hugo presciently stated, "On résiste à l'invasion des armées; on ne résiste pas à l'invasion des idées."
|
|
|
|
|
I don't get why there's so much hostility toward drug "lords?" They're just providing a product which people want.
If you despise drug lords, legalize the drugs.
I have a much bigger antagonism toward the "Government Lords"
|
|
|
|
|
Had a thought today while running...
There has been much discussion over the value of a Bitcoin when one removes its use as a money. There are issues with the regression theorem, etc.
Gold clearly has value beyond its use as money. Primarily, it looks pretty and is thus perpetually desired for ornamentation. There are other uses, but this is where gold originally got its value - from its pretty shine. Observers of gold are fascinated by it - attracted to it due to its properties.
Well... is this not also true with Bitcoin? When Bitcoin was first discovered and released, was it not initially desired for its curious nature? Were initial adopters not attracted to it due to its strange properties, much like ancient man was attracted to gold? Of course, it's the geeky crypto people who were initially attracted, but I think it's a fair point that they picked up these early bitcoins purely because "they were cool to look at and hold" - albeit on a digital drive.
Even for those like me who don't fully understand the cryptography, Bitcoins are damn cool. They are intrinsically interesting and attractive. Gold is also intrinsically interesting and attractive. Both commodities attract the observer, and their monetary usage subsequently sprang forth in like manner because both commodities possess those properties which make them great forms of money (scarcity, divisibility, authenticity, etc.). Does this not satisfy the regression theorem?
|
|
|
|
|
After the Mt. Gox hack, details of about 60k account holders were released. Probably at least 50% of US-based Bitcoin users have a Mt. Gox account, so US users are somewhere between 50k-100k I bet. Then add other nations...
I would put the total user base of Bitcoin in the range of 100k-1m worldwide.
|
|
|
|
Nobody with a printing press is ever really broke |
|
|
|
|
All round numbers are psychological barriers in both directions.
$14 will always be more of a barrier than $14.30. And the same with euros...
The relative resistances of these barriers are unknowable and irrelevant over the long term.
|
|
|
|
|
The element of scarcity is only one small aspect of the market price of Bitcoin.
I have a cat named Caesar. There is only one of him in the world, so we've already reached the limit. I don't expect his value to increase much.
Bitcoin's value will increase first and foremost as people come to discover its usefulness in trade.
|
|
|
|
|
"The state" is a bit too vague for me. I'll say simply that I hate democracy and all other forms of collectivism.
|
|
|
|
|
What I don't understand is, if Libya wanted to create a "gold dinar" currency and then use that to accept as payment for its oil... why wouldn't it just accept straight gold bullion in the first place?
If a gold dinar is gold, then why not just use Kruggerands? You don't need to make a new currency out of gold if you wish to use gold as currency, right?
What am I missing?
|
|
|
|
Spam filters. Jesus christ you people are so stupid.
Spam filters work "pretty well". If you think innovation ought to halt once a need is "pretty well" met, then I'd imagine quite a few things out there come across as "so stupid" to you? And why are you so mean? |
|
|
|
This idea is so horrible that I can't tell if you're trolling or just not the brightest bulb in the room.
Then why don't you reason out why it's "so horrible" instead of just becoming the troll yourself? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
