I assume this is more or less what you're talking about? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-27/bitcoin-more-than-just-a-fad-morgan-stanley-ceo-gorman-saysThe guy is basically fence sitting. He says it's more than just a fad, which I take as 'not a scam but not necessarily the future either', and that it has an interesting concept. He singled out its anonymous nature, and the message that sends to central banking systems. He did kind of issue a thinly veiled warning at the end, referencing China and its money laundering and capital outflows. Well, at least not all of them are into crypto FUD. |
|
|
|
Greetings, jseverson. What you say are good questions. I don't have the answers right now. But I encourage the community to start seeking the answers together. I want founders to pay attention to the details when they create apps, try to look at their products from a perspective of a newbie. I think it's one of the most important things that keep the Bitcoin grow. By the way, the one who will be able to create a bridge between geeky Bitcoins and regular people will become the king of the Earth  Can this even be classified under UX? I don't see ways to revolutionize the business process that could stop users from scamming other users. Most scams fall under social engineering after all. Well yes. Scammers are a part of the Bitcoin ecosystem. And thieves make the experience using cryptocurrency worse. I've got a suggestion how to fight them: wallets can create a blacklist of scam address that is populated by a crowd and alert users when they want to send money to that blacklisted addresses. I suppose I wouldn't be against that, but with anyone being capable of creating pretty much any number of wallets they want with very little effort, I just don't see it making a significant difference, if it actually makes a difference at all. It's just hitting me right now that there's precious little you can do to make improvements client side. To be completely fair, though, as far as the steps go, online banking is not much different. You make sure you have the correct account number (which you'll likely copy and paste), and you make sure you have the amount right. The bank will provide support if you mess up, I know, but maybe the technologically challenged people can look at it from this perspective? |
|
|
|
“You can keep certified copies of identity documents, biometric test results, health data, or academic and training certificates online, available at all times, yet safe unless you give away your key. At a whole system level, the database is very secure.”
I love that Blockchain technology is getting the respect it deserves, and from very reputable sources, no less. It's all speculation at this point, and there will be several kinks to iron out, but I believe it will truly revolutionize the world like the way social media did. I'm sure several potential applications will emerge from here on out. I know the rise of Blockchains doesn't automatically mean the rise of Bitcoins, but emerging from the same technology should at least convince a few people that Bitcoins are here to stay, and that they may as well jump on the bandwagon. |
|
|
|
I was thinking for a while, and realised that most government regulations are imposed when a person exchanges BTC -> fiat. I'm sure you all know this.
If we convinced local grocery stores to accept BTC, wouldn't that mean we could very well live in a society where we don't need to exchange to fiat?
If you can buy the necessities of life with Bitcoin, then why would you need fiat? There's websites that sell anything you can think of for Bitcoin.
Just food for though, I'd like to see what everyone's opinion is.
And sorry if this has been discussed many times before, I'm just curious.
DISCUSS!
Yeah, I've actually been thinking about this a while back. They can't realistically tax every single transaction, so they would have to go after exchanges. In the current state of things, you have to go to exchanges because very few merchants currently accept Bitcoins. If everyone starts to accept Bitcoins, then it's true we won't have to go to exchanges and we can evade the regulations applied there. However, these stores have to be registered to the government, so some regulations apply to them as well. They would have to, and are expected to pay taxes, so they might just include that in the Bitcoin price for remittal. That's what they do with fiat currently right? |
|
|
|
|
You can never really discount that possibility, but I don't think it has happened yet. I've observed that journalists have a love-hate relationship with Bitcoins. They write about how early adopters became rich when it's up, and how it's a bubble when it's down. It's typical media sensationalism, so I wouldn't credit those to some kind of a destabilization plot.
As for Dimon and the other FUD spreaders, they have an agenda to push, and isn't necessarily trying to kill Bitcoin's image in the long term. Most of them either want to manipulate the market, or are just plain haters.
|
|
|
|
|
Banking the unbanked. That's a refreshing way of looking at it. Bill Gates has an excellent track record in technology, and is known for having predicted some needs and solutions early. Him being a believer in digital currencies just make me even more of a believer.
I don't think he has ulterior motives for saying what he did either. He's the richest man in the world, and there's honestly no way he could burn through all of his money at this point. He's been spending his time in philanthropic efforts, and this is simply one of them.
|
|
|
|
Many Bank only allow +18 users to use money services is right for you?
so if this right bitcoin not need ID so under 18 years can use it
You can have your parents open an account for you if you're a minor. There are quite a few requirements as well as some legal documents that are involved with opening a bank account, so it makes sense that it would be closed off to minors. Services such as loans require even more requirements and even more legal documents that it's better for minors to not look into it. It sucks that age is being used as a yardstick for mental and financial capability, but this may be the best way to kind of stop young people from entering deals and legal responsibilities they may not fully understand. Bitcoin being decentralized means you don't need any documents nor consent from anyone, so you're free to use it. There are no money services to apply for, but you can strike up deals with other users in lieu of them, but you're going to have to take full responsibility of yourself. In all, I think it's pretty fair. The banks have an obligation to take care of you, to some extent, since you're their client, and they're free to impose any age requirement they wish. In using Bitcoins, you're basically alone, so you don't have to conform to any policy. |
|
|
|
The draft seen by Mr. Espejo “proposes measures to regulate companies operating with virtual currencies like bitcoin, although it does not provide much detail. The central bank would be tasked with refereeing such operations, the document says.” Sounds like they are also looking into regulating exchanges, since they're pretty much the only companies operating with virtual currencies at this point. It's also interesting how the central bank would be doing the refereeing. Would they be fair? Proposed threats, the theory goes, by its neighbor to the north’s present executive administration, to tax Mexican remittances specifically, have hastened the search for other avenues of transfer. So the reason for the regulation, basically, is that they fear that a fraction of the remittance by their overseas workers will be done through Bitcoins to avoid the proposed US taxes. Not being able to tax that fraction would be a blow to their economy. I guess it's a legitimate concern since Bitcoin can, and is being used to dance around regulations and taxes. |
|
|
|
I hate to be that person, but 10000 people is a very miniscule amount compared to Amazon's total user base. Should they consider accepting Bitcoins in the future, it won't be because 10000 people signed a petition. This should at least get them talking, but I would be surprised if they weren't already talking about it behind the scenes. Litecoin is popular and pretty old crypto-currency, but why to not add Etherum in this list? It is also popular crypto-currency, which is in demand today and showing big perspectives. But as I heard the creator of Litecoin predicted -90% drop the next year and this fact make all holders to start to worry. Who agree with me?
He said it could drop, warning someone on twitter who wanted to put all their money on Litecoins. Also, he said Litecoins or any other cryptocurrency, not just Litecoins. He didn't predict it. He was highlighting the volatility of crypto in general. |
|
|
|
As much as I agree that user experience should be improved, what exactly do you think we could do? There are tons of scammers everywhere Can this even be classified under UX? I don't see ways to revolutionize the business process that could stop users from scamming other users. Most scams fall under social engineering after all. one can mistype an address and lose money This can be frustrating when it happens to you, but I don't see any way to bypass it. We have QR codes for this purpose, but they're not always applicable. There's also no way to verify if the user is sending coins to the address he means to. forget private key and lose all money This one is especially challenging: How do you make the private key more accessible without compromising security? I'm not writing this to slight you, it's just that as things stand, I don't see a way to improve anything as far as your points go. As for the complexity of the UX, it just seems complex because of the number of steps you have to take. Individually, the steps are rather trivial in nature. I see how it can appear daunting to some people though, since we live in times where everything is just a click away. |
|
|
|
|
I'm curious, what motivated you to do this? I mean, I know getting the user base up will likely mean an increase in value, but this just seems like a hassle to me. I'm not downplaying your efforts, it's just that I personally would not go out of my way to do anything of the sort. People like you are definitely an asset to the community.
If you really want to spread word about it though, I read something on reddit a while back. There was this guy that had multiple litecoin wallets printed on individual calling cards with small amounts of coins. I would imagine people would be more receptive towards this. You could tell them they can buy a can of soda with that, and if they're interested, they should get their own wallet or something. It's going to cost a few bucks though lol.
|
|
|
|
They were doing more than just trading, they were running an exchange. Running an unlicensed exchange is risky business in any country.
But I find this sentence from the OP article to be most interesting:
"He further said that if found guilty the suspects will be punished under the prevalent laws of Rastra Bank."
Are finacial laws in Nepal set by the bankers?
It's not just that they were running an unlicensed exchange. Bitcoin trading is downright illegal in Nepal. It's sad, but these people are most likely going to be made an example of. It kind of makes you wonder just how much power a government can have regarding cryptocurrencies. They can't monitor and stop every single transaction, but they can jail exchanges to make sure their currency isn't used to buy and sell Bitcoins. This problem can theoretically be averted by vendors accepting Bitcoins as payment, so there would be no need to convert, but it still sucks that some governments are too averse to new technologies. |
|
|
|
Hasn't this been confirmed a while ago? Still, once this happens, I would bet we would reach new highs. It is even funny why we give China too much preference. Probably that is the reason they have always felt they can use their position to manipulate the market with their planned FUDs. I guess it is high time they realised that bitcoin waits for no country and cannot be controlled. It is never too late to still join the moving train anyway. They must have learnt their lessons now cause this ain't 2013.
Nobody's giving China any preference. They can use their position to manipulate the market because they can use the massive number of their population to create leverage. I wouldn't be surprised if the dip to $3000 was caused by Chinese holders panic dumping alone. We're eager to welcome them back, because those panic dumpers are going to want to get in on the action again, driving the price up. |
|
|
|
Quick Disclaimer: 1. I'm not here to support any shitcoin. 2. We're all gathered here because of bitcoin, so it's hard for me to see it fading way. Bitcoin was designed not be fully anonymous since transactions were open permanently for the public to view. Authorities and security agencies were able to trace the bitcoin owners based metadata and transaction pattern, history and so on. Some developers understand this issue and they go ahead to create some new altcoins which they are fully anonymous by implementing new hashing algorithms on their very new altcoins such as Dash, Monero, Zcash and Zcoin. So why the bitcoin "hard fork" instead of updating the original bitcoin core? Forked coins like BitcoinCash & BitcoinGold are moving from ASICs to GPU mining for faster transactions, why not BTC? Why not update bitcoin mining algorithm to Equihash (zk-snarks) like Zcash and the next upcoming Bitcoin Gold BTG? Instead of updating the original bitcoin core to have more secure and fast transactions with lower xt fee, yet making hard forks! I think hard forks will soon kill the original bitcoin. What do you think, huh? Share with us what you think. thanks  Excellent points. I quite agree that Bitcoin, as far as technology goes, is being left behind. It is the first of its kind after all, and it wouldn't make sense for other newer cyrptocurrencies which were basically cloned to some extent from Bitcoins, to follow it to the letter. I think, however, that if anything can kill Bitcoins, it would be these countries' official cryptocurrencies. You might think, 'eh, they're centralized, etc. etc.', but I don't think majority of the population cares about that. If they did, everyone would be abandoning fiat, and everyone would be all over Bitcoins. These altcoins are going to be state sponsored, with the same state being capable of creating policies that can de-incentivize people from using other cryptocurrencies. We're still far far away from that though. I don't know what the landscape will look like in 10 years, but I simply don't see Bitcoins being dethroned in the foreseeable future. |
|
|
|
It doesn't have to fit into any definition. It is the first of its kind after all. Why would a revolutionary technology have to fit into some old definition? After noting that his skepticism toward the cryptocurrency "probably comes from my background as a central banker," Weber argued that in spite of arguments to the contrary, bitcoin only partially satisfies the common definition of a currency. In other words, "I see this as a threat to me. Decentralization is bad (for us bankers), kids." "The important function of a currency is, it’s a means of payment, it has to be generally accepted, it has to be a store of value and it’s a transaction currency. Bitcoin is only a transaction currency." It is a means of payment, it's beginning to be generally accepted, it's currently primarily being used as a store of value, and it's a transaction currency. I don't know, but it seems to me that Bitcoin fits his definition of currency pretty well. |
|
|
|
|
Right now? I don't think it would have a substantial effect. Current demand for Bitcoins is being driven by people who want to invest and ride the wave. Seeing people spend their money in a different way is not going to spur them into buying Bitcoins, which means little to no change in demand, and consequently, little to no change in value. I am assuming the number of vendors who accept Bitcoins as a form of payment in this scenario stays the same though.
More vendors accepting Bitcoins is a different story though, as it legitimizes Bitcoin's status as a currency, potentially bringing in more users.
|
|
|
|
"As far as I'm concerned, the genie is out of the bottle," he said. "Now the real question is how can we productively use it to solve some of society's issues around the financial services infrastructure." Oh man, this is what governments around the world and haters should understand. One thing that nobody can deny is that Bitcoin is innovation. Blockchains and cryptocurrencies are still in their infancy in the grand scheme of things, and rather than stifling their growth, they should be supporting it. People are freaking out because a new way to do things is emerging and they just have to insist that their old way of doing things is better. We can't move forward as a society this way. If you can't embrace change, then at least let it be. They just might be the change we need for the future. They're not going to stick if they turn out to be duds anyway. |
|
|
|
Legal gray areas that cryptocurrencies create always fascinate me. I'm not very familiar with US laws, but does it actually matter what you're betting with? Wasn't that an old loophole casinos circumvented by using chips? Either way, I decided to find out more about it, and it seems no individual Bitcoin gambler has been apprehended yet. It wasn't clear if it was because it would be a serious pain to pin these gamblers with their Bitcoin addresses alone, or because the government doesn't care. Operators are a different story, though. The State of Nevada has already shut down a popular Bitcoin poker site in the past. Unlike the gamblers themselves who can stay anonymous, gambling operators are going to find it somewhat difficult to evade the law when it comes after them. The entire situation is similar to how the government can't reasonably track down and tax every single Bitcoin transaction, but it can guard the entry and exit points by regulating exchanges. You can read the article here: https://themerkle.com/is-bitcoin-gambling-legal-in-the-united-states/ |
|
|
|
I'm not saying I agree with this move, but you can kind of see where they're coming from. Scams are rampant within ICOs, and they can't keep these scammers going unchecked. Still, though, there has to be some kind of middle ground here. ICOs are not inherently bad, and can actually be a legitimate way of earning funding. I hope they legalize it sometime in the future once they find a way to efficiently regulate them. Organizations and individuals who have completed the fundraising through the ICO should arrange to return the money called to protect the interests of the investor. Ballsy move to protect their citizens. It's sad for legitimate ICOs though. RIP innovation. |
|
|
|
I am saying above average taking into consideration the whole world population and their level of knowledge and experience because I assume we are talking about a “global” currency Bitcoin, it will presumably be exchanged by or with a poor guy somewhere in a village in a third world country, he might be not able even to read and write, but he still can use a mobile phone, so he should be able to easily install, send, receive Bitcoins. Sorry, but I have to point out that if you can't read or write, then there's no way you can use a smartphone. Are you saying that a large fraction of the world don't have access to the technology that they would need to use Bitcoins? If so, you're right. I read a study that as of February 2017, only 50% of mobile connections are accounted by smartphones. I think it would be somewhat safe to assume that most people who don't have smartphones don't have computers either. That would mean as of the moment, even if everyone who could use Bitcoins did, they would only amount to roughly 50% of the world's population. That's a pretty low upper limit, with there being twice as many fiat users. That might be enough for merchants to accept Bitcoins as a payment option though. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
