it is interesting, isn't it?

and, on top of it all, i've read somewhere on the forum that MtGOX has exposed their darkpools.

all i can think of is that it is absolutely sure not to last.

but i agree with you:

well, there's always escrow services.  they're fairly expensive though.  between the fees ebay and paypal charge these days, they're still cheaper than a bricks and mortar store - but not by that much, if you own the bricks.  escrow puts it close enough that the convenience of on-line selling is diminished, when compared to the security of face-to-face transactions.

and yes - the truth is that a zero-chargeback entity like Bitcoin tilts the table pretty far toward the sellers side.

i honestly don't know how a balance in on-line sales between buyers and sellers can be reached without spending money.

i'll note that i've never refused to refund on a returned book - if i got back the same book in the same condition.  but that's just me.  i'm sure there's plenty of horror stories out there by buyers, too.  but i'll tell you:  back when ebay was huge for books - like mid-nineties to 2003 or so - there weren't too many problems.  ebay kept the sock-puppets down, and feedback on buyers was as real as feedback on sellers.  you could also buy stuff with other forms of payment than just paypal.  there were a lot of booksellers who dealt in personal checks only - which meant they had your address if you were a crooked buyer.

i guess it depends on whether you're a buyer or a seller.  paypal is great for buyers.  oddly enough, although paypal (and ebay) generate their income from sellers, they will always take the side of the buyer against sellers.  no matter what.  sellers can't even leave feedback for buyers these days.

when i finally couldn't take it any more, i had over 1,700 positive ratings on ebay with two negs - representing over 5,000 sales.  rare books.  i couldn't reliably earn a living because of dishonest buyers, chargebacks, and un-returned merchandise in those cases.  YMMV.

have you done much selling using paypal?

it's probably vladimir...

it kinda depends on your OS.

reference cards like the XFX do better under windows - the overclocking tools available will get that card humming nicely.

if you're using linux, go with sapphire.  the linux tools are better for sapphire, and their cards generally have a custom BIOS that allows decent overclocking with very little hassle.

+1

indeed.

hard to say.  google has certainly had their failures, recently - but they're pushing a lot harder on google+ than they have on anything else.  i think they underestimated FB for long enough to be put at risk.

but the thing is, Bitcoin will be - essentially - fighting for market share with the big boys.  and when you get right down to it, most of the advantages that we all know and love are irrelevant.  what Bitcoin has going for it, out there in the world of Aunt Tilly, is no fees.  and that's after you deal with the drawbacks:  complexity, poor UI, perceived security, etc.

i'm pretty big on Bitcoin, and seriously invested - but i'm not going to bury my head in the sand.  i need to get off my ass, just like everybody else.

you're right.  PayPal is evil.

but take a look at the terms for Facebook Credits.  if FB slides past the anti-trust laws (a likelihood), they'll be nailing everybody much worse than PayPal ever conceived of.  Zuckerberg is a visionary...

by the time we get to the 25 BTC block, we'll know.

as i understand it, it's not only the the number of people involved with Bitcoin - exponential or not - but also what the exchange rate will be in a year and a half.

a Bitcoin at $1,000 USD?  that's $25k per block of 25.  2% of that (equivalent to a 1 BTC fee on a block now) is $500.  i think the fees would be worthwhile...

if i were PayPal, i'd be much more concerned with Facebook Credits than with Bitcoin - at least for the short term.

http://developers.facebook.com/credits/


after the various anti-trust filings have been successfully dealt with (if they are...) - and note that Google will be in the mix as well - this is going to be the battle of the decade.

ah.  but by whom?

you attacked me.

as i said - i responded to the article.  not to you.  you may disagree with the thrust of my response - to which i can only say that i do judge people by the company they keep - and by all of their actions.  i find such things quite illuminating.  would you propose that a psychotic killer should be judged by how sweetly he pets his kitty - without looking at the entirety of his life?

frankly, i'm offended by your personal attack.  it was uncalled for and unnecessary.  immoderate, if you will.

good night.

the folks i hang out with, according to a site moderator...

my reply to the 'text' was based on the realities of the causes the Institute has chosen to support - and the apparent reasons (purely financial and political, without regard to truth) for that.  my reply was also quite factual as to whom the Institute lays down with.

as for your accusation of ad hominem:


really...

EDIT:  and i should also point out that my response was to the article.


i had nothing to say about you, the OP.

well put.

yes.  well.

the Independent Institute.

a bunch of global warming deniers (not skeptics), partially funded by exxon (from what we know in the open), who 'find' that the warming we've bought ourselves will probably be a good thing.  mmmph.

just as they (the Independent Institute) were significantly funded in the 90s by the folks who taught the global warming deniers everything they know:  the tobaccos.

we are judged by the company we keep.

as for their view on the current US president (which was really the point of the article - not libertarianism), i would defy anyone to point out a better choice available at the time of the 2008 election.  or now, for that matter - despite the man's obvious shortcomings.

at least he's a grownup.

that's nice.

were the numbers also adjusted for today's bottom 25% being almost twice as populous?  (in 1961 there were 180M of us - today there are over 310M.)

and for the top 25% in 1961 including less of a now-mostly-vanished middle class?  (the top 25% today would have to include the entire upper middle class - and most of the lower middle class as well.  what's left of them.)

and for the disparity in CEO vs. worker wages in 1961 coming out to around 20:1 - whereas today it's something like 800:1?

and...

and...

?

and yet, a declaration that gold is worth $32/oz (which existed for a few decades) has essentially the same inflationary result - if the fractional reserve requirements for gold and silver (when either backed the dollar) changed, based on how much money the gov't wanted in circulation.

but again, i was speaking practically.  i don't think it ever much mattered to the population at large.  there weren't a lot of people who showed up at the treasury ("This certifies that there is on deposit at the Treasury of The United States of America One Dollar in silver payable to the bearer on demand" ~ from a silver certificate i'm looking at) asking for metal...

i go back a ways, and i'm not so sure i understand the practicalities of this oft-repeated question.

i remember when it was illegal for a US citizen to buy or sell gold - and the friendship of your local dentist or jeweler was a thing of value, since they could.

but... backed by gold?

what is the real, practical difference between a currency backed by gold, and a currency with which one may buy gold at market rates?  i can't say i really see one.

87 cents - mining.  still got 'em all...

i'm waiting for the client to confer the ability to spend/transact specific coin, and verify that, for tax purposes.  my most recently mined coins are the ones i'd prefer to spend first, as they have been the most expensive.