While there may never be a transaction where there is no exchange risk at all I think that the exchange risk in bitcoins is far higher than it needs to be in our current model.
Could you elaborate on what risks you are talking about?
We can't generate a force of internet police but perhaps we can do something even better and build some sort of verification system into the network itself. Something at least akin to current cash transaction models where the retailer is open and accessible but the consumer can still be anonymous to a certain extent.
That's pretty much what Bitcoin is. Perhaps you still don't quite grok the system? |
|
|
|
Could your ISP be traffic shaping?
traffic shaping against bitcoin? not very likely, especially given that it's very tolerant to torrents.. Could your virus software or Windows security settings be interfering? |
|
|
|
And it doesn't really have to be an actual bank to start the trend. If Wal-mart starts accepting Bitcoins, even just for their site-to-store purchases, then every one of their compeitors is going to have to follow suit quickly. If Target does it first, Wal-mart might be able to resist for a while longer. But once any major retailer such as these try it, resistance from the banking industry would be counter productive for their continued existance.
Governments are very strict on regulation of the financial services industry. Yes. And that will persist for as long as they can maintain it. However, Bitcoin is regulation resistent, and international by design. There is really no way to effectively enforce any regulations that the market would deem to be oppressive or unneccesary. My thoughts are that they would have a problem with a retailer accepting bank deposits.
Some key unanswered questions: Why would Walmart accept Bitcoins if none of their consumers use them?
Some of their consumers already do use them. And why would consumers use them if they don't have a bank which they can use to obtain them?
For the same reason that Walmart's have tax, finance and money transfer services inside the store. Because Walmart is only a small step from being the bank itself. Walmart can still accept cash in person, but walmart's online and international presence are no small part of their business model. And how is Walmart going to convert the BTCs they receive into hard currency without mainstream banks?
I know that Sears functions as it's own bank. I'd say that Walmart is more than big enough to do the same if they wish. Walmart is certainly large enough that they don't need a bank to stand in for them to do currency conversions. |
|
|
|
The simple counter to the "Bitcoins are being used for illegal activities and should be banned" argument is that, since bitcoins have a transaction record easily available on the public net, without even needing a search warrant or anything, bitcoins are actually *more* traceable than cash. You don't need to set someone up with marked bills. *Every* bill is marked. When the politicians finally get around to trumpeting about how it's a haven for criminals, be sure to point that out. It's no worse than bank transfers between numbered accounts, and it's considerably easier for law enforcement to follow any trail that gets left behind.
If they can show a direct association between an address and the suspect, then yes. |
|
|
|
Individually, we are probably paying much more expensively right now for network security than we will pay in the future when more people join, even if we have to pay more transactions fees.
Yes, the transaction fees will be relatively light on the average consumer, because the costs of maintaining the security of the network will be spread across many more users. But we have a ways to grow, and a couple of years of high inflation, before we get to a reasonable level of costs.
Regarding the psychological effect - people being less inclined to join bitcoin due to the visible transaction fees annoying them more than the "invisible" inflation-fees we have now -, it could be avoided by letting the transaction fees to be payed mostly by the banks. Actually, that's how I think it will work.
Well, banks and individuals transfering large sums. |
|
|
|
|
@antivigilantie, who are you complaining about?
|
|
|
|
|
How did you come up with a top of $4.54?
|
|
|
|
0.8 THash/s and counting, grow baby grow the drones are still asleep.
Wait, wait - I'm still trying to get my GPU mining rig set up! Let the hash rate stay the same until I at least mine ONE block! :-D Almost certainly not going to happen. |
|
|
|
The major difference is that Iceland is in the top 10 on the standard of living chart while Baltic states are in a pretty dire state
And you think that makes it more likely that Bitcoin would be officially recognized? |
|
|
|
In a nutshell, when a newbie asks "What is all this computing power used for?", we should answer: "To provide proof of time".
Except that's misleading as well. The computing power does not provide the proof of time, the block order does. The computer power only provides security against malicious reordering of previously accepted transactions. |
|
|
|
If that were the case, then Gavin was chosen because he was functionally promoted by Satoshi to take command, as it was Satoshi that added Gavin's email address to the main contact page of Bitcoin.org and then removed his own.
Right, exactly. And the question is what was implicit in that "promotion." Either Satoshi could answer that question, or we could infer it from the situation. The latter is what I have been doing throughout this thread. (That seemed obvious to me, but perhaps not to others; thanks for elucidating the point.) It's obvious to me that Satoshi doesn't want to break his cover, and isn't available. Gavin is an independent entity, his service to Bitcoin is not binding upon his labor time. The CIA didn't want you, suck it up. |
|
|
|
Let's do it!!  Study up on the subject, you'll be alone. |
|
|
|
Second, he is not being paid because he is the creator of Bitcoin, nor the lead developer. He is being paid because he is knowledgeable on the subject, a good speaker, and willing to spend his time doing so. You sure do seem to have a sense of entitlement.
I have no sense of entitlement at all; I'm not asking for the money myself, obviously. I think it's manifestly wrong to suggest he's being paid as a random person knowledgeable about Bitcoin, rather than as the lead developer. And I would be very surprised if his speaking ability, whatever it might be, entered even slightly into the decision to invite him. Someone almost surely made a list of interesting new technologies and then contacted the corporate or community leaders they identified. If that were the case, then Gavin was chosen because he was functionally promoted by Satoshi to take command, as it was Satoshi that added Gavin's email address to the main contact page of Bitcoin.org and then removed his own. |
|
|
|
|
Sure, but all these things also apply to Iceland, and they have a smaller population than most cities, much less nations.
|
|
|
|
|
By "the wallet crashed" you mean the client crashed? Make a copy of your wallet.dat file, move it, reinstall the Bitcoin client. Before you start it, copy your wallet.dat file back to it's proper directory, and then fire the client up. Let it run until it catchs up to the current block. If you still can't see your bitnickel, it's likely gone.
|
|
|
|
|
Cuba? Really?
Hot, poor and socialist? They still have '50s Ford trucks on the road, how the hell are they going to jump onto Bitcoin as a nation even if they wanted to?
|
|
|
|
Interesting, yes. We will all be dead before this day comes, however.
Speak for yourself, I'm spending my fortune on cryonic suspension. You would still be dead, even if the possibility of revival were high. |
|
|
|
New ideas take time to be accepted. When the concept of "zero" was first imagined by mathematicians, it took centuries to be accepted as being real and meaningful. The same with the idea of the sun at the center of the solar system. And evolution is still not universally accepted.
People were murdered for attempting to tell people outside of the fold about the square root of one. The heck?!? What's the story behind that? Oh, sorry. The square root of negative one. There is an unconfirmed story that such numbers were central to a mathmatics cult centered on a Greek island, wherein secrecy of the math was maintained by the threat of death to anyone who would share the secrets with the greater Greek cultures. There is some evidence of the use of such "imaginary" numbers in the complex architecture of Athens, but no evidence of how the designs were calculated were ever found upon any building plans ever recovered, so this story is plausible. I'm having trouble remembering the name of this math cult, so Google isn't helping me out much. I think it was irrational numbers, like the diagonal of a unit square. So root 2 and such. Maybe so. Memory fades.... |
|
|
|
This is a peer to peer currency, is it too disruptive to think of a world without banks ?
The basic nature of a bank is bound to change somewhat, but the core concept of a bank as an institution that lends deposits out for interest is unlikely to change. Today nature of banks migrated more to a services model : payrroll accounts, atm's, electronic banking. All of that can be covered easily with btc, peer to peer lending included.  True, but Mybitcoin.com is almost a bank already. There will still be a role for bitcoin banks. |
|
|
|
This is a peer to peer currency, is it too disruptive to think of a world without banks ?
The basic nature of a bank is bound to change somewhat, but the core concept of a bank as an institution that lends deposits out for interest is unlikely to change. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
