This is correct. Think of pirate in this scheme. You didn't trust pirate, but you trusted Patrick Harnett. Partrick Harnett didn't trust pirate either, but he trusted Jackass. Jackass trusted pirate. If pirate defaults, then this can cause Jackass to default, which can cause Patrick Harnett to default, which can cause you to default.
I'm not saying it is a bad idea, but it is definitely scary.
Yeah, one might call this the domino economy. As long as everyone stands straight, everything's fine.  |
|
|
|
Debt:
U --1kg--> Mother --1kg--> Friend --1kg--> Bitcoin-seller
How could anyone here hurt someone who has not personally given them credit?
If someone in the chain does not pay, then everyone else does not get paid. Sure, everyone who has not been paid knows personnally whoever did not pay them, but still, the probability of not getting paid does not depend anymore only on the person you lend money to. That's what I meant when I wrote that the risk is distributed. I guess this is not much different from how lendings actually work, but to generalize this and to make it purely software P2P is actually kind of scary. |
|
|
|
How would it unravel? A Ripple network is decentralised and robust, pretty much like an internet for credit. If one node is corrupt it is only bad for its immediate neighbours, who actively and voluntary took that risk for themselves.
I don't see the point of the whole thing it the network is not supposed to percolate. And if it does, then the risk exists for potentially everyone. |
|
|
|
Une petite question se pose à moi :
Une société a-t'elle le droit d'acheter des bitcoin ?
Si oui, une fois achetés ils sont donc considérés comme un stock donc dans l'actif de la société.
Hors puisqu'ils sont anonymes et cryptés il n'y a aucun moyen pour le fisc de vérifier l'état de ce stock.
Ça pose donc problème ?
Vous pouvez prouver au fisc que vous contrôlez une adresse munie d'un solde positif en signant un message avec la clef privée correspondant à l'adresse. D'ailleurs il y a une option pour faire ça avec la version en ligne de commande du client vanille (bitcoind): $ bitcoind signmessage <bitcoinaddress> <message>
$ bitcoind verifymessage <bitcoinaddress> <signature> <message>
Ca permet de prouver qu'on possède un certain nombre de bitcoins, mais il est plus difficile de prouver qu'on n'en possède pas plus. J'ignore à quel point ça pose problème pour le fisc. Détenir des bitcoins et ne pas les déclarer est une fraude j'imagine, mais c'est de même nature qu'une non-déclaration pour un montant en espèces, une oeuvre d'art ou un compte en Suisse. |
|
|
|
Je désire payer beaucoup d'impôts, parce que si je paye beaucoup d'impôts ça veut dire que je gagne beaucoup d'argent.
Ce n'était pas ce que je voulais dire. J'entendais par là que la fiscalité pourrait mettre en péril votre business, un peu comme pour beaucoup de sites de jeu en ligne, par exemple. Mais bon d'un autre coté c'est pas comme si le marché des changes avait été créé l'an dernier non plus, donc à priori ça devrait marcher. |
|
|
|
Trader sur Bitcoin-Central ne coûtera pas plus cher. Il est même possible que le boost de volume que cette annonce devrait nous apporter nous permette de baisser nos prix.
Vous ne craignez pas de vous faire matraquer fiscalement? |
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure any poll about the quite controversial recent announcement from bitcoin-central has been created yet.
As far as I'm concerned, at first I was enthusiastic about this news but after having read a few comments I'm not so sure. It's kind of complicated.
|
|
|
|
So TCP/IP needed to get approval from the "regulators" before it was widely adopted?
Then the bitcoin protocol may not be all it is cracked up to be .... if Erik Vorhees is correct that bitcoin needs the crutch of state approval in order to get widely adopted, then I would say it is deficient as a technology and not fit for purpose .... bring on bitcoin2.0. (Holy Trinity should be nimble for the crypto-currency 2G will be life threatening for them.)
It's not about bitcoin being regulated, it's about bitcoin exchanges. |
|
|
|
Crina Belododia's answer to that post is AMAZING. WOW!
Damned, she makes some good points indeed. « Asking for the State to bless Bitcoin businesses in an attempt to induce its birth is not the way to grow adoption. Anyone who is impatient for it to grow needs to be learn patience and write more software, not run to the State to cripple the baby before it is born ». I'm confused now. You guys might actually be right. |
|
|
|
This seems to be a good article indeed. About the linux comparison: GNU/Linux do coexist nowadays with MS Operating systems. Pretty much in the literal sense of the expression. Many, many linux newbies started with a so-called double-boot. And there are also plenty of tools that allow a MS user to get accustomed to GNU tools, such as Cygwin. In the other way around, there is Wine. I believe those tools are strategically very important for the success of FOSS, because they provide an easy transition for people who have been educated to work with MS or Apple systems. Without this, the learning curve would probably be much too steep and fewer people would manage to learn GNU/Linux. I believe it's pretty much the same with the idea of a bicoin-friendy bank. Even people who don't want to use something like that should realize the tremendous amount of people this can bring into bitcoins. Really this can't be bad. Imagine a very big and famous bank such as Goldman Sachs, Barclay's, BNP-Paribas or whatever started to offer a bitcoin exchange to their customers. Any of their client could, when accessing his online-bank account, convert some of his money into bitcoins and execute bitcoin transactions, for instance in order to retrieve some of his bitcoins into his local wallet, or in order to pay someone using the bitcoin network . Would you consider this a bad thing for the bitcoin project? I would be very surprised if you would. In other words, imagine the guys from bitcoin-central were not coming from the bitcoin community, but from the banking community. It would be pretty ironic if one way for evil banksters to hurt us, would be to actually join us, wouldn't it? |
|
|
|
It is Ripple. Ripple is a great idea that has been around since long before Bitcoin and a good complement to it. Indeed Ripple and Bitcoin can be complementary. Ripple is to credit what Bitcoin is to money. Banks have so far been dealing with both concepts in the same time and bitcoin challenges them only on the money part. Ripple could challenge them on the other one. Though I'm not sure how Ripple works exactly, especially regarding whatever can be done whenever someone does not pay his debt. In other words, I wonder if a credit/lending system can work without any kind of recouvrement (sorry I don't know the english for that). |
|
|
|
|
Ma proposition de réponse pour: « Qui possède les bitcoins, "au départ"? »
Les bitcoins sont créés initialement avec les blocs de transactions. Un bloc est créé toutes les dix minutes environ, et ce même lorsqu'il n'y a aucune transaction à déclarer. Il y a un certain montant de bitcoins générés pour chaque bloc (50 pour chaque bloc les quatre premières années, puis 25 les quatre suivantes, etc). Ceci permet l'introduction initiale de bitcoins, qui peuvent alors faire l'objet de transactions dans les blocs suivants.
N'importe qui peut générer un bloc, et donc acquérir des bitcoins "tout neufs". Mais la difficulté augmente avec le nombre de personnes qui tentent de le faire. De nos jours il faut donc un matériel dédié pour y parvenir. Mais si la démarche demande un investissement technique et/ou financier, elle n'en demeure pas moins ouverte à tous.
|
|
|
|
|
J'aimerais une réponse précise (avec le bon vocabulaire juridico/bancaire) à cette question:
« - Est-ce que le bitcoin-central est une banque? »
Si la réponse est de qualité je l'ajouterai à la FAQ et à l'article Wikipedia sur bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
Thus, the result of the minimum wage is to produce, instead of a poor man, an absolutely broke man.
Well, that's why wherever there are minimal wage laws, there is often also a "welfare" state that deals with unemployment by paying people for doing nothing. |
|
|
|
I would ask you whether or not someone who is unable to produce enough value to sustain even their own lives is entitled to the products of those who are able to sustain their own lives?
This is a dangerous question. I won't answer it. I'll just say that this question has the same nature (though it's a bit of a caricature), than the question of whether or not the State should take care of disabled people. Do you believe a market wage till tend to be unfairly decoupled from a workers marginal revenue product in a free market society? No, I believe a free market can totally price wages to their accurate (and thus "fair") economic value. I just think this value might be lower than the maintenance cost of a human being. In other words, from a purely economic point of view, I think many human beings are non-efficient machines, i.e. they have a negative net profitability: they cost more than what they can produce. |
|
|
|
i would love to get back to the topic! Do you believe that companies can chose to pay a wage that is below market price and still attract employees? Do you believe that employees deserve higher than a market wage? If the answer to either question is yes than why? before you reply check out this very short 3 minute video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siW0YAAfX6I) to save me the trouble of outlining the basics of the anti-minimumwage position. I'm going to be the advocate of the devil here (I mean that I'm going to defend the idea of a minimal wage, even if I disagree with it). If you allow wages to price labor to its real economic value, then many people might end up earning less money than what they need to sustain their life. Because they have no skill whatsoever, and no real economic value. They'll be destitute or at least very poor. Then they might either die or chose crime in a society where they have no economic place. The idea of the minimum wage is to prevent that, I guess. |
|
|
|
For me a bitcoin-friendly bank is an obstacle on the way to world-wide adoption, which would make life of a lot of people more comfortable.
It's not for you to decide what would make the life of other people more comfortable. Bitcoin does need this kind of proselytism. Do you know that there are a lot of people that know that bitcoin exists, and yet reject the idea and don't want to use it? If one of this person happens to own a commerce, you might want to buy stuff from him anyway. Thus you'll have to exchange some of your bitcoins against USD/EUR/Whatever. And to do so you might have to use the banking system. |
|
|
|
In a grocery store I pay with dollars coz noone accepts bitcoins. In 20 years the situation will be the same. Because some guys made a bridge between dollars and bitcoins. Because they hid a wallet with coins in a bank vault and gave ppl paper money. Because they made Bitcoin an instrument to store wealth.
I don't mind at all if a merchant do not accept bitcoins. It is, in the pure sense of the expression, his business. It's just the same with gold. I own most of my wealth in gold, yet I don't care if I can't buy anything directly in gold. Most of the things I buy, I buy them with euros I freshly converted from a gold sell. I only convert what I need when I need it, so I don't have to hold the silly money the merchant wants during too a long time. Hell it's even great that merchants want me to pay them with crappy currencies. Because they are so cheap! With a bicoin-friendly bank, I could convert my real money (gold and bitcoins) into shitty money (USD, EUR) in an even faster, more efficient way. What's not to like? |
|
|
|
Half-measures == Half-reached goals.
When you want to buy something in a grocery store that does not accept bitcoin and does not even know what it is, what do your "full measures" consist of, exactly?? Forcing the marchand to accept your bitcoins anyway? With a gun or something? This is silly. Bitcoin is about monetary freedom so if you like the idea you must accept that a lot of people will NOT know about your currency and/or will NOT accept it. Hence it makes sense to have bridges between different currencies. A bitcoin-friendly bank would be a very efficient way of accomplishing this. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
