|
Woah, 47-54 in under 24 hours.
|
|
|
|
|
I should add that I think the law is good news. Big businesses don't like grey areas. Their accountants and CFOs need things spelled out, so they can analyse risks appropriately.
Having some guidance -- albeit rather obvious guidance -- is very helpful and a very promising development.
|
|
|
|
|
I think it is too early to state your conclusion (2).
Does a miner "create" virtual currency? I don't think so -- the currency is created by a decentralised virtual platform and given to them as a reward for computations. I do not think this affects miners.
|
|
|
|
The way I read this is that mining for bitcoins and selling those for USD is now illegal unless you are a corporation with the right licenses (which cost many thousands) and hundreds of thousands (or even millions) of dollars for bonding requirements, etc.
A significant downside to the ruling, but one that's easily circumvented; all you need to do is cash in your mining spoils by actually spending them in the Bitcoin economy. Buying 1oz rounds, for instance (which can then easily be exchanged for fiat if that's your thing). Edit: Of course, you could also just ignore the law, provided you're careful enough about where you cash out (and willing to risk the book getting thrown at you if you're discovered). As a miner, you are not "engaged as a business in the exchange of virtual currency for real currency, funds, or other virtual currency." If you return from your holiday with 1000 EUR in cash, and change them at a money changer (or do a swap with someone), are you "engaged as a business in the exchange of real currency for funds, or other virtual currency."? No. The law only covers those who "create" virtual currency. E.g. Linden Labs for SLL. I don't see how this can cover miners, who are "granted" virtual currency. I think you are drawing conclusions far too soon here. |
|
|
|
Thank you for pointing out there are +/- buttons on bitcoinity, didn't notice before.
P.S.: Parliament of Cyprus announced it will not agree to haircut affecting all bank accounts.
The damage has already been done -- money is going to leak out of EU bank accounts faster than puss from a lanced boil. |
|
|
|
I find a bit funny when people put imaginary barriers to the price of btc (*) on their speculations. Why people say $50 instead of 53 or 51.3 or even sqrt(3210)? It's like they find the 0 positioned into the least significant digit as something relevant... Maybe some people says 50 as an approximation, but what would you put in your ask price: $97 or $100? I would love to see how many people choose "nice numbers" (like 100) instead of primary number (97) What could happen if we all start using any other numerical system, like hexadecimal? I don't think we are going to say "Hey, it will break at 0x3C, I'm sure!". And what the number of digits would mean? it would be less accurate than now?  Does anybody knnows if there is there any study about this kind of stuff? cheers! EDIT: (*) to be fair this happen on any market/society, not only bitcoin EDIT 2: I found a some research's about this topic: http://mro.massey.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10179/2695/02_whole.pdf?sequence=1 (a mbs thesis) http://www.cepr.org/pubs/Bulletin/meets/1180.htmhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_pricingI rely on psychological pricing a lot. It doesn't happen only with prices, but also with years. Almost every time it is a year ending in zero, and especially "milestones" such as the beggining of a decade, century or millennium, there is a speculation of doomsday. I believe in that case it might be related to apophenia and also in the way we learn the numeric system, our language system and some bad heuristics. Lets say $1399, in written it is one thousand three hundred ninety nine. And lets say $1401, in written it is one thousand four hundred one. If someone is mathematically inclined and can take numbers objectively, and is asked to check a price from the newspaper and finds $1399, he would realize it is just 1 dollar away from $1400 so he would report back "oh it costs just about fourteen hundred dollars". That is how you synthesise the information. Now, if someone who is less mathematically inclined, he would synthesize verbally instead of numerically. When he finds $1399 instead of synthesising numerically he would simplify it truncating it verbally "one thousand three hundred--", and report back "thirteen hundred dollars". That is my hypothesis, and considering on how our brain is organized I would even say that the latter could be the characteristic of those who are more right brain dominant. In China, sellers often abbreviate their prices -- e.g. "四百多“ -- "four-hundred-odd". It often turns out that the "four-hundred-odd" can be "490". However this usually either results in the buyer trying to bargain them down, or walking away. |
|
|
|
With the standard "I Am Not A Lawyer" disclaimer, my read is that miners might be ok if - They sell bitcoins for fiat, via a licensed exchange
- They purchase goods and services entirely within the bitcoin economy
The first is obvious. The US government is certainly within their rights to regulate the US Dollar, and ditto for other government fiat currencies. The second is vastly positive. Stimulative for the bitcoin economy, encouraging a broad market of services priced in bitcoins. And the third, more general point is implied: bitcoins are legal for regular users to possess and spend.It is true that bitcoins were never illegal, but having a big government issuing an affirmative statement "bitcoins are legal" (in effect) is great news. Agree. I read through the statement, interpret it this way, and see it as positive for BitCoin. The ground is clear and we know where we stand. I don't understand the pessimism about this. It looks like a very pragmatic and commonsense position they are taking. |
|
|
|
Looking back in 2015 when 1 BTC = $10k and just beginning to rise fast, this will look flat.
It won't be $10k in 2015 (if ever). Reasoning: 1) USD won't collapse in this timescale (just yet). 2) Adoption can't explode to those levels since the network won't scale. Even if "ordinary" tx drive SatoshiDice out of the market, we hit the 1M max block size limit at 10x current tx level. It may well be "stable" $200 to $300 in 2015, if everything goes extremely well. Maybe 2015 - 2020. Anyway, 2 - 5 years is an aeon in technology terms. The block size limitation is the least of our worries -- we need proper Bitcoin DNS to make addresses user friendly; we need an ability for vendors receiving BTC payments to ensure they're not receiving dirty money, etc. etc. There are lots of barriers to adoption. But I believe we can overcome them. In fact, to many, each of these barriers looks like an opportunity to make money. Just look how the barriers fell to Web adoption, and look at who got rich in the process. |
|
|
|
Looking back in 2015 when 1 BTC = $10k and just beginning to rise fast, this will look flat.
Even buying in at $100 is a bargain.
You are like a bull that has eaten two bulls for breakfast. LOL. That's a lion. |
|
|
|
|
$60 before 22nd, then $65 by the end of the month. $100 before the end of May at the latest.
|
|
|
|
|
Anywhere, using a middleman payment processor like bitspend or bitrunner.
|
|
|
|
|
If it was $1, there would be a buying frenzy and the price would be there for all of a nano-second.
It's for this reason that it can't really drop so low so fast.
|
|
|
|
Now we are getting somewhere. You can buy things with bitcoin. Where?
The Internet. |
|
|
|
|
Looking back in 2015 when 1 BTC = $10k and just beginning to rise fast, this will look flat.
Even buying in at $100 is a bargain.
|
|
|
|
So my question is:
Why is bitcoin money?
Because you can pay for some things with it. |
|
|
|
Chinese competition does not allow the emergence of the second Bitcoin trading platform.
To be free, to the ideal, to the development of bitcoins I decided to need to create a great bitcoin of currency trading platform.
Just happened today such a thing .. understand Chinese users can get to know.
Yes, it seems BTCChina was hacked today... but that was obviously just a matter of time (seriously, trading on top of phpBB?). Fortunately it does not seem serious. You asked for advice, I already gave some but it seems it was ignored. I can give you more. It's not worth much :-) : (1) You're tackling this from the wrong end. Start with an idea on paper, talk through with some web developers, about how the trading platform should work. How should the buy/sell engine work? What are your unique selling points? (2) Map out an infrastructure plan and consider software stacks -- make it horizontally scaleable. At least a database server, with a trading engine in front of it (that you can duplicate), with node balancer/ web servers in front of that. A separate, massively secured server for holding bitcoins, and a cold-stored wallet. Look at the problems Mt Gox is having and avoid them from the outset -- if designed properly, you can spin up new trading or web servers as needed. (3) Now, begin to look at existing source code to see what you can re-use, but ensure it fits within your security model. If you do this too soon, you can never come up with solutions that fit you. (4) At the same time, come up with a unique brand and domain name. Don't steal others' names -- that is shitty and makes you look cheap. Yes it's legal, yes it's cheap. But it damages your business because you look like a shit-head. If you can't do (1) and (2) with existing connections, then you don't have much. Anyone can do this these days with minimal capital. There is no need for VC. You need to bring something to the table -- either the technical ideas (which it seems you don't have), a decent execution plan (which you don't have yet), or really good government connections (which you will definitely need). If you don't have at least one of these, then there is no benefit to someone to work with you. On the other hand, you've got the ambition, and everyone would love to see more competition here. (1) is the most important. If you can provide peace-of-mind that people won't wake up one morning and find that the govt has shut down your operations, that would be the big unique selling point for me. |
|
|
|
|
And you think the entire market is going to trust this position? For either of you?
Seriously, this needs a collaborative effort to built bcDNS into the protocol. We need to have simple bitcoin addresses people can send money to. It will help drive adoption and make us all rich.
But unfortunately, I don't think this is the way.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm actually with qxcn on this. The weakest link here is your DNS. Bit of social engineering at more than one failure point and you're in. Encryption isn't going to count for much.
You're actually providing a sort DNS service -- people using familiar names to look up an address. DNS for bitcoin. That needs *a lot* of trust.
This is a service that BitCoin desperately needs to drive adoption, but I don't see how it can be provided by a single party. No-one would trust a single company to run the Internet's DNS. Why should they trust someone for BTC?
In terms of trust, can you really run DNS on top of a web site? DNS should be the most basic, trusted service there is.
I think getting a Bitcoin DNS into the P2P network is what we really should be looking at.
|
|
|
|
|
Institutional investors, and anyone with a million on the line, isn't this stupid. Getting a big audience and doing pump n' dump? Good way to end up in prison. People with money and/or influence are better at protecting it than this.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
