http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/mar/04/bitcoin-currency-of-vice

Bitcoin currency of vice. Even without doing much research it is relatively easy to prove that the main use of bitcoins isn't drugs. It's as a store of value (like gold). Anyways... if journalists did any research they might find this survey http://spacedruid.com/2013/02/26/the-demographics-of-bitcoin-part-1/ which is actually an attempt at figuring out what bitcoins are used for.

Isn't it funny that mainstream publications can just claim that bitcoin is a currency of vice and that it's mainly used for drugs when they don't even really know that or have evidence to support such statements?

I'm not saying the article is completely inept though.  

[Banks don't want to deal with you. You can't get a checking account because a lot of banks have been threatened at the federal level and are told they are not to hold funds for anyone involved in the business of medical marijuana.]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/emofly/my-life-as-a-professional-cannabis-baker

from the article

It's tough to build a business because the marijuana industry is so unstable. The conflicting state and federal laws are hard to navigate. Banks don't want to deal with you. You can't get a checking account because a lot of banks have been threatened at the federal level and are told they are not to hold funds for anyone involved in the business of medical marijuana. You don't know if the dispensaries you're working with are going to be around next week. That's scary. In my former profession, I was used to networking and finding a group of people to work with. People in this industry are very protective and isolated, so it's hard to find a community. Even though everything I am doing is legal, it's very hard to do business.

could using bitcoin somehow sidestep these issues?

libertarian ideas of free market and such?

The counter isn't reset right? it's just a past 24 hour average?

is the volume meaningful to anyone?

Did anyone see this small gem from the liberty conference? Interesting news.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=MJCLCQ8zTC4#t=233s

yeah yeah... the new coins that are a subsidy don't account for a great percentage that are in circulation. But it's still meaningful.

Suppose you want to sign transactions with the offline computer. Is it necessary they are the same OS?

JW

I was wondering if there was a market interest for raspberry pi's preloaded with linux on their SD cards. The primary use of these is for Armory. If you don't know armory is a way to have your wallet on two computers. One online and one offline. The offline one is untouchable by hackers and it holds your private keys. It's useful though because you can still create a transaction on the online computer and sign it with your offline one.

I see one "kit" is on amazon for 89.95. It's probably possible to get a lower price

so is anyone interested?
Would you want armory to already be installed or not? I haven't used raspberrian but installing is usually easy in linux these days.

As some of you know bitcoin is on the list.

states that the data "clearly shows that the research was sloppy, random and valueless."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/anonymous-hack-of-bank-of-america-google-2013-2#ixzz2MGJvodFo

Does anyone actually believe that? My theory: the random and valueless words inserted were just to keep people(the researchers themselves)  from knowing what they are really interested in. I bet bitcoin wasn't so random.

I've been skimming around the boards on the internet lately... and it seems that one of the most widespread misgivings about bitcoin from people who think they understand it is the "deflationary spiral".

So I'd thought I'd take a shot at showing why they are wrong.

Deflation. If bitcoin deflates and the price rises... how does that hurt the users of that currency? Does it make it harder to transact larger purchases? No, it makes it easier. Does it make it harder to transact small purchases of less value since the bitcoins price is increasing? Not if we compare it to the dollar. Compared to the dollar... the lowest unit is a satoshi or 1 / 100 millionth. This means that if we were to say that the smallest unit of a dollar (the penny) is worth the same as the smallest unit of a bitcoin.......... the price of ONE bitcoin would have to rise to 1 million dollars per btc for this to happen. So in order for the deflation aspect of bitcoin to harm users in any way(the theoretical harm here is that the price is so much that it makes transactions more difficult) ... would mean that it would have to deflate to 1 million dollars. IF we are comparing it to the dollar. The argument "deflation causes hoarding" is the exact same as what I just described. The price would rise from hoarding. And it would only cause hypothetical issues at 1 million dollars per bitcoin. So if bitcoin deflation doesn't hurt users transacting with one another.. does it hurt acquiring them? Not really. If you have enough money to buy 1 bitcoin but wait for a year... and then the price has doubled you can still buy .5 bitcoin and you would have the same purchasing power as you would have had. So it doesn't hurt users transacting with other users... and it doesn't hurt acquiring them.. what does it hurt?


There is a second big mistake I see some people making...... and it's that the deflationary aspect of bitcoin causes the economy harm. Really? Just 5 years ago bitcoin didn't exist. Dollars existed. And now bitcoin exists and dollars still exist. So how could ANY aspect of bitcoin cause harm to the economy? Especially a deflationary one. That makes no sense whatsoever. They seem to be thinking from a philosophical standpoint as if bitcoin was the only currency that existed.  The truth is that competition is good. A new currency is good and people having more choice cannot cause harm except for those who don't use the right currency for their needs.

This brings me to my next point... frequently those who say deflation is a problem argue that prices are a problem because the money deflates. Once again........ this argument seems to be made from a philosophical standpoint and not a realistic one. Bitcoin isn't the only currency. So if it's value is volatile then you can just connect it to something less volatile(as is already being done).

And even if bitcoin ends up being used for larger transactions... there are even more alternatives now. Other cryptocurrencies. With our modern digital age it is no longer a problem to exchange from one currency to another and it is only going to get easier.

My sister periodically sends money from here to germany and pays all the fees so I'm wondering....

If she gets coinbase linked to her account... and buys the bitcoins from coinbase then sends them to someone in germany... what's the best way for that person in germany to cash them out? I suppose they use Euros so it would be in euros?

NT

[The safeguards they have set up is a move to drive more U.S. volume in Bitcoins along with paving a way for institutional investors and high net-worth individuals to buy and hold large amounts of the digital currency.]

http://bitcoinmagazine.com/coinlab-bringing-bitcoin-to-wall-street-with-mtgox-deal

 

The safeguards they have set up is a move to drive more U.S. volume in Bitcoins along with paving a way for institutional investors and high net-worth individuals to buy and hold large amounts of the digital currency.

It seems like every day I'm seeing several companies starting to accept bitcoins. Is it just me or is this a considerable change?

For instance today on reddit I see: Namecheap, 33Mail, .. okay just 2 I see but still!

edit: franksdomains
edit2: cisthene.com

NT

speculation?

If you ignore the aspects of bitcoin about security and such.. and just focus on the transaction part of the network... it appears that at any given point in time the transaction part of bitcoin is essentially always done by just 1 miner.

If you ignore mining pools and just imagine a bunch of individual miners hoping to get a hash lower than the target this is easy to see. Joining a mining pool doesn't somehow magically make the transactions have more capability with all that added power... it just guarantees you a sort of return rather than relying on the sheer luck of mining.

I don't mean to say this is a problem.... this is a scalability issue.. and it's probably unavoidable.

But you should keep this in mind when you talk about the block size limit because that is a scalability issue on top of a scalability issue. Now not only is the entire networks transactions being essentially handled by 1 miner at any given point of time... but the block size limits how much that one miner can include in his block.

With the progress of technology and the fact that we are doing okay now it may not seem like a dire situation. But the block size fixed at 1MB means we will not ever reap the benefits of improved technology and we will always be stuck at a level that is already below what the majority of people are probably capable of. That's just a guess.

Correct me if I'm wrong(or if I am misunderstanding). I probably am wrong but I'd like to know exactly how.... I have more reading to do .

[These businesses also allow VIPs to stake more than the $50,000 legal limit on how much money Chinese are permitted to take out of the country every year. (In essence, junkets collect their clients' money on the Chinese side of the border and give them loans to gamble on the Macau side.]

Basically Macau is a place next to china where they go to gamble. It's like Las vegas... but bigger. So why is it potentially so important?

From this article:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/01/28/broken_tooth_and_new_macau_gambling_china?page=0,1

Triads get a piece of this new action by dominating the "junket" industry of Macau, which brings high-rolling gamblers to the territory and collects debts on behalf of the casinos. These businesses also allow VIPs to stake more than the $50,000 legal limit on how much money Chinese are permitted to take out of the country every year. (In essence, junkets collect their clients' money on the Chinese side of the border and give them loans to gamble on the Macau side.) This scheme makes a convenient vehicle for money laundering. Steve Vickers, Hong Kong's former chief of the Criminal Intelligence Bureau, has said that he knows of "no Chinese junket operator that doesn't have some association with triads."

Bitcoin could totally bypass these junkets.

another article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/23/business/worldbusiness/23cnd-macao.html?_r=1&

Macao surpassed the Las Vegas Strip to become the world’s biggest gambling center in 2006, measured by total gambling revenue, according to industry analysts and government figures released today.

First let me state I don't understand ripple well yet. I'm only just starting to read about it.. I'm also relatively new to bitcoin. I didn't read Satoshi's whitepaper until december (even though I knew about bitcoin since october 2011).

Bitcoin is powerful... and it could operate even if exchanges were taken down. Everyone knows that.......

but a decentralized exchange would be powerful right? And if you took the time to sit and think of how a decentralized exchange would work.... would you end up coming up with the idea of Ripple? Will ripple allow bitcoin to succeed in the event of political attack?

Just wondering.