I think most banks realise its potential but wouldnt want to admit it publically.
My thought exactly. In the dark they are trying to figure out how they can profit from it, and they will in the end. Did Blockbuster profited from the Internet? Blockbuster wasn't an industry. They were one company within the broad industry of delivering premium content to people. Netflix and others emerged to leverage the internet. Blockbuster failed to adapt and went under. Banks that don't adapt to future innovations (not just to bicoin) will also go under. But the industry of banking, in some form or another, making money off other peoples' needs to use money and to keep money secure, will be around for a long time. |
|
|
|
I try to remain optimistic about all of this, but...  |
|
|
|
If only all companies released statements like this lol.
The Bitstamp release was similar - specifically they also pledged to doing regular audits (quarterly) and posting results. |
|
|
|
|
Thanks for posting this info. I wasn't sure what to make of the API email. It looked like a phishing attempt except that the links in the email actually went to btct.co. Anyway, I appreciate being able to pull down the account history.
|
|
|
|
You definitely can invest in USD/Euro. That is what people do on forex...
No, you don't invest in USD/EUR pair, you speculate. Forex trading is a zero sum game. My point is that Bitcoin does not reliably produce wealth, it is a currency, similar to speculating on forex. At some point, user numbers will reach saturation, and Bitcoin will no longer produce any returns (except maybe due to deflation). The bolded part is key. Right now people are investing (call it speculating if you want) in the prospect that bitcoin is not at its saturation point and that it will continue to climb to some saturation point. That is an investment as surely as is someone putting money into a startup company. It is a high-risk investment, but an investment just the same. When bitcoin does in fact get near and/or reach that saturation point, then your comparison to trading USD/EUR will be accurate. |
|
|
|
|
like, is their a foul muun oar somethin'?
|
|
|
|
|
Banks Hate Bitcoin
I Am Not
Satoshi Nakamoto
|
|
|
|
|
Gox needs to just shut their API off until it's fixed.
It's really scary that they don't know how to do it and/or don't know that they should do it.
|
|
|
|
tbx quote of the day on this westexaco: Gox runs its servers from a potato and i say that's generous given Gladios could be run from a potato You're going to ornriate some people from Idaho. |
|
|
|
Fedora on our heads, buttcoins in our wallet, freeze peaches in our hearts, all topped off by a touch of casual misogyny. Behold, your typical bitcoin user.
I suppose it is asking too much of you to extend your boycott to the bitcointalk forum. But please consider it. |
|
|
|
An opposition won't be necessary. The application will 99% get rejected, since the term "bitcoin" will be deemed descriptive or even generic. On the small chance it slips by the examiners, then an opposition would be in order. Not sure I agree with this. If you're saying that the word is too common to trademark. There's always the first person to file the trademark for a term. And they're the ones who get it. And Bitcoin wasn't even a word 3 years ago. Let alone trusting the evaluators to be familiar with it even today ... It will be rejected if someone else has trademarked it but not sure it would for any other reason? The term was used in the Sathoshi white paper in 2008. http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdfBut the Foundation would do good by submitting examples of prior art and usage BEFORE the trademark is granted. Once the trademark is granted, the expense goes up and the trademark owner can go after others with lawsuits in the interim. |
|
|
|
It's inherently classist. Only those with access to moderately high levels of technology can spend or receive it. Only those with access to exceedingly high levels of technology can "mine" it. Heterosexual, middle class or higher white males are disproportionally represented in the demographics of bitcoin users. Bitcoin only serves to uphold the current kyriarchal socioeconomic structures by making sure the privileged become more privileged.
And it's a terrible idea. You spend more on your parents' electricity bill and replacing burnt out GPUs that your parents buy for christmas and birthdays than you actually theoretically make.
Bitcoins are basically just this weird attempt by lolbertarian children to make their own currency and play stock market and dodge taxes.
What's your point? |
|
|
|
|
I think it's more like Apple is the new Apple. In their early days they tried to monopolize the hardware and software markets for their Macs and the like. They lost to the open architecture and open market of the PC market place. They gave themselves a tremendous head-start in the smart phone market. However their narrow-minded approach at attempting to control both the hardware and the software is leading them down the same path.
|
|
|
|
So this is a very bad reason
Altavista were the first search engine until Google came....
That's the only thing that makes bitcoin so worthwhile ?
No. Being the first is what got bitcoin going. Having the set of attributes that bitcoin has (which I am not going to list and can be found elsewhere) is what has people trusting in it. It has momentum and trust of users. If another identical coin appears it does not have the value that an established trusted coin has. There is no reason for anyone to switch. If another coin with superior attributes appears... well we will see what happens when that occurs. Most likely, however, such a superior coin will be an improved bitcoin (i.e. compatible). |
|
|
|
so, basically what you are suggesting is organized theft.
kinda, but not really. If you want to minimize the damage - this should get more attention which will probably warn wallet owners. Also everything would be logged and possible to view by everyone. Finding a lost wallet with 200 BTC in it surely would be a good thing. How is this "kinda" theft? Taking something of value from someone else without their permission is theft. I know mods don't delete or react to possible scams on this forum. However, this is a call to outright criminal activity with most other users of the forum as possible targets. This user (user id, email address, and IP) should be permanently banned. |
|
|
|
|
The red herring is the implication that people spending fiat currencies are not making silly choices when they choose to spend them and that people spending btc are making a silly choice. But that masks the reality that people spending fiat are making a choice not to buy bitcoins. The price of bitcoin is going to do whatever the price of bitcoin is going to do. At any point in time, you have a specific amount of stored value in currencies. Which currency they are in at that instant is irrelevant. You make a choice on what to do with that stored value based on quite a few variables and then tomorrow you have a different specific amount of stored value. If I buy a pizza today, does it matter if the currency is USD, EUROS, or BTC?
|
|
|
|
Update Here is the original problem description I submitted via their website: SMS verification code is not being sent to my phone. This started happening on Friday. Sometimes the browser says an error occurred with the SMS message, other times it gives no such message but just fails to send the text. When I try using the option to call my phone I receive a call with the message "We are sorry. An application error has occurred. Good bye." Here is the response I received: Be sure that there is not a typo in your phone number. Authy handles our two-factor authentication. You should contact them if you are not receiving the text message verification: https://www.authy.com and support@authy.comIf they can't help you, don't hesitate to shoot me another email! And here is the reply I just sent to them: I am certain it is not an issue with the phone number. As I indicated in my original support request, when I use the option to have your system CALL me, it does actually call my cell phone, so I know it has the right number. However when it calls me it says that an application error occurred. (see quote of entire message in original email)
I do not intend to contact authy.com support. I have sent several thousand dollars to your company and I am now unable to login to my account to check on statuses or make further purchases. I expect it is within your area of responsibility to follow through with any of your 3rd party providers on my behalf.
I suspect that there may be an issue with the fact that I access the account from multiple devices. On one of those devices I enabled the option to only send a verification code every 30 days. I do not have access to that device right now. The other two devices I use I did not enable that option.
Please look into this further.
Thank You,
<name removed> First, I was pleasantly surprised that they replied to me in about 30 minutes. I was expecting one or two days, so that was great. Second, and however, I was very disappointed that the person did not really think about the problem I submitted. It didn't require a lot of thinking to know that there couldn't be an error in the phone number since their system was able to call the number. It was made worse by the attempt to deflect me to another company. I don't really give a shit how they achieve their backend tasks. If a 3rd party provider is part of their verification system, great. When it's not working, then Coinbase needs to talk with their vendor to get it right. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
