I really don't know why this story keeps coming back up again and again and why people cannot grasp one simple concept. He did not pay millions of dollars for a pizza, he paid roughly $40 or the going rate at the time for two pizzas delivered with tip. He also did not even pay the pizza place, as I recall it was more along the lines of he traded 10,000 BTC to someone who could get a pizza delivered to his house, hot and ready to eat. Someone took him up on the offer, ordered two pizzas from a deliver joint and had them deliver it to the BTC guy's house. After he got the pizzas he kept his end of the bargain and sent the buyer his 10,000 BTC. So at the time the BTC was worth approximately $40/10,000 or roughly 4 tenths of 1 cent each.
At the time you could mine up a bunch more BTC just using your CPU and active trading wasn't even a thing. So yes I agree that actions like this help spread the word about BTC and its eventual rise, but to keep saying he lost or wasted million of dollars is just absurd. Thinking like that you may as well horde every item real or virtual you encounter as it could one day become worth a lot of money. Further, had all the early adopters horded it, it would be worth nothing today as their is not much of a market with just a few dozen people trading virtual tokens back and forth. It gets its value from be distributed to the masses, not by a handful people hording it all.k
Lmao this is so true. The guy simply used Bitcoins the way it was meant to be used, which is as a digital currency. He did not lose anything, strictly speaking, as he got what it was worth at the time, which was two pizzas. I guess the reason why this keeps popping up, is because of the opportunity cost, which is the cost incurred by not enjoying the benefit that would have been had by taking an alternative choice. That just about amounts to around $40,000. I know that everyone dreams of being rich and having the financial freedom to really enjoy themselves, but it's pretty ridiculous. At the time, there was no way anyone could have predicted that Bitcoin would boom the way it did. That's why it became revolutionary after all. |
|
|
|
|
Oh wow, that's pretty damn amazing if it's true. I'm guessing you booked your flights and accommodations beforehand though? I mean, if you're going to backpack and all you have on you is Bitcoins, wouldn't that be a little too risky? I personally try to avoid Localbitcoins if I can on my home country, and I can't imagine having to depend on it on a foreign land, without a roof over my head. I guess it is true that there is a price to pay for convenience, and for the most part, for IRL transactions, Bitcoin is still rather inconvenient.
I would prefer to go the safer route with cash and credit cards, but I guess if I only really needed pocket money for food and souvenirs, only carrying Bitcoins would not be too bad. This story does make me long for the day when Bitcoin is accepted everywhere though.
|
|
|
|
|
Demand will increase in Japan, definitely. Japan has always been an early adopter when it comes to technology, and the fact that they are welcoming crypyocurrencies with open arms is a sign that the technology has a legit future. This also creates precendence that other countries could follow.
The Reuters article does state that there are 12 exchanges that decided to close its doors though. The article does not state the reason behind their closure, but I assume it's because they cannot comply with requirements. It just goes to show that regulation is not all good.
|
|
|
|
If Bitcoin goes past $5000 the Chinese government will probably smile because they started the FUD with the ban and then probably bought the dip. That's how these govts and too big to fail banks work.
They have actually said that they have no intentions at all in banning Bitcoins. News came out days ago that they will be applying regulations for cryptocurrencies in general. They will be classified under 'digital assets', whatever that means. There's a lot of love-hate going on. |
|
|
|
|
The operative word here is 'alternative'. Bitcoin is still king, and it will continue to be in the foreseeable future.
It also looks like Snowden made his statement under the context of privacy and security. He's a privacy advocate after all. If you want to be un traceable in the internet, it would probably do you good to listen to him. If you want to invest and earn cash, he's hardly an authority on the subject matter.
|
|
|
|
|
This is how it should be. If these fraudulent ICOs are penalized, then countries would not have to ban them as a whole. These scams have been making people wary even of legit ICOs for too long.
As for stupid people needing protection from the government, well... that's just how it is. To me, it's not so much protecting stupid people, it's more of scammers being prosecuted. The world is a better place without them.
|
|
|
|
|
Why not? Bitcoin is not illegal in Egypt. Heck, their first Bitcoin exchange, Bitcoin Egypt, launched a few months ago. The government does not encourage it because of lack of supervision, but it is allowed.
There's also localbitcoins.com if you want to trade with other people. Good luck!
|
|
|
|
|
That must have been scary. When you think about Bitcoin thieves, you would usually think they used an elaborate social engineering scam, or planted some kind of malware or something. Either way, you'd be physically safe in your home. It looks like this man was lured into a meet up. I'm glad the report does not say anything about anyone being hurt, but there was real potential for assault there.
|
|
|
|
|
One disadvantage of decentralization is this. Bitcoin value is, for the most part, dictated by demand. These so called "experts" are able to conveniently sway public opinion, and thus, demand, for their own gain.
What's important is that we know that they have an agenda to pull, and we know even they themselves don't believe the BS they're spouting. If they're trying to bring down Bitcoin value to buy more, then we can also expect them to take steps to make it rise. We're on the right track.
|
|
|
|
|
The way Bitcoin is set up, being anonymous and decentralized, this would be impossible to precisely quantify. I think there is little doubt that shady internet deals pretty much started the propagation of Bitcoins though. I mean, it's a currency which real criminals use that can be near impossible to track. Surely there would be better, non-criminal real life applications right? More and more people adopted that line of thinking until its value just exploded.
As for additional uses for mainstream adoption, I don't think that's the issue. Bitcoin still has its reputation from its criminal roots, and far too many people are still too wary to trust a technology they don't fully understand. Vendors will not bother with it if the mainstream does not demand it. The situation is steadily getting better, but we have a long way to go.
|
|
|
|
|
Well that was quick! I'm glad we're finally getting good news out of China for a change. It's great that the article clarified that China never had any intention to completely ban the use of Bitcoins, but rather to curb money laundering. People can finally shut up with their FUD.
Does anybody know the implications of Bitcoins being classified as virtual property in China though? I initially thought they would have a more heavy handed approach due to how they handled Facebook, etc. in the past, but this actually seems rather reasonable.
|
|
|
|
|
South Korea did not ban Bitcoins. They banned ICOs. People should really know the difference.
The article I read also stated that they were only banning local ICOs. ICOs outside South Korea should still be fair game. They probably just want to stop their own people from running scams in the form of ICOs. It's very likely that this will be a temporary ban, for just until they plug up enough holes. It does not deserve the sensationalism it gets.
|
|
|
|
Even if the ban is temporary or it,China does not have a major say in the bitcoin market at the moment,the price is recovering really well after all the rumors being spread regarding the ban of ICO and exchanges and the panic selling from novice users and if China's ban was temporary it would be great for the Chinese market and nothing else.  This hits the nail right on the head. China has done its damage, and the lift on the ban would just raise Bitcoin value even higher. We are already up to $4300 at the moment despite all the negativity, even with the South Korea news, so I think it would be safe to say that we are definitely going above $5000 again. That being said, the ban was always said to be temporary, as China was looking into ways to regulate them. They see a lot of money moving, and they want a cut. Whatever they come up with, I just hope won't be too restrictive. More demand is always better for value. |
|
|
|
Wait, your initial Bitcoin investment is 4.6? That is a ridiculous amount of money man lol. I'm not one to call out anyone on their personal investment decision, but that seems like way too much for an initial investment. Most people I know start with $100 and go from there. I'm fairly sure there are an exceedingly few amount of people in this forum that has actually ever touched 10 Bitcoins, much less start with it. Either way, best of luck to you man! Projections are in your favor. After hearing from you guys, I was confident of how much I invest. Let's just hope bitcoin doesn't fail on me. I have heard of some bitcoin wallet locking people accounts and took their bitcoin. So I don't know what bitcoin wallet I should use?
This should not ever happen if you are the tiniest bit careful. I would personally recommend Electrum. Write down your seeds on a piece of paper and never lose it. Apply standard security practices on your computer and your use of it. |
|
|
|
|
No. Why would his reveal increase the price anyway? So yeah he's the founder, but so what? The point of decentralization is we do not have to be dependent on a single entity. If I saw news of him revealing himself, I'd probably be like 'Wow, that's awesome', stalk him a bit, then move on.
If anything else, him moving his coins might make the price drop. He supposedly holds around 1 million, which is already around 5% of every Bitcoin that will ever exist. He's going to be a major player with potential to be able to move around the market on his own.
|
|
|
|
Who will take the initiative to become the voice and take on the role of being the chosen representative of BTC?
The role of a chosen Messiah or Savior to help steer the road to a Crypto Future
That's exceedingly dramatic lmao. Why would you think Bitcoin needs a representative? It's anonymous and decentralized. Having a tangible face would kind of ruin its mystique. That being said, if anyone is fit for this role, it's Satoshi. And he's not around anymore as far as we know, so yeah. If we don't need a representative, we sure as hell don't need a messiah. We're doing fine. Crypto is doing fine. I don't see the need for a rallying figure, and neither do I think one can help. |
|
|
|
|
That's actually an excellent idea. There will be quirks that will need ironing out, but the potential for complete transparency should not be ignored. Governments have been slow to adapt to technology when it comes to sensitive processes, but this is one they should truly look into. Blockchain technology is still in its infancy and we're already seeing uses for real world problems. Its propagation would be beneficial to everyone, not to mention it would be good press for Bitcoins.
|
|
|
|
|
It does make Bitcoin more resilient, but not invulnerable. A total outlaw of Bitcoin trading is bound to make waves in the market, regardless of the method and capability of implementation. I imagine the majority would rather not take action that could possibly be held against them in the future. You can never be truly anonymous on the Internet, so you can never be completely safe. I don't think Bitcoin can be killed completely at this point, but a ban would stifle demand, and consequently, ruin value.
Thankfully, as the article graciously stated, it does seem unlikely, if not outright impossible for countries like the US to impose such a drastic step.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh wow, I swear I have never seen people arguing about Crypto in real life. That must have been a spectacle.
I do agree that Bitcoins are better overall, but I would also understand if you see it the other way around. Bitcoin has its merits, but Ethereum's malleability makes it technologically superior. Better applications mean higher future potential. Still, they don't have to duke it out. You can buy and hold both. I would have smiled and agreed to disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
