They were interviewed this week and said its still being evaluated for approval.  He intimated that they were running into some progress hinderances due to the digital / unique nature of the items involved in the ETF and the groups doing the approval having some issues, thus causing delays.  But that overall, the timeline hasn't become any longer or more drawn out than any other typical ETF evaluation process.

When asked if they're still buying Bitcoins, they skirted the question and wouldn't answer.

-B-

-B-

Its difficult (impossible?) to repair a relationship with a community that doesn't want you to exist in the first place.

I personally believe the Bitcoin Foundation can, and already has, done things that were hugely important for Bitcoin's current level of success.

But many in this community think anything centralized is a breeding ground for corruption.
So they will waste insane amounts of energy looking for corruption.
Or simply pulling it out of their ass holes, if need be.

Given a situation like that, I don't know how worthwhile it would be to even try.  But I suppose its worth a shot.

-B-

Is Changetip supported on this forum software?

Is anything supported on this forum software?

-B-

-B-

Any innovation / additional service layers for Bitcoin are welcome.

-B-

These stories are so painful to hear.   How does it feel knowing you could've had $10,000,000 last December?



Sorry for your loss.

You guys need to get your hands on some copies of the "Times" London newspaper and satoshi's first quote (see signature)

-B-

Casinos in Las Vegas.

Strip Clubs.

You folks need to think a little harder before you rattle off locations.

Right now Bitcoin will be used by gamblers and lap dance experts.

Right now Bitcoin will not be used by Grandma Tilly and her Fat husband Hank (malls).

.... come all.

-B-

Why do theives and scammers always seem to have broken english?  Gives me some renewed hope in America.  Just a tiny bit though.

-B-

*facepalm*

-B-

PS:  I believe Bitcoin has represented less than 1% of their increased sales thus far.

You're using a service that is notorious for ripping people off with outrageously overpriced coins and complaining that the concept of replenishing doesn't work?

I don't follow that logic.

Use a service where you get your coins at market value.  Obviously.

-B-

See my signature.

-B-

Las Vegas.

Las Vegas.

Las Vegas.

And some more in Las Vegas.

And Macau.

Macau.

Macau.

Make Bitcoin the "the payment method you use to get stuff cheaper".

Discounts for those using Bitcoin during purchases has been discussed many times already, but lets think a little deeper...

I've got an online store. I was putting together my 'Bitcoin Accepted Here' logo and began typing this beneath it: "10% off all orders paid for with Bitcoin".

My userbase is no doubt 0% bitcoin holders. But one thing I can guarantee: If word gets around that they can get 10% off the products they're already buying from me, they are going to go sign up with Coinbase or Circle and get their hands on some Bitcoin.

And that's not all. They're going to start looking for Bitcoin discounts elsewhere. In fact, want to make money? Put together a website that lists all the online merchants offering discounts via Bitcoin purchases.

Lets give bitcoin that reputation: It saves you money if you spend it.

Whether the discount is 3% or 10% does not matter. Whatever you are saving can be passed on to the customer. If merchants push a concerted effort to make this the "norm", bitcoin is going to begin to sink into consumers' wallets, and become part of their spending habits.

We will see the first trickles of real consumer adoption. Media will begin referring to Bitcoin as a cheaper way to send money, and a cheaper way to spend money. Voila. The currency (not just the blockchain) now has value, even in the eyes of skeptics. Im going to do my part.

-B-

See you in 140 years then.

-B-

The partisan governments' inability to make decisions on anything is just going to be a plus for Bitcoin.

All Bitcoin needs is "time to breathe" and thank God, government agencies are slower than molasses in the winter time.

-B-

Yup i've got my online store going up there as soon as the Beta 3 windows build is ready.

-B-

In a typical product development cycle, there are different groups:

1)  Sales team interacts with the customers who actually *USE* the product.
2)  Sales team communicates those *NEEDS* to an internal product development team.
3)  Product Development team

  a)  Creates specifications.  
  b)  Decides on timelines.  
  c)  Makes all the decisions for how the product will look, act, and evolve over time.
 
4)  Specifications are handed to Project Manager.
5)  Project Manager ensures that Dev, Design, and Test execute on the project plan.

----------------
There is a reason its done this way.

"Core Devs" are not supposed to be making product development decisions. Developers do not have sufficient information, education, or interaction with the end user to have a clue how the product is supposed to work.  

The people out in the field are the only ones interacting with the customer.  We are the customers.  The man in a grass hut in Kenya is the customer.  The Filipino expat in San Diego sending money home every week to his family is the customer.  The entrepreneur wanting to innovate, is the customer.  These are the people who express their needs.

The developers themselves have *no* information about this group.
The developers themselves have *no* training in finance.
The developers themselves have *no* ability to make decisions on priorities, enhancements, or features for the product.

Gavin has stated numerous times that there is endless disagreement among the core devs.  On features.  Enhancements.  Modifications.  etc.  That they are in a "lock" of disagreement much of the time, and making little to no progress forward.  Here you have a bunch of people who are supposed to be coders.   They are cryptographers.  They are not Finance experts.  These guys should be focusing on executing what the customer (the world) needs Bitcoin to do.  

They should not be "making decisions" about how the product is going to work, function, or grow.  
They should not be setting the timelines.  
They should not be talking amongst themselves about what gets done, or why.

Gavin repeatedly makes mention of the difficulty in obtaining "consensus".   Well this begs the question.  Consensus among who?  Bitcoin is supposed to be a fully decentralized system.  Yet there are a "core group" of completely unqualified Developers making decisions on a new tool that may power world finance.   This seems absolutely insane to me.  To make matters worse - they can't reach consensus on most things.  So not only are they unqualified, and playing roles they should never play, but they're unable to agree on much of anything and move the protocol forward.  

Consensus should be from the community.

There should be a community-wide (world wide) voting mechanism whereby everyone involved in bitcoin has a vote.  A say, in what happens next with the protocol:

The community should decide when something gets added to the Protocol.
The community should decide what the priorities are.
The community should decide what changes are needed, and their severity.

Consensus should NOT be a group of "core devs" who make all the decisions.  Everyone in Bitcoin from the teenager with 0.005 BTC in his wallet, to Roger Ver .... should have an equal vote on where this protocol goes over the next 5 years.  

Obviously lay people don't know technical limitations, and may make unfeasible requests.  But this is why you have a process for product development.  Developers have *no power* over what is decided, aside from conveying what is technologically possible, impossible, risky, or unfeasible.  That is their role.  Nothing more.

Thoughts?