|
Bitcoin has one of the most important bankers in the world very flustered. Why? He knows the potential and is scared stiff. This is bullish!
And what kind of criticism can he level at Bitcoin?
"Terrible store of money"
Bitcoin made more money than any other storage system on the planet in 2013.
“Used to fund illegal activities”
Silk Road was closed down ages ago. But anyway, it would appear that police all over the world prefer criminals to use Bitcoin over fiat – easier to track. Makes for a nice neat trail of evidence when a case comes to court. Come on Dimon, catch up!
"Governments put a huge amount of pressure on banks: know who your client is, did you do real reviews of that. Obviously it's almost impossible with something like that".
But Bitcoin businesses are crying out for regulation so they can get on with making money without worrying.
It is interesting to see the head of one of the biggest banks open up and expose his ignorance to the world. He's a year or more in the past. Anyone who knows anything about Bitcoin can see that either:
1. He doesn't get the concept at all.
2. He gets the concept and is scared.
I think it is the latter.
But what about his competitors? Wells Fargo is quietly gathering people as fast as it can. Why? To learn what's going on! They know they've got catching up to do.
I predict that many senior bankers with only a few years to go until their careers wind up will leave their profession without ever accepting Bitcoin. They will pretend it's bad or refuse to learn about it properly, a bit like an older relative refuses to use e-mail or a computer.
In my office there's an old guy who refuses to use a computer. Everything has to be on paper. He refuses to accept that a computer is useful. He loves the smell of paper. That's exactly the same with some of these bankers. Bitcoin is odourless; they love the smell of fiat too much!
Needless to say most sane people in the banking profession will grasp the enormity of Bitcoin as soon as it is explained to them. And they will want their bank to be ready.
|
|
|
|
They know that, but some of the day traders here are in full FUD mode going into the weekend hoping to ignite a panic sell-off so they can buy on the cheap. It's getting kinda hard to dismiss all the good news rolling in daily. Two kinds of traders: the kind that profit from volatility and reduce volatility are good for bitcoin. The kind that intentionally increase volatility so they can profit from it are bad for Bitcoin. Doesn't really matter much. It's a much less fragile system than it gets credit for.
I'm happy to have learned that point and I feel lucky to have been able to pick it up quite quickly compared to many in here. |
|
|
|
I used to think that the moment a company like Ebay or Amazon starts using Bitcoin the price would jump to crazy amounts. But not anymore.
It will only reach crazy highs by mass adoption and not because of news anymore imo. We're past that.
Well how is adoption going to happen? Terribly sorry if Ebay, Google etc, aren't enough for you! He he  |
|
|
|
There is no senate hearing on January 28!
There is a public discussion in New York to be hosted by the New York State Department of Financial Services...
The senate discusses federal matters that can have a broad impact...
This meeting has no impact outside of New York State.
The outcome of this meeting be it positive of negative will have little effect on Bitcoin. Calling this event a "senate hearing" hurts Bitcoin more than the worst possible outcome this meeting could produce.
Is this really necessary? You seem to assume that everyone thinks there is a senate hearing in New York. I haven't seen anyone say this. But thanks for pointing out the meeting though, because New York is an extremely important global financial hub and decisions made about Bitcoin in New York will certainly have far-reaching effects.  |
|
|
|
None of these companies are going to accept bitcoins directly. Payment through a payment processor is not bullish. It indirectly causes selling pressure on exchanges.
The reasons we didn't see much selling pressure after Overstock is because so few are actually buying things with bitcoin. Overstock did 500k sales total since Jan 9. 125k was on the first day... That is a huge dropoff. Bitcoin = failcurrency.
Don't you think you've heard this point quite a few times already but that it doesn't actually add up? If people pay with Bitcoin then that means they will buy Bitcoin to begin with. And for all those who decide to buy some Bitcoin, perhaps spurred on by the fact that they learn they can spend it at Overstock, Ebay and many other places, how many do you think will buy some and then immediately spend all of it? Almost no-body. Merchants adopting Bitcoin will lead to more and more new customer wallets, the owners of most of which will buy more Bitcoin than they need to spend immediately, leading to more and more fiat moving to Bitcoin over the long term. Why can't anyone follow the merchant-adoption idea to its logical conclusion - More Bitcoin will be bought than spent. |
|
|
|
Did you guys see this already? http://www.cnbc.com/id/101356642Ebay and Paypal considering (decision pending) bitcoin for all payments!!! EDIT: meaning payments for anything |
|
|
|
That´s what they say...
Can we be sure of this? Isn´t Goldman Sachs officially involved in Coinbase?
Who knows who else is already silently on board. Maybe way earlier than we think.
Or do you talk about the ETF?
By the seat of your pants fonz!  |
|
|
|
 buybuybuy Problem is fonz, the institutional investors are not yet on board!  |
|
|
|
No it's the result of a lack of education EDIT: For example: “When the taxi driver speaks about something, the bubble is here...” |
|
|
|
Anyway Myanmar is one of the most interesting places to truly do nature trekking in the same way people were able to do it 300 years ago.
To take this a little bit further off-topic ... To say you have an affinity with Asia would be putting it mildly. Could I ask how this came about? Is this an interest that goes a long way back, did your parents travel there, work etc.? Have you also visited Nepal? Maybe Bhutan? When I was 21 I did a 40 day trek/van tour across Mongolia. That sort of started it I guess. My parents do not travel and I have never needed to do so for work. Have been to Nepal/Bhutan. Also met the current King of Bhutan but that was while he was on tour in Thailand. Parts of Asia are just awesome and it shocks me how different the regions are. I have been to Europe it is too developed for me to really enjoy. I have been meaning to get down to South America but who has the time :/ Hey! I also met the King of Bhutan, a few years ago when he was the Crown Prince . He studied at Oxford University and came to visit the Lama at the local Tibetan Buddhist Centre at which I worked for several years. Lama cooked the most fantastic meal (as well as being an extremely high-level practitioner of meditation he is also an amazing cook!) and for want of space we set up a table in the shrine room for lunch. Did you have any problems getting into Bhutan, as I believe it is not one of the easiest to get a visa for? Or is that where the gold comes into the picture and back into this thread I haven't yet made it out to Nepal but I will do so in a few years. I think I would like to wait until my son is old enough to really appreciate it, and take him with me. But despite not visiting the country, I met and knew so many Nepalese and Tibetans while in Oxford that I feel lucky to have been able really to experience the culture, somewhat displaced as it is over there. |
|
|
|
This article by Mark Andreessen http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/why-bitcoin-matters/claims that Bitcoins cannot be stolen. But of course they can, if people keep the keys in an easily hackeable computer or smartphone (which increasingly means "any computer"), or hand over their bitcoins to exchanges. (How can he say that that after the SheepMarketplace incident?) In a sense, it is your computer, not you, who owns "your" bitcoins; and if Apple or the NSA or the Russian mafia control your computer, they will control your bitcoins too. Indeed stealing Bitcoins is easier and "safer" than stealing credit cards, because a virus can spend your bitcoins as soon as it infects your computer, whereas cashing out from a stolen card usually implies human intervention, delays, checks, etc. Please quote the part of the article where the author claims bitcoins cannot be stolen? For example, with Bitcoin, the huge hack that recently stole 70 million consumers’ credit card information from the Target department store chain would not have been possible. [...] you are happy because there is no way for hackers to steal any of your personal information; and organized crime is unhappy. (Well, maybe criminals are still happy: They can try to steal money directly from poorly-secured merchant computer systems. But even if they succeed, consumers bear no risk of loss, fraud or identity theft.) Indeed he was referring only to stealing your bitcoins by hacking into the merchant. But what will the common reader understand when he reads "organized crime is unhappy", "consumers bear no risk of loss, fraud or identity theft"? Why did he not point out that bitcoins have other serious risks that credit card users will not expect? Fine to bring up the Target case, but should he not mention SheepMarketplace too? The article is extremely well-written and not deceptive. It is in fact the clearest, most accurate article I think I have ever read about Bitcoin in the mainstream media. If the common reader simply reads the article without distraction (it is perhaps a little longer than your average Bitcoin article) I fail to see how they could interpret what he is saying in any other way. I must say, JorgeStolfi, you do seem to be clutching at straws with your attack on this. In some of your posts you seem to be very scientific in your approach to whatever you are discussing. I would have thought an article like this would appeal to you over sensationalist articles about drug marketplaces. What's with the change in attitude? |
|
|
|
This article by Mark Andreessen http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/why-bitcoin-matters/claims that Bitcoins cannot be stolen. But of course they can, if people keep the keys in an easily hackeable computer or smartphone (which increasingly means "any computer"), or hand over their bitcoins to exchanges. (How can he say that that after the SheepMarketplace incident?) In a sense, it is your computer, not you, who owns "your" bitcoins; and if Apple or the NSA or the Russian mafia control your computer, they will control your bitcoins too. Indeed stealing Bitcoins is easier and "safer" than stealing credit cards, because a virus can spend your bitcoins as soon as it infects your computer, whereas cashing out from a stolen card usually implies human intervention, delays, checks, etc. Please quote the part of the article where the author claims bitcoins cannot be stolen? Come on JorgeStolfi. Explain how you understood Andreessen to be saying Bitcoins can't be stolen... otherwise I believe you are just trolling...  |
|
|
|
Anyway Myanmar is one of the most interesting places to truly do nature trekking in the same way people were able to do it 300 years ago.
To take this a little bit further off-topic ... To say you have an affinity with Asia would be putting it mildly. Could I ask how this came about? Is this an interest that goes a long way back, did your parents travel there, work etc.? Have you also visited Nepal? Maybe Bhutan? |
|
|
|
This article by Mark Andreessen http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/why-bitcoin-matters/claims that Bitcoins cannot be stolen. But of course they can, if people keep the keys in an easily hackeable computer or smartphone (which increasingly means "any computer"), or hand over their bitcoins to exchanges. (How can he say that that after the SheepMarketplace incident?) In a sense, it is your computer, not you, who owns "your" bitcoins; and if Apple or the NSA or the Russian mafia control your computer, they will control your bitcoins too. Indeed stealing Bitcoins is easier and "safer" than stealing credit cards, because a virus can spend your bitcoins as soon as it infects your computer, whereas cashing out from a stolen card usually implies human intervention, delays, checks, etc. Please quote the part of the article where the author claims bitcoins cannot be stolen? |
|
|
|
The problem with your chart is that most of those movies came after crashes. They are Hollywood reactions to market crashes.
Hollywood must be pretty prescient then, since it generally takes years for a movie to go from conception and screenwriting to release. If I were a Hollywood producer, I'd try to have one of these films completed and ready for release at all times just to take advantage of the hype when something happens on Wall Street. That might have the side effect of making me look prescient, but it's just good marketing.Oh no, don't tell me the TA says this film's priced in already! |
|
|
|
Ha ha! Nice try! |
|
|
|
The same long, detailed, intelligent and extremely positive article, by Marc Andreessen (Andreessen Horowitz), published by two of the biggest titles: Time: http://techland.time.com/2014/01/21/bitcoin-marc-andreessen/The New York Times: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/why-bitcoin-matters/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0I was waiting for an article that would really delve into what matters about Bitcoin and the potential out there. This is what I was looking for. To find it has just been published on the two of the top media platforms in existence today is quite amazing. Those who read my posts probably think I'm one of the most bullish in here, but this is suddenly making me feel too bearish! EDIT: sorry, only an excerpt at Time. But with the intro and link it's enough. |
|
|
|
lol! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
