The cheaper Bitcoins are the more people can afford to access some significant number of them. Long periods of cheap Bitcoin prices mean more even and widespread distribution.
I don't think a "significant number" matters, 1 dollar in BTC will always be 1 dollar in BTC, no matter if it represented bu the figure of 0,0000003 BTC or 12BTC. Ultimately it matters how many BTC you, as an individual, have relative to everyone else because it determines your purchasing power. In the early days people were mining and buying thousands of bitcoins very easily. Today that's far out of most people's reach. Yet we're still in the very early adopter phase of this. Bitcoin isn't even close to being considered mainstream. By the time it is buying even a single bitcoin will most likely be out of most people's reach. Now imagine the very last people to own BTCs, the people now considered poor, people in Rwanda or Argentina for example. If the most they can ever afford is 1 Satoshi (.00000001) then their purchasing power will never amount to significant participation in the Bitcoin economy. The longer prices are low the better chance for better distribution you'll get. Unfortunately this still won't be enough for the majority of the world's poor, by the time they jump in. |
|
|
|
Not low enough for me! 100 dollars please  It was about $80 not too long ago, but people will forget that. Instead we'll probably see a slew of news stories proclaiming the death of Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
Nothing goes up in a straight line. Nothing.
Those of us around Bitcoin a while are very familiar with price dips. I view it as a great thing. People get so caught up on the price. Everybody views Bitcoin as some weird stock/investment anomaly. Bitcoin is a cur-ren-cy. Hint: a currency doesn't work if only a few people hold it. The cheaper Bitcoins are the more people can afford to access some significant number of them. Long periods of cheap Bitcoin prices mean more even and widespread distribution.
|
|
|
|
|
I think there is a good chance this was an inside job, but that doesn't matter for the point I'm going to make.
Do not ever leave all coins open to hot withdrawal. That is just stupid. Incredibly stupid.
If you're building or running a service please take note of this. It doesn't matter how good you think your security is. It only takes one hole. Just one to result in disaster. That's irresponsible.
Services: The majority of coins should always be kept in some secure cold storage. As any auto/hot wallet runs low then move funds into it. If customers complain of delays screw them, they'll appreciate not losing their coins more.
Customers: Check that a service stores the majority of their coins safely offline. Leave if they don't or don't complain when they say they lost everything.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm still trying to figure out how people determine how many Ripples there are in existence.
|
|
|
|
In fact if a single state out of 50 decides not to regulate that could be enough. Sadly it isn't. ... Of course you're right. Everything you said I already know. I guess I'm trying to imagine some acceptable, peaceful co-existence with regulators. What I was thinking more of when I said that is something like Las Vegas/Nevada. Gambling is largely illegal in the US, including Internet gambling. However, all of that is okay in Nevada because as a sovereign state they decided to allow it. That's all it took for an opening. Now you can find legal gambling in other states too, just more low key. Same with prostitution. There are fairly open brothels in Nevada, and massage parlors etc. in other states. They just keep it low key. When online poker playing took off the gambling companies that located off shore to service US customers were choked off not by legal mandate, but by the financial system. Credit card companies denied transactions. Bank accounts were frozen. Of course, Bitcoin solves that. It's hard for law enforcement and prosecutors to remain tenacious when some activity, while technically regulated/illegal, is basically normalized, especially when those they might prosecute are not even in their country. New York is a bit of an anomaly in their regulatory interest. Perhaps the fact that the state is the home-base for much of the financial industry might have something to do with that?
Yes, it's believed that's why. |
|
|
|
The real con is that it that the end game is you end up with a handful of US companies that now face high costs but which are protected by huge barriers to entry. This mean they can increase prices and margins, and without that fear of the next startup stealing their marketshare innovation dies off. The companies which get licensed now have the govt working for them and it is in there best interest to make licensing more and more difficult until nobody else joins the "good ole boy club". Even better they also have local law enforcement forcing consumers to use their product by shutting down alternatives like peer to peer portals. The best part is they don't have to pay a penny for that local "protection" as long as the laws remain punitive and regulation costly.
What NY et al forgets is, NY MT bond requirement is "only" $300,000, but there are 50 states in the country. $300K bond * 50 states = $15M in surety bonds. Usually a surety bond company will not cover the bond unless the company has tangible net work in excess of the bond amount. This means if/when all the states follow NY lead the minimum to "play" is in the $25M to $50M range. Now the surety bond company is going to want 3% to 10% a year, and each state wants $10K or so in licensing fee so you are looking at up to $2M annually in overhead before accepting a single sale. Who pays that $2M? Why you of course in the form of higher fees.
...
Nice explanation D&T. This is certainly how the traditional financial system works. I'm realistic, though. I understand NY may not be able to completely say hands off, at least when it comes to exchanges. I won't worry about that so much as long as US virtual currency users have other options like off shore exchanges. In fact if a single state out of 50 decides not to regulate that could be enough. All the exchanges would set up there, kind of like how many companies incorporate in Delaware because it's highly favorable. Now that I think of it there are two states, I think Wyoming and another, which don't have additional money transmitter requirements other than what exists at federal level. Ideally that extends to virtual currency. What I'm concerned about is anyone looking to extend regulation to anything other than exchanges which makes no sense. |
|
|
|
From Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-11/lawsky-says-new-york-will-adapt-money-transfer-rules-for-bitcoin.html“We do not have to throw out all of our existing rules for money transmitters or banks, which have generally served consumers well when vigorously enforced,” Lawsky said in a statement delivered to a New America Foundation forum on Bitcoin. “Indeed, certain aspects of virtual currency could dovetail with existing regulations.”
New York will “likely have to proceed with issuing some form of specially tailored BitLicense that adapts those rules to the world of virtual currency,” Lawsky said. This doesn't say much to me. What kind of firms will have "BitLicenses"? We know exchanges are likely to be regulated. However, it makes no sense for a pizzeria, shoe store, etc. to need a BitLicense just to conduct customer purchases. These politicians are tricky. Let's stay on top of them to ensure they don't go too far. EDIT: remember you don't need to make Bitcoin illegal if you can control who can accept it. |
|
|
|
Here is the source: http://www.coindesk.com/massive-concerted-attack-launched-bitcoin-exchanges/Bitcoin developer Jeff Garzik said the core bitcoin block chain consensus mechanism and payment system are continuing to work as before, and are not directly impacted by transaction malleability.
He added: “Web wallets and other services that build services on top of bitcoin are reporting problems similar to MtGox, and are taking safety measures to ensure no fund loss, during this network disruption.
“Yesterday’s statement must be revised: we will likely issue an update fixing two edge cases exposed by this attack.” |
|
|
|
|
To my knowledge CampBX.com has some leveraged trading available, not sure the ratio, but the main place is Bitfinex.com.
|
|
|
|
|
I thought I saw something saying one of the devs (not sure if Gavin) did think handling the problem with software upgrade was indeed necessary, to resolve "edge case" problems with mutability. Has something indicated otherwise?
|
|
|
|
The SFGate published this article http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Big-banks-enable-drug-cartels-but-bitcoin-use-5215248.phpLast month, Charlie Shrem, the 24-year-old founder and chief executive officer of a leading bitcoin payments company, was arrested at New York's John F. Kennedy Airport after getting off a plane from Amsterdam. Shrem, along with a Florida man named Robert Faiella, was charged with conspiracy to commit money laundering linked to alleged sales of more than $1 million in bitcoin to people who wanted to buy drugs on Silk Road, an online marketplace that accepted only the crypto currency.
The arrests underlined growing concerns among law enforcement that bitcoin, a purely anonymous means of exchange, had become the preferred currency of the criminal underworld, and that payments companies like Shrem's had become the enablers of drug trafficking and other nefarious enterprises. But you know what else has a history of enabling nefarious criminal enterprises? Banks. LOL  |
|
|
|
I am concerned about Coinbase hacks, just like many of you. Websites like The Verge and other mainstream tech sites are running articles about seemingly tech savoy individuals being hacked.
For the record, I have very few BTC. That said, I'd put them all in cold storage, but I like that Coinbase syncs with Mint.com.
Is it reasonable to assume that if an individual does the following, they have covered their bases?
1) uses a strong, unique, random string of letters and numbers for a coinbase password
2) uses two factor authentication (using phone numbers that are unique to their cell phones, NOT google voice)
3) uses a strong, unique, random string of letters and numbers for their backup email password
4) avoid junk mail, phishing scams, never opens attachments, doesn't download altcoin wallet apps.
5) EDIT: Only going to websites that are links stored in my browser
Am I missing anything?
Thanks,
Dr. Bitcoin
Yes you are missing something. I haven't said this in a while, but new people are here so I need to say it again. If you have more money/coins stored with ANY online service than you can afford to lose you have too much stored there. Period.Bitcoin is going to teach people hard lessons. There is no FDIC or card company to run to. Whenever you turn over your coins you have questionable chance getting them back. There are numerous ways a service can lose your coins even if they have the most honest intentions. With Bitcoin you are your own bank. Learn to store the majority of your coins safely yourself in cold storage. I recommend Armory which makes this pretty easy. If you don't trust yourself storing your own coins at the very least spread them among different reputable services so your chance of losing everything when things go wrong is diminished. Eventually we may begin seeing insurance offered with Bitcoin wallets/services. Until then the above applies. |
|
|
|
Damn you 10th Amendment!  This is the thing. We need to recognize our legal footing. We are in the right. It's the feds that are out of compliance with the U.S. Constitution. Gambling is largely considered illegal in the U.S., but it absolutely thrives in Nevada. That's because that state asserted its constitutional authority, feds be damned. This is also starting to happen with states pushing back against federal drug laws, especially regarding marijuana. Even Obama said he will back off states that push back in that way. Most of us here have no illusion about how disruptive Bitcoin is and how much the feds have incentive to push against it. We need to know about and use every legal and political weapon we have. |
|
|
|
I am not a lawyer either but I believe this is where you are incorrect.
virtual currency is "other value that substitutes for currency."
- at least according to FinCEN.
so unless you or someone can take that to court and challenge it, so that is pretty much the law in the US.
Again, that's FinCEN. That's federal. What happened in Florida pertains to Florida state case law. I don't have to be a lawyer (and neither should you) to know there is a difference between federal and state. That's why, for instance, registering with FinCEN as a money transmitter, which is actually pretty easy, does NOT mean you can operate in all 50 states. It only clears you federally. You must also fit within the legal box of each state separately (which is where it gets expensive/complex). State and federal are separate legal jurisdictions. |
|
|
|
This was a very specific ruling with regards to a very specific case:
Yes. That's my point. That can't possibly apply to Bitcoin in its entirety. It's one judge. This ruling does not, however, allow the Texas Department of Banking to declare bitcoin a "currency" and regulate it as "currency exchange" instead of "money transmission."
It doesn't allow Texas to regulate it as either currency exchange or money transmission. Don't you see? You're thinking exactly like they want you to, which is they can interpret law as they see fit. They cannot unless people allow it. To be involved in money transmission you must be transmitting money. The question then becomes what is money? That has to be defined somehow. Otherwise, like I say what happens with wheelbarrows full of grass cases? The government will be reluctant to legally write that Bitcoin is money, because when they do it causes an avalanche effect of all sorts of things to apply, legitimacy being just the start. Yet until it is specifically defined as money any charge of money laundering can be successfully challenged. This is what I believe anyway. I'm not a lawyer. |
|
|
|
Yes, I know about the Pirate case. It's different. It does start the outline of some legal precedent, but that's not the same as written law. Judges can't legislate only adjudicate. Also, there are two separate levels (fed/state). |
|
|
|
That's what I'm trying to tell you. Bitcoin is not yet defined as money, either by state or federal. Think of it this way: if the people arrested were trading two wheelbarrows full of grass for $30K would they have been in violation as money transmitters? The only reason they were arrested was because criminal intent was mentioned. Put that together with their high volume and unclear legal area for Bitcoin and the authorities seized their chance to clamp down and provide a chilling effect at the same time. |
|
|
|
Evidently you can buy and sell bitcoin for personal use. Miner's can also sell bitcoin for personal use (electricity, rent, goods and services etc). This activity does not require registration with Fincen.
However if you buy and sell bitcoin, "as a business" you could be seen as a "money transmitter" in some states. The regulations and the clarification of these regulation are VERY vague.
And if you buy and sell bitcoin with someone who is involved in criminal activity that definitely makes you complicit, even if you have NO knowledge of their activity.
Wrong again. I guess you're just pulling this stuff out of your arse. You can buy/sell bitcoin for your own benefit. That includes profit. The catch is it has to be your own benefit, ie, you can't buy/sell on behalf of clients (like exchanges). Again, that's federal. As for U.S. states it is currently undefined. The arrests in Florida would not have happened, I'll almost guarantee, if there was no mention of criminal intent. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
