|
I am staggered by the banality of the conclusion that capitalism is flawed.
|
|
|
|
Stop engaging losers like him. Because that's what he is.
He may or may not be right about bitcoin's long-term survival. But yes, there is very little point in engaging with someone who simply ignores all the evidence against their position (whether they are pro or anti bitcoin). Jorge has given himself a decent self-education in a groundbreaking technology. Sadly, he has chosen to squander it instead of actively engaging with bitcoin or another protocol to create a successful system. The reasons are his own. |
|
|
|
|
It's increasingly clear that Jorge's opposition to bitcoin is primarily emotional. He backs it up with some reasonable evidence, whilst ignoring clear evidence that doesn't fit his position. Call him on this and he won't answer you, or he'll just say that's why bitcoiners do too, so it's ok. He is not objective and not scientific, despite his credentials. Take his posts with a truckload of salt.
I'm not too worried about miners selling, since the block rewards are and were always meant to be a temporary situation to bootstrap the network. Speculators have run away with it too far, sure, but it's not a killer blow. I'm not even sure that it's a bad thing.
Looking at it another way, at the current price (call it an average of around $230 for 4 months now), people are investing $800,000 in the bitcoin network every day. That doesn't seem like a dead project to me. In fact, after 15 months of bear market, that's kind of promising, isn't it? (Jorge will tell you it's testimony to the greed and stupidity of bitcoiners, just to save him the time.)
@becoin You just made me wipe my screen.
|
|
|
|
This starts to explain the Schadenfreude. It's personal for Jorge.
Must admit, every time I stop by to see all the schaden, my heart nearly bursts with freude. Is that so wrong? Better to keep it as a guilty secret. Can't keep it in, gotta sing it, must dance! ♫ ♩ ♬ Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah ♩ ♪ ♫  Join me, Cassius? Better ask Jorge. |
|
|
|
This starts to explain the Schadenfreude. It's personal for Jorge.
Must admit, every time I stop by to see all the schaden, my heart nearly bursts with freude. Is that so wrong? Better to keep it as a guilty secret. |
|
|
|
|
This starts to explain the Schadenfreude. It's personal for Jorge.
|
|
|
|
Does bitpay accept USD? Does China?
Edit: this is so depressing. Someone else can tag in from here.
There is an enormous, beautiful world out there beyond your screen. Why not go out and dry hump it instead of wasting your life force on someone who will never, ever take a single character on board? Every second you engage means he's depriving you of a moment you could be spending on something that enriches your life. Ignore and jump for joy. You, sir, are quite right. Even if you have to resort to an image of a dog taking an interest in a larger lady to say it. Jorge, you'll find out in your own time all your mistakes about crypto, and so will I. The stupid thing is, if you backed up your assumptions about Circle with any evidence, I'd probably give you a platform to discuss them. But you don't. Ciao. Woof. |
|
|
|
|
Does bitpay accept USD? Does China?
Edit: this is so depressing. Someone else can tag in from here.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoiners are the easiest troll bait ever
Yup. Think I'm done though. |
|
|
|
Allowing customers to use bitcoin to send money but holding it in USD (which is what's going on, Jorge - instant conversion at the time of use) and never seeing BTC is very neat. They still pay merchants in BTC, but don't need to worry about holding BTC. I can see that it might be nice for merchants to do the same. That removes a major barrier to adoption. When you use their new service, they will take your USD, pretend to convert it to BTC, but keep the BTC as USD to avoid volatility losses, then pretend to convert the BTC back to USD, and deliver USD to the merchant. How did you figure it out all this? Or do you suggest that's what YOU would do if you were willing to start a company that clearly supports BTC in the first place?  Please ignore my cheap shot about "the main barrier", and tell me what is wrong with my description of Circle's new service. Circle may have intended to be a bitcoin-centered company when it was created. However, BitPay's numbers show that the market for fiat-to-bitcoin and bitcoin-to-fiat services is small and shrinking, and the chances of recovering the VC investment and making a profit out of them are slim. Circle and Coinbase must have realized this a year ago already. So Circle (and Coinbase) are adding fiat-to-fiat services, whose market is orders of magnitude larger -- perhaps using bitcoin internally, but only if and when it pays. From the quotes in teh article, it is evident that GS and IDG are interested in Circle as a digital payment processor, not as a bitcoin exchange. In case someone is wondering, none of that 50 M$ will go into buying bitcoins. VC investors do not give money to startups for the startups to play the market with it, or invest it in something else. If GS wanted to invest in bitcoin, they would do it themselves. Charlie Lee explained that himself when he was asked how many million would Coinbase invest in BTC. Ok, I'll humour you. What happens when a Circle customer wants to buy something over the web from a merchant who isn't a Circle user? Maybe they use BitPay, or another service, or they're happy accepting funds in bitcoins. Do they: 1) Send a cheque, and inform the merchant by email (followed by a phone call) 2) Make a SWIFT transfer 3) Bridge the gap in some other way? Don't you also think a start-up company (the clue's in the phrase) might anticipate a growth in their chosen sector? |
|
|
|
Allowing customers to use bitcoin to send money but holding it in USD (which is what's going on, Jorge - instant conversion at the time of use) and never seeing BTC is very neat. They still pay merchants in BTC, but don't need to worry about holding BTC. I can see that it might be nice for merchants to do the same. That removes a major barrier to adoption. When you use their new service, they will take your USD, pretend to convert it to BTC, but keep the BTC as USD to avoid volatility losses, then pretend to convert the BTC back to USD, and deliver USD to the merchant. That certainly removes the biggest barrier to bitcoin adoption -- which is bitcoin itself. No. This is abundantly clearly not what they're doing. I can't tell any more if you mean it or are trolling, but it's rather silly. |
|
|
|
http://blog.circle.com/2015/04/29/new-circle-investors-new-us-dollar-account-features-china-horizons/Reading Circle's announcement again, prompted by Jorge's relentless negativity, I think this is actually a bigger deal than I'd realised. Allowing customers to use bitcoin to send money but holding it in USD (which is what's going on, Jorge - instant conversion at the time of use) and never seeing BTC is very neat. They still pay merchants in BTC, but don't need to worry about holding BTC. I can see that it might be nice for merchants to do the same. That removes a major barrier to adoption. Price-wise, since you seem to use that as a proxy for success, it becomes a matter of velocity at that point, as well as awareness. I wouldn't dismiss this one lightly. It's enabling bitcoin to be used as it was always meant to be.
|
|
|
|
No. Not what the article implies.
Read the two quotes from the investors. They do not mention bitcoin nor crytocurrencies, intead they say "digital payments". Apart from the investment, the big news in the article is basically And for the first time, we're giving Circle customers the ability to hold, send, and receive US dollars as well as bitcoin -- instantly, securely, and with no fees. In addition to sending and receiving dollars, customers can also enjoy the benefits of the Bitcoin network without the risk of price volatility. [ ... ] Customers with dollar accounts gain all of the benefits of digital currency -- instant, secure and free payments to anyone in the world -- without holding or explicitly converting dollars into bitcoins. [ ... ] This way, customers can choose to view Bitcoin not as a new currency to replace the dollar, but as an Internet payment network that enables secure, instant, global and nearly free payments. Ditto for the plans to service China: since the Chinese merchants and services cannot quote their prices in bitcoins, Circle will be a way to convert bitcoins or dollars in the US to yuan in China. Guess which of the two services may generate enough fees to repay 50 M$ of investment. (BitPay's bitcoin-to-dollar service processed ~160 M$ of payments in the whole of 2014, which may have generated 3--4 M$ of fee revenue at most.) By the way, the article says Dollar account balances held by Circle customers are FDIC-insured. When Coinbase opened their exchange they too made this claim. Somewhere in their FAQ, however, it was explained that Coinbase's bank account was FDIC insured against failure of the bank, for the standard 250'000 $ total. They also claimed that they were licensed to operate in NY and CA, when in fact they just had assumed, erroneously, that they did not need licenses there; and that their BTC holdings were insured by a private company, when only the 5% max that they keep in their hot wallet was. I wonder if Circle's statement above too is making full use of the wonderful flexibility of the English language? I understood that they are approaching the problem of volatility in the same way as Coinapult, Cubits, etc, and I suspect many more in the coming months. That would make sense given the context. I’m not a die-hard bitcoin believer who thinks it will go to $1 million and become the world’s no. 1 currency, and I can see lots of faults with bitcoin that may or may not be fixed. I can see the potential of it, and the potential of blockchain tech more generally. At least I keep an open mind. You have already made your mind up and filter everything through that decision. Which I find strange, for someone who is supposed to be a scientist. You are not remotely objective about this, which puts you in the same category as the ‘moon’ crowd. |
|
|
|
Nice, but bitcoin is actually becoming less relevant to Circle's business, it would seem... Suppose a person in the US sends USD throught Circle to a person in China who will receive CNY. Circle does not necessarily have to use bitcoin for that. If it has enough reserves at both ends, it only needs to adjust its own internal ledgers. Like Western Union, or any bank. They need to send bitcoins, and sell them in the local markets, only if their reserves get too unbalanced. Indeed, that was my guess for the reason for Coinbase and Circle getting so much VC investment: they intend to become competitors to PayPal in the "fiat" e-payment business, using bitcoin only occasionally if at all. No. Not what the article implies. |
|
|
|
I never bothered to setup the Supernet wallet and have been using the NXT Wallet. What is the best way to transfer everything over?
Thanks
You don't really need to transfer anything since superNET will use Nxt addresses. However, probably worth trying out the Jay wallet as someone above mentioned. Yup, no transfer required. SuperNET is built on Nxt, so your regular passphrase will access the same account, just with all the extra SuperNET stuff as well. |
|
|
|
Can I store BTCD anywhere besides in an exchange, in the BTCD wallet, and in the NXT blockchain via MGW?
A fourth place would be in a telepod and I will finally be able finish that when InstantDEX is in maintenance mode. Is there no BTCD paper wallet generator? Not that I know of. I'm not sure what the criteria are for a BTCD private key. Perhaps someone who does could post. It might be possible to adapt a BTC key generator if it's close to that. |
|
|
|
a BTC-e bot is buying 10BTC a minute for an hour.. Some weird shit is happening on this exchange..
Good. Maybe somebody is sick of a year long bear dominated market. Willy's cousin? |
|
|
|
This. You might get one long block, that's all though. Difficulty adjusts and you're back to 10 minute average. The network functioned just fine when hashrate was much lower. Personally I'd like to see less institutional mining anyway, so I won't cry if big miners have to switch off because they're not making ends meet.
You would have long block times until the next adjustment. The two week interval could turn into 3 or 4 easily. After the next adjustment things would be back to normal. You are quite right, I'd forgotten it was calculated fortnightly or so. Yeah, that would be a pain, but presumably not everyone would turn off their miners at once. Even those who found it uneconomical to mine would wait for varying lengths of time before they pulled the plug, in case the price came back up. I guess the really big outfits might switch off immediately if their costs are really high, but I think some of those keep a proportion of BTC anyway. |
|
|
|
Dump failed
Starting to think $220 is to bears what $300 was to bulls
Kind of surprised
I think a lot of you forget that $220 or so is mining cost for a lot of operations. It would be surprising to me if we went lower for a long period of time. If you truly believe that is the case you should not be invested. Everyone remember how much hash rate dropped off the network in the Jan 15 drop to $166? If we had stayed at those levels and the hash stayed shut down there would have been major network problems for weeks. Block times/transaction times would have been a disaster. Watch the media coverage if that happens. It will not be good for anyone. Bear or Bull. And before anyone argues that the Chinese miners have costs lower than that. ASIC development and deployment has slowed to a crawl compared to most of last year. If there really was money to be made in China wouldn't we be seeing huge farms coming online? It wouldn't take much to push the rest of the world out of mining if that were the case. Actually difficulty/hashrate does not affect the working of the blockchain, difficulty is made artificially high when the hashrate rises to keep block time stable. The blockchain will move the same regardless of high or low hashrate (drastic drops in hashrate can cause high block time until it adjusts, but that's all). This. You might get one long block, that's all though. Difficulty adjusts and you're back to 10 minute average. The network functioned just fine when hashrate was much lower. Personally I'd like to see less institutional mining anyway, so I won't cry if big miners have to switch off because they're not making ends meet. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
