Also, according to Bitcoin Foundation's websites, it could standardize Bitcoin by changing codes. What if one day they start to play evil? There are many Bitcoin clients. Any change that implements a change that "breaks" the Bitcoin protocol will not be accepted by older clients. This is called a hard fork. So unless people upgrade to a client that understands the change, that change made will have no impact. There is the argument that the power to accept changes comes from those who hold bitcoins and those who will buy the mined coins. These people are referred to as the "economic majority": - http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Economic_majorityThe economic majority's power is what played out this way with the accidental hard fork in March. There was a change to the v0.8 client that those using v0.7.2 and prior didn't use. Even though there were more v0.8 clients running at the time, the "economic majority" were using v0.7 and thus that's the side of the fork that mining capacity jumped to once it became obvious coins mined on v0.8 were going to become worthless. |
|
|
|
Thank you for answers. It seems the lack of study still
Creating a counterfeit of most any paper item is trivial unless expensive anti-counterfeit measures are taken. Here's an example of the challenge to making paper hard to replicate: - http://rt.com/usa/100-dollar-bills-misprinted-496This is such a challenge that even community/local currency issuers such as Brixton Pound have gone to using electronic (mobile/SMS) ledgers: - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa9Bqrs9yAQEven tactics like putting a hologram sticker to protect the private key (as is employed with the Casascius physical coin has) been discovered to be vulnerable: - http://codinginmysleep.com/casascius-physical-bitcoins-cracked-at-defconThe problem comes with intending the item (paper, coin, whatever) to circulate. What does work well are single-use vouchers. When buying a MoneyPak at a convenience store, that piece of paper that is issued contains a code that can be redeemed online. This same approach where a one-time code is issued is how ticket-in/ticket-out (TITO) equipment at casinos work. Other e-gift cards and other vouchers/coupons work with the same concept. The code is revealed to the customer but the intention is that the code will be redeemed instead of the paper with the code being transferred to someone else as an exchange of value. The single-use e-code/voucher approach used by MoneyPak/UKash/CashU/etc. all are regulated financial products (as there is an issuer of the code) and issuing a private currency would bring the regulators: - http://www.the-star.co.ke/news/article-128667/cbk-investigates-bangla-pesaSo even if one wanted to go that route, there are hurdles beyond the technological. |
|
|
|
|
What is the purpose of the hologram sticker?
|
|
|
|
Their best bet would be to try to corner the market before someone else does and with a 1.5 billion $ market they have the funds (or can print the funds) to gain a substantial share.
Though the value of bitcoin at the current exchange rate multiplied by the ~11.3 million BTC issued to-day equals some number a little over $1 billion, that is not what the cost would be to acquire "a substantial share". Nobody knows where the exchange rate would end up if another round of heavy buying were to be attempted. But what benefit do you see they would gain from buying lots of coins? |
|
|
|
|
Those upgrading to an Android wallet which fixes the random-number generator security issue will have "key replacement" transactions occurring, which will have some impact on the total transaction count.
|
|
|
|
We're having another meeting this Sunday August 18th in Edina.
Hah, awesome! I'm in the Twin Cities visiting so I'll be able to make it! |
|
|
|
|
The article includes a link supposedly to the letter by Tom Carper (committee chair) and Tom Coburn. But that link just goes to another Politico URL, which requires login I believe.
Does anyone have a link to the letter?
|
|
|
|
I want to start selling on marketplace, however I want to accept BTC-e codes as payment, because in that way, I don't have to worry about btc price change.
Most Bitcoin-related marketplaces and e-commerce modules allow a price to be set in dollars, but then that value is converted to bitcoins at time of checkout. As far as a longer-term solution, the USD transfer capability in Ripple might be something you might consider. There is a little bit of a learning curve with Ripple but if your customer set would know how to procure a BTC-e code to buy from you those same customers would likely be able to figure out how to do a Ripple transaction to transfer some USDs from their BITSTAMP account to you. |
|
|
|
Ironically, the more people who are 'long Bitcoin' in this scenario, the worse it is for Bitcoin and thus the people holding it themselves.
Below I make the argument that the bitcoin economy isn't impacted if there is hoarding: Scenario 1: 10 million BTC are "hoarded" for a year (i.e., they aren't spent at all) and the remaining 1.3 million BTC get spent on average once a week. On an annual basis that means there is the aggregate spending of ~68 million BTC. Scenario 2: 11.3 million BTC are spent, on average, once every other month. Nobody is "hoarding" at all. On an annual basis there is the aggregate spending of ~68 million BTC. Both of those result in the exact same aggregate spending (denominated in BTCs) on an annual basis. So it matters not that those with 9 million BTC sat on them in scenario 1 versus nobody hoarding whatsoever in scenario 2. But at the same time I realize the downside to the hoarding (versus having coins circulating) is that those coins being hoarded can be dumped on the market which results in exchange rate volatility. A person who holds coins with the intention of using them for purchases is going to hold onto them whereas a person holding coins for speculative reasons may reduce the position or liquidate the position entirely -- especially when the exchange rate is falling. So I'm not saying "hoarding" is good, I'm just rejecting the argument that is commonly made asserting that everyone needs to be spending their coins for the currency to succeed. |
|
|
|
The Spots used to re-pay the investors will be either from the iGotSpots personal mining funds, or I will personally cover them out of my own pocket to buy them if the Spots we make from sales are all tied up. Sounds more like these investors are lenders. They are lending BTCs to you for 120 days, with your guarantee of a minimum interest (20% over the 120 day period) and perhaps that rate could be higher if company performs well (??). The second part is incorrect. We will not be dumping the Spots we make while selling the silver. These Spots will be used in our purchasing center later when the auction site is up. So today when you sell an ounce for 4,428 SPT, you then hold those SPT. Ok, ... but what if by the time the auction is available SPT drops in value and a bid of 12,000 SPT is needed in order to win an auction for an ounce of silver? |
|
|
|
And remember, you can always use the extra $70 and re-invest. So eventually your money will grow exponentially.
Well, there's always that darn problem of finding a willing and able buyers. But it essentially helps lower the price on LocalBitcoins so that it is competitive with Mt. Gox. I recently had a listing at LocalBitcoins where I charged no price premium over Mt. Gox and got multiple buy offers. I was able to sell plenty on each day that I had the offer out there. |
|
|
|
They are paid back no later than 4 months from date of purchase, when we purchase the shares back at a minimum of 120% of the initial purchase price. OK, just so that isn't ambiguous ... each share will be called within 120 days and the price paid will be a minimum of 0.48 BTC then (with payout converted, at the investor's option, to silver or to SPT)? The daily price change is for the silver bars and rounds for sale by iGotSpots, the company, not the currency. Once we can get it all automated, the price will update automatically with the market. I'm presuming iGotSpots sells any SPT received for silver orders. So if the silver price today is 4,428 SPT but the BTC/SPT market exchange rate drops to 0.0001 won't iGotSpots, LLC be losing money on every trade (i.e., selling an ounce of silver at 4,428 SPT but those 4,428 SPT aren't even the value of a half ounce of silver?) |
|
|
|
with a soft backing in both gold and silver.
[...]
The total investment we are willing to take from interested parties now will not exceed the value of the coin, according to coinmarketcap.com, which currently is around $4,200. Today the cap that will be accepted is 40 Bitcoins. iGotSpots will be exchanging the metals and coins to provide the difference between public investment and the actual market value. This will allow miners and investors to cash out at any time in gold and silver and leave us with all the Spots should they become worthless. We are taking the risk, should the currency fail.
What will this "public investment" value be after this 100 shares (each sold at 0.4 BTC, bringing in 40 BTC worth ~$4,200) is raised? i.e, will that be hold as bitcoins, or will you convert them to USDs or perhaps convert to Silver bullion or something that tracks the price of silver? Ok, so let's take what happened today. The exchange rate rises where all SPT issued are worth about 60 BTC. But there's not 60 BTC worth of capital (sales of shares) for "backing". So on day one you are unable to "cash out at any time in gold and silver", right? If the silver cash-out price was dynamic (i.e., got set with each transaction), then you have less of a problem as it would suddenly cost more SPT per ounce of silver and it would take longer before sellers could exhaust the supply of 40 BTC worth of silver. But setting the price daily, that seems like a pretty big hole to take advantage of to suck the value of the 40 BTC of capital from investors of the shares. |
|
|
|
If an equivalent to M-Pesa using bitcoin started, cell phone access would be enough.
M-PESA was able to sign up individuals to perform the cash-in and cash-out exchange service and receive a commission that either supplemented the person's income or was significant enough to incent the person to provide that service full-time. There's probably enough remittance activity in Somalia to support quite a few street exchangers. In fact, that already exists. They are called hawalders: - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3O15rErALgSo all that needs to happen is for these hawalders to discover Bitcoin and they can begin providing cash-out independently (i.e., without the pairing to the sender's side). There isn't an easy way for the hawalder to convert those recently acquired bitcoins back to shillings, dollars, euro (or whatever cash they use) so what is needed for this to work is a local buyer who will buy those coins from the street exchangers. That local buyer might not even hold the coins, but instead sell them at an exchange and use the proceeds to pay for goods that are imported, perhaps. I've described the process with a little more detail here: Bringing Bitcoin to the world-competing with Western Union - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=220062.msg2320340#msg2320340Here's a report on the topic of who receives remittances and how the remittances received are used: - http://www.fsnau.org/downloads/family-ties-remittances-and-livelihoods-support-puntland-and-somaliland-study-report - http://www.forcedmigration.org/podcasts/audio/pss-laura-hammond-290513.mp3 <-- Corresponding presentation, but I haven't listened to it in full yet. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
