What that guy said!


Public perception of Bitcoin in the UK is not ideal. Until recently, most coverage has been of Amir selling Bitcoin as an anarchists wet dream. I think 75% of the population of the UK don't really care about that. In America, where they have a constitution to protect them from the government - I think selling on those ideals works a bit better.

Over here, a better approach for Bitcoin adoption I believe would be pointing out how you can save time and money by using Bitcoin and highlighting the benefits compared to existing systems such as PayPal.

What more has been done on this....?

From what I can see, you have a half complete website. Who are you? What's your background?

Perhaps more importantly - what formal business experience do you have, particularly in the context of MSBs?

Have you touched base with necessary authorities for SARs and STRs?

Have you considered how you're going to handle AML reporting?

Have you had your fit & proper test for MSB registration?





A bit of advice from me - this maybe just personal preference but... Given the choice between a) one or 2 guys pretending to be a big faceless corporate entity, or b) 1 or 2 guys who honestly introduce themselves and their background, position and experience and don't try and pretend to be something they may not be - I would much prefer b)

And I think you missed a point I made earlier: I don't think the person is unfair, or even Bitcoin is unfair, but more the larger system of which the people and Bitcoin are part of (maybe I'm thinking about life) does not evenly reward everyone for the work they put in - which falls within the remit of my personal understanding of the concept of unfairness.

I agree entirely I have no right to objectively proclaim it's unfair, its just my opinion, since fair can be a pretty subjective term, and I believe I'm perfectly entitled to that.

One quote I like to try and live by:
"whilst I may disagree with your opinion, I'll defend to the death your right to say it!" Some might loosely paraphrase it to "lets agree to disagree"

Haha, I wasn't saying that, but from what I gather, people will effectively get paid CureCoins for doing folding work. If I'm going to support this, I want to make sure what's happening is what's supposed to happen, not just a bunch of fraudsters making random numbers and claiming it's folding.

It might have been me that missed something, but nobody has been able to say how this will be prevented - I think that it's something that needs to be considered. Like a lot of things Bitcoin related, it will be a target for hackers looking for easy income.

For some reason, I feel Satoshi intended the mining process of Bitcoin to be "fair" as in "anyone can have a go and get somewhere"

SHA256 soon will mean only ASICs are worth mining with.

Scrypt is closer to the "anyone can have a go an get somewhere" idea for the time being at least.

Also, could someone put some info on how this thing actually works. I can't find a concrete response to the issue of making folding work mathematically verifiable. For this to work, you need to have something computationally challenging, yet quickly verifiable:

Bitcoin has the process of finding a block with the required difficulty - this is computationally expensive. Performing a single hash on a block is extremely quick and allows for sound verification that a user has found a valid block.

So far, CureCoin seems to have talked about the computationally expensive part (the folding) but I can't find any mention of how you quickly verify that someone has done the folding the claim, and not just made up a random output....


I like the core concept of making the Bitcoin mining process actually useful, and not just harder and harder for the sake of it....

If you've not even started coding yet, I would remove any mention of any release date - don't want to see you do a BFL on us.....


Regarding legal hurdles, I think the currency itself is fine, the legal hurdles are normally set up round the exchanges and the points where it interacts with fiat. If push came to shove, with regards to aiding money laundering, it could be argued that the privacy offered by the system is there as a by product of the security provided through the blockchain data structure.

I accept the people that risk large amount of money, time and effort deserve a payoff. If you've spent time learning, and invested a large wad of money that you've earned and it pays off, then fair play to you. I hadn't really considered the scale that some did invest and risk. Providing the resources and time and effort you invested were yours that you earned through some good old fashioned contributin' to society, then it's only fair you get a rewards proportional to the effort, resources and risk you put in.
But there are definitely people that didn't put that much effort in and were just "right place at the right time." These people who put in literally next to nothing (buy £10 worth a few years ago, or ran the mining software for a few days in 2009) and are now millionaires. Personally, if you think that such people deserve to be millionaires for so little effort, then I'm afraid we just have to agree to disagree.

I disagree with the point made about it being good that it maybe some geek in a bedroom that gets the money, not some typical rich corporate type. Although that may fuel the bedroom geeks local economy, it's not good for Bitcoin. Whilst I'm not saying the corporate type should get the money, there's a reason the bedroom geek doesn't in the real world. I consider myself a pretty geeky bedroom geek (comp sci degree + more), but I acknowledge there's a reason people like me don't (or shouldn't) have a lot of power and money.
You must have seen all the ridiculous amount of scandal related to childish, immature and unworthy people being in power that goes on around Bitcoin (BFL + Josh and their childish behaviour, Luke-Jr and his childish abuse of pool power for his own personal agendas, MtGox being totally incompetent, Amir, Bitcoinica, Pirate etc. etc. etc.) IMO, these sort of scandals are typically the result of someone having a lot of power or money who shouldn't, and this is typically bought on by people becoming stupidly rich stupidly quick from Bitcoin.

Another thing to consider to those that have made lots off this - where does that money come from? It comes from other people. These "other people" are paying you literally millions. I think these people have every right to expect you to sit there and take a complaint or 2 because they've just paid you millions:
Most people I speak to agree that it's ridiculous when a highly successful footballer refuses to play or gets in a strop because a fan shouts a nasty name to him. I'm very much of the mindset "that player is earning $millions of 'our' money, based on how much we're effectively paying him, the least he could do is stand there and take an insult or 2."


Also, it's human nature to want more for yourself which some here have suggested is the underlying cause of "it's not fair" claims. You can act all high and mighty and "I don't want what they have" but the truth is, you probably do on some level. You probably wouldn't be in this forum if you didn't have at least a passing desire to increase your wealth. Sure, you can say "oh, but I want to see Bitcoin succeed, I don't want any extra money, I'm just supporting the coin" and that maybe true. But wanting more and the best for yourself is a feature of evolution. If you don't want more for yourself or those that you care about, then, to put it bluntly, you are an evolutionary dead end (I wouldn't be surprised to see someone chime in: "or a communist.") Although some might argue an adult learns to accept and deal with theses 'primitive urges' and quits his whiney bitchin'!

Seems interesting.

How much dev work has been done already?

Also, do you have a fixed date for the launch?

Thanks.

1M7tHU6BoVcn9fKahxeiPCDGJvpkNBPKLK

Thanks.

I understand what you're saying about risk: you feel a persons returns should be based on the risk they take. But you're failing to acknowledge my underlying point that morally, return should be linked to contribution - investment and risk taken with Bitcoin is not a big contribution to society, at all. By your logic, rogue traders deserve a boat load of money because they're risking all of the banks money in dodgy trades. Or lone gunman that risks his own life by going into a school and slaughtering a load of children should get money if he survives because he took a risk. I think you need to differentiate between someone taking a good, worthwhile risk that puts society in a better position, and someone taking a bad, selfish risk that costs others and puts bad or irresponsible people in bad positions for the rest of the world...

I think risk should get  a proportional pay off, if it's a risk tied to something that betters the world or society. E.g. a person risking their life for the better of society, such as a fireman, deserves good returns, because it helps society. But risking £10 in Bitcoin is not a big contribution to society, and that £10 hasn't helped society, and in a portion of cases, the person that made millions from that £10 isn't necessarily going to contribute any of it back to society and in some cases, they even end up on a power trip and do ridiculously over dramatic stuff in their new found position of power.
If, fundamentally, Bitcoin is such a sound safe and valuable idea, it would have succeeded without early investors hoarding. In fact, it would have succeeded and be cheaper for everyone because early investors aren't hoarding a massive portion of the coins pushing the price up for others.

If we agree the standard system should be such that a persons returns are based on their contribution to society, and we accept the definition of fair as 'In accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate' - then I struggle to believe anyone can consider a system "fair" where some sociopathic, childish, irresponsible douche who just so happened to be mining a few years ago can now be a millionaire when  doctors, teachers, police, firefighters who give so much to society and risk so much get so little. (I don't think anyone in this thread is a sociopathic, childish, irresponsible douche, but I'm sure we've all met one or two around these forums...) As I said though, Bitcoin is just a part of this system.

I feel like we're both sort of missing each others points. I'm willing to agree to disagree though, unless you'd like to debate this further?

edit: I maybe labouring the point a bit here

I agree with you entirely on the subjective nature of "fair."

I also guess in reality, if I was in that situation I'd probably be a bit pissed off. But I'd like to think I'd accept they're fully justified to feel that way, particularly if they've worked their ass off all their life and all I'd done was buy £50 worth of Bitcoin 3 years ago. Who knows though - I'd probably be pissed off.

It's not so much "I want what they've got" but more "I don't think they deserve what they've got." Same way I don't personally think some celebrities who are just celebrities for being idiots should have a lot of money. But that's just my opinion - I don't think it's fair some people have so many bitcoins for so little effort. It's nice to think that hopefully these people put their new found riches to good use and helped the world out a bit though maybe:)




"The harder I work, the luckier I get" - I don't consider taking a small risk in the early days of Bitcoin "hard" or "work".

Ha, you're not the first person to call me passive aggressive. Also, I never said I didn't have any coins, I never implied that I considered myself late getting in;)

I think you missed the point I was making though. I don't think the returns for those that did invest is proportional to the returns others within society receive. Personally, I consider that not to be fair - that someone can work their ass off all day and get paid peanuts yet someone that happened to have their computer on running the miner in 2009 could easily have made millions from it.

But that's not the fault of Bitcoin, or the people that invested earlier, that's why I don't begrudge either of those. The system is not fair, but Bitcoin is only a tiny part of the system I'm referring to.

Handling bitcoins is already pretty much regulated, at least when it comes to converting to fiat.
 - Exchanges have to abide by AML/KYC.
 - UK Exchanges need to register with HMRC.
 - They have to justify and explain all sources of income so the banks don't close them for suspicious activity.
 - Any transactions that are suspicious must be reported to UK intelligence agencies otherwise exchange owners face prosecution.
 - Any earnings from Bitcoin must be declared to be taxed.

A lot of these things are in place to prevent money laundering, but a lot of this still relies on goodwill, of which not everyone has.

Society is about compromise. In the UK, we have a usable transport infrastructure, a usable energy infrastructure, a usable education system, and for that, morally, we should probably pay something some how.

It sounds kinda cliché and and "what they want you to think" but not at least considering supporting legislation to stop that sort of evasion is just aiding theft.If we say no to legislation & regulation, on some level not agreeing to try hinder tax evasion, we're no better than the huge corporations in the news every week paying 0 tax and holding everything in off shore accounts.

Although I think morally we should at least entertain the idea of regulation and cooperation, I think a lot of consideration does need to be made to get the right balance between enforceability and protection of freedoms and privacy.

Here's a consideration:

Perhaps some people just hold the moral value that a persons worth and holdings should be based on their contribution to society.

Whilst I don't begrudge the people who have a dick load of coins, when compared to the rest of the world, I don't believe it's "fair" (but I also can't propose and alternative)

For someone to earn literally millions of dollars, for buying and hoarding some virtual currency is not "fair" when you consider how little teachers, nurses, civil servents and generally the rest of the world get paid for working their asses off day in day out.

If all the Mr Binmen and and all the Mrs Midwife who gets paid £50 a day were to stop turning up to work, we'd be up the creek without a metaphorical paddle. The world keeps spinning if people don't buy bitcoins.

It doesn't take skill, and it doesn't contribute anything towards society buying and sitting on a boat load of Bitcoins, although actively trading is a slightly different matter.

"but footballers get paid more" or "but <insert retarded celebrity> gets paid more" is not a valid counter argument.

Erm... either I misunderstood, or you did.

He's not suggesting any country "accept BTC." I think he's suggesting they agree on a single fiat currency to hold currency in the banks, and maybe have a shared account.

The country doesn't have to "accept BTC" for there to be an exchange there. Bitstamp is based in the UK with slovenian banks. MtGox is based in Japan. As far as I'm aware, Japan know about MtGox, and they didn't have to contact IMF or anything similar.

The bigger issue wouldn't be the countries acceptance of Bitcoin, but more the individuals banks acceptance of Bitcoin business as that tends to be the thing that leads to exchanges shutting down. On a country level, as long as you play by the regulations (of which I'm not aware of any countries that totally "ban" Bitcoin or Bitcoin related business) then it shouldn't be a problem.

I'm still waiting for a SEPA that I initiated on the 9th of April, confirmed arrived on the 11th.

Also, a few other people are raging over in the newbie board:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=174754.60

I was told in a support ticket the transfer details all look okay, but it should take 1 - 3 days. This was after I'd received the confirmation from transferwise saying the money is in Bitstamp account.

Like pretty much all Bitcoin businesses, Bitstamp appears to be failing a bit under the load on the customer support front. Alright, it's no fault of their own (surge of customers to all BTC sites) but they could still handle things a bit more efficiently at least:

As suggested in the newbie board, maybe indicate a queue giving each person a position in the queue or at least state how many transactions are being processed a day - a small daily update indicating for much progress has been made would put a lot of people at ease and probably greatly reduce the amount of support tickets, freeing up time to process tranactions

A few people haven't heard anything in days and just keep getting referred to the post about overwhelming success and change of bank details.
 - on a side note, I think all BTC businesses need to learn if you have a bunch of pissed off customers wondering where their money is, directing them to posts talking about how successful the company is, is probably not the best idea.  Typically, in the eyes of the target audience (e.g. pissed off people) the business is not seen as a success.

I think there's a balance between transparency and agency. As a customer, especially when my money has gone missing - I only have moderate concern for how much success you're having or what your bank details are. My main concern is where my money is and how much closer (if at all) you are to enabling me access to my money.

Apart from the above points, I do really like your site and service - it's one of the few exchanges I recommend. It seems one of the few pretty, speedy and semi-UK-friendly exchanges, keep it up!

tl;drThis isn't a rage thread - you have a decent site. I would, however, advise you think a little bit about your customer support and what your customers are looking for and wanting to hear when raging about money not arriving. You could save yourselves a lot of time by doing more public updates on the situation rather than dealing with lots of individual customers through forums and support tickets.

Overall, I've made more bad moves than I have good, but have been fortunate at the moment to come out on top. But anyone that has coins acquired more than 5 months ago would have to have seriously dropped the ball at some point to not be better off at the moment.....

Skim reading now. Seems alright.

A few things:

• In #2 I would mention the word fiat, or at least state your definition of currency. Bitcoin isn't a fiat currency and probably never will be. google define:currency and you get:
  "Noun
  1. A system of money in general use in a particular country.
  2. The fact or quality of being generally accepted or in use."
  Bitcoin isn't #1, but it is #2
• In #5, I would define what you mean when talking about Bitcoin. Yes, Bitcoin protocol is secure, but exchanges aren't. Unfortunately, for the average person, exchanges are a necessary evil to use Bitcoin, so in a way, they are a bit part of Bitcoin.
  
• #6 could be supported with a picture of Richard Branson when he setup his first company.
  

I'd suggest a bit of formatting in there to. Make you title bold, maybe italicize the date and name or something. A bit of formatting to make the points as a whole stand out (indent them a bit) and individual points more defined (e.g. make the numbers bold) and you're missing a line space or 2 on the last couple of points.