holy shit, i have never seen this low volume
this is truly the calm before the storm i've been waiting for, i believe
Stock up on the Red Bull and get some sleep. The fireworks always start when you least expect it. |
|
|
|
From her replies to the comments you could say that Yves Smith the author is an arrogant muttonhead with deluded pretensions of authority. She has no interest in learning how Bitcoin works and then shouts down arguments against her article by just saying "FinCEN said so". Yves Smith is in the same camp of deranged journalists as Leah McGrath Goodman. Journalism is in a sad sad situation. Yves Smith said You are really behind on this issue. Go read our summary of FinCEN’s and the IRS’s position on this. http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/03/bitcoin-currency.htmlThe fact that people will trade goods with tangible value for Bitcoin means it is NOT just messages. It has been ascribed value, like collectable baseball cards, and hence is property. You can call it whatever you want, but don’t expect courts and the tax man to follow your views. There’s a well established legal and regulatory framework for commercial transactions, and it’s not as hard as you think to slot where Bitcoin fits in. FinCEN, and the IRS is pretty sure to follow, regards Bitcoin as tradeable property. You don’t have a vote in this. and You clearly did not bother to read the post, so I don’t see why I should keep spoon feeding some who chooses to be obtuse. And your “literally just messages” is a further illustration. I could just as easily say, “An ebook is just messages” but people ascribe value to them, pay for them, hence they are property.
This was in the post:
Further, the security interest will remain with the bitcoins through subsequent transfers (UCC § 9-325). A remote transferee of the bitcoins will take the bitcoins subject to the bank’s security interest. Assuming the bank has taken the easy steps to perfect its security interest, which it almost always will have, the bank can seize the bitcoins as collateral if the bakery’s debt goes unpaid. The possibility of another party with superior property interest in a bitcoin would seem to substantially dampen their utility as a medium of exchange….
…consider the example of the bakery and the supplier. After the bank calls the bakery’s loan and gets a judgment against the bakery, it conducts discovery to see where the bakery’s bitcoins went. The bakery will be compelled to testify as to the identity of the supplier. Then the supplier will be compelled to testify as to the present contents of the supplier’s bitcoin account. If the supplier fraudulently transfers the coins before the bank can seize them, the supplier is liable to the bank — in real dollars and I said I didn’t see any point in indulging you further but you couldn’t take “no” for an answer, could you?. You’ve gone from possibly being thick-headed to making it clear you are a troll.
The private key is not the consideration. That’s like saying the license key is the software.
Go hire a UCC expert and educate yourself. |
|
|
|
|
If someone was going to make a shit hot announcement about block 0 I'm sure they'd do it on bitcointalk instead of the p2pforum.
|
|
|
|
I saw the btc-e owners boarding a plane for Djibouti. Not looking good  |
|
|
|
I think this nails the argument There's been some misunderstanding here when it comes to bitcoins and property. Bitcoins are not property, they're cryptographically signed messages.
Suppose a bakery decides to accept bitcoins from a customer. The baker generates a private key and from that produces a bitcoin address. The customer scans the address and then sends a message to the Bitcoin network signed by one of his private keys saying that he wants to transact with the bakers address. The Bitcoin network verifies the message and the transaction is complete.
Next lets say that the baker decides to pay a supplier using bitcoins. The baker sends a message signed by his private key to the Bitcoin network saying that he'd like to transact with the suppliers bitcoin address. The Bitcoin network verifies the message and the transaction is complete.
The private key which the baker generated to facilitate the transaction is still in his possession after paying the supplier. The private key is his property and the bank can make a lien on that if they want. They can't make a lien on the supplier because the private key used by the supplier to facilitate the trade was never the baker's property. |
|
|
|
insight: friend of mine working in JP Morgan in London also confirmed they are kinda elaborating their own coin as we speak.. They may succeed with novices but only until the banks fuck it up somehow, at which point people will begin to understand why they should support a coin not backed by any company/cartel. Agreed.... In the end, these kind of endeavors are likely to bring more attention and credibility to bitcoin... even though they may seem to mimic or compete. Bitcoin will likely prevail - yet, we may want to see how these various competitive cryptos play out... and these additional cryptos will likely create hype and even pump and dump opportunities... for day traders. Yes you're probably right. But a centralized bitcoin clone kind of defeats the purpose. Who will mine? JPMorgan? The public? A "trusted" central banker type entity? What if they need to change the rules, will they just hard fork it forcing everyone along? Sounds like a total disaster in the making. A Bitcoin like currency issued by a business or governing body makes no sense and will never happen. Bitcoin only works because there's nobody in charge and there's no guarantees. If a currency came out "backed" by a business then that business would want to have very firm control over how it was used. JPMorgan wouldn't be too happy about people using JPMorganCoin for kiddie porn or ransoms. Also by the saying that they "back" it they would have to subsidise it somehow, possibly by guaranteeing that it can be exchanged for something. That's quite a big financial commitment to uphold. Also if the company is issuing the currency why go to the bother of mining. They could just issue it in exchange for cash. I think the nearest any company comes to a digital currency will be some kind of E-Gold copy where all users have full KYC checks. Doesn't sound very exciting. |
|
|
|
China may have realized that it cannot stifle bitcoin.. and china has a mixed set of motives including a desire to have some kind of investment vehicle separate from the dollar... .. so China is likely torn about bitcoin and about whether they like it or hate it... maybe they are frienemies with bitcoin?
From what Iknow, Chinese residents cannot pay for goods or services using bitcoin; banks and other financial institutions cannot deal with bitcoin; bitcoins cannot be sold by e-commerce sites; and e-payment services cannot be used to pay for bitcoin. So what is left? I believe there are other cointries which have taken similar measures; Russia and India, perhaps? (A thread was started in this forum to build a list the legal status of bitcoin in each coutry, but it never got beyond the first draft.) Some countries (like the US) have not banned crypto-coins explicitly, but their existing regulations alerady prevent some of those uses. If crypto currencies will only be used for clandestine private commerce between peers, under risk of legal penalties who don't care about regulation, they will have failed succeeded in their goal. FTFY |
|
|
|
This is the Bloomberg video people are talking about. http://www.bloomberg.com/video/bitcoin-isn-t-relevant-to-investors-mcnamee-ESz0BNusTJi3R4ZhEuidxg.htmlThe investor guy, Roger McNamee, didn't make much sense. He says that Bitcoin is exciting and has done a lot of good things but as in investor it doesn't interest him because it hasn't surpassed any key metrics yet and it doesn't have a trustworthy backer. As an investor I thought the idea was to invest in things before they become popular. But then again what do I know about investing  |
|
|
|
When Gox went down my phone started ringing. There were a lot of "I told you so" and a couple "Sorry you lost all your coins"
Not sure why some people are so happy to see others fail. They seemed so happy that they were right and I was wrong about Bitcoin. Little did they know.
It's very simple. People do not want to take the risk by investing in bitcoin, but they don't want to feel like they missed out on a huge opportunity either so they hope it fails. That's why people who don't know about bitcoin are so negative about it.That sentence sums up the very worst part of the human psyche. Fear and jealousy are terrible things. If you can lose both you'll be a much happier person. |
|
|
|
Seriously now, the part of the article that made we wince was the comment by the guard when the reporter told them who the guy was. I do not know why, but that detail flashed a yellow light in my mind...
Yes, it read too much like dialogue from a novel than real life. As for the quote it's highly likely it was taken out of context or just made up. It's her word against his and she's more media savvy so she can drown out any complaints that he makes. |
|
|
|
Fake. I'm actually Satoshi. I graduated from college in Maths and Physics and got jobs working for government contractors. I've bought lots of stuff from overseas and got totally pissed with wire fees so I decided to invent Bitcoin once I got the inevitable sack when I hit my mid 50s. I am Satoshi. What more proof do you need  |
|
|
|
how do you know that was Satoshi who wrote that, I can make a better picture than the one above and sign it with his name, also everything on that story fits perfectly to that man, I am almost convinced that is him... and by the way, he used his real name, nice move last thing expected.... A big piece of evidence that's missing is a link between this guy and crypto mailing lists. The real Satoshi was heavily influenced by cryptographers that went before him so I would have though it highly likely that he would be a subscriber to these lists. |
|
|
|
I am no longer involved in that and I cannot discuss it Journalists make up quotes to suit their own agenda. She can write whatever she likes about a doorstep conversation because there's no way for the other person to refute what was said. |
|
|
|
I informed Bitstamp that they had at least a breach on their email list, if not the rest of their system. At first they denied it, but in a follow up they eventually admitted to it. I think if eleuthria is to be trusted, then there is probably no question in it. Furthermore, Bitstamp themselves distributed email warnings of phishers I think shortly afterwards. It's possible that only a part of the mails were leaked, or that somehow yours wasn't sent to. If we do some digging, maybe we can get it officially from a Bitstamp rep. I didn't receive any phishing emails. |
|
|
|
|
Matonis is sound. I'm sure it was the journalist that made the mistake.
|
|
|
|
Hi there, Bitstamp have been all bitchy about KYC questionaires etc lately aswell has implenting the mandatory verification process not a long time ago. Maybe it's just pressure from banks. But what happens with this information? 1) Does Bitstamp send the statistics/cashflow information of my account to the tax authorities in my country (EU)? If yes, what sums $$? 2) I was wondering if it's 100% safe to request an withdraw to a bank located in Hong Kong, without being exposed by Bitstamp to the taxman where I live. I know Bitstamp is not a bank but they almost act like one. Need to be 100% sure on this. Hope you guys can help me out! Thanks in advance ps. I will never go near BTC-E, don't even suggest it What kind of KYC questionnaires do they have? |
|
|
|
I follow this last three years, and now I think it's the end, Bitcoin has no more fuel to jump. Check this, we enter the fourth month of constant decline in prices.  You said you were going to keep quiet until next month when you have a new doom chart to spam around the forum. You lied man. You lied. I can no longer take you seriously. |
|
|
|
I couldn't figure out if he was speaking English, French or Japanese  |
|
|
|
|
Is there anything in the code to suggest that the cold wallet was actually online?
|
|
|
|
Until Mark starts being honest he deserves no support from anyone, not even his mother! All the statements so far have been evasive and deceitful. The crap written on mtgox.com today still blames a bug with Bitcoin for all their problems FFS! His new piece of bullshit is that he only noticed millions of dollars was missing from gox bank accounts on Feb 24, the day gox stopped trading. I suppose now he's started to lie he can't go back. The lie needs to keep getting bigger and bigger. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
