Bitcoin Forum
March 19, 2024, 06:52:53 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 [225] 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 ... 800 »
4481  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Mining (Altcoins) / Re: Swedish ASIC miner company kncminer.com on: September 10, 2013, 04:57:36 PM
hahaha, no....no Rpi... it has its own linux onboard, with GUI & ssl ...a pi would be useless..
but is does seem, the chips are in, and assembly & test has begun!!...!!..!!

Pi can run a "webserver" with SSL with no problem. 
4482  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Mining (Altcoins) / Re: Swedish ASIC miner company kncminer.com on: September 10, 2013, 04:51:30 PM
So I guess the corsair is quite a good choice:
* dedicated single +12V rail with user-configurable virtual "single rail" and "multi-rail" software modes
* features a massive 71.6 Amp (859.2 Watt) single +12V rail
* can also be configured as a multi-rail device with individual PCI-E over-current protection (OCP) trip points
=> http://www.corsair.com/us/blog/ax860i_technical_details/

"Probably".  The big unknown on any single rail PSU is what safety overcurrent protection is set to.  Looking at the screenshot in the review the user adjustable OCP is up to 40A per PSU connector (not to be confused with the downstream PC connectors).  That likely means the default is 40A and obviously they would have designed their plugs, pins, and wires to handle that much current.  If you used just a pair of PSU connectors each with 1 PSU connector running to two PCIe connectors in series, then each PSU per connector "virtual rail" would have half the load of a Jupiter.  If we assume Jupiter is 790W that is 65A total or 32.5A per connector.  Looks good to me.  Not really going to know for sure until the first person plugs on in but I would be comfortable buying it (if I didn't have 10 spare Seasonic 1050W PSUs Smiley ).

Worst case scenario (for any PSU) I am sure someone like Cablez can sell a EPS12V to PCIE 8 pin connector.  The EPS12V connector (8 pins usually split as 4pin + 4pin) which connects to the motherboard is designed for >280W.  To any DIY who later finds this post by a search and acts without thinking the pinout for EPS12V and PCIe-8pin are different.  If you connect them 1:1 you will destroy your PSU and equipment.  It would require a custom cable to properly connect the 12V to 12V and ground to ground.

4483  Bitcoin / Mining speculation / Re: Estimate of ASIC pre-orders (6,000 to 8,000 TH/s by end of 2013) on: September 10, 2013, 04:38:34 PM
Avalon expect to sale second generation chips (55nm) late October 2013 for immediate shipping.
http://thegenesisblock.com/avalon-refunds-22000-btc-2-9m-to-asic-miner-customers/

So any ideas on size of their batch?

We don't have a lot of facts to go on for Avalon v2 but:
a) We know it is 55nm compared to 110nm.  Die efficiency should be 4x that of v1 Avalon.
b) It is "backwards compatible" which I interpret to be same package/pinout.  
c) Avalon says late Oct which is code word for Dec and given their delays in shipping, "customs issues" I probably will put them as complete miners hashing in January 2014 or later.
d) Avalon says they won't be doing presales.  That means they accept the full risk of the NRE + batch run costs (as fab will want that up front).  I think this will act as a limit on # of wafers ordered.

Guestimate:
Avalon current design is a single hashing engine (1 hash per clock) running at up to 330 Mhz for 330 MH/s.  The current chip is on a 110nm process and has a die size of 16.12 mm^2 which means a die efficiency of 20.5 MH/s per mm^2.  A perfect die shrink would make that ~80 MH/s per mm^2.  For comparison BFL is ~70 MH/s per mm^2 and Bitfury is 138 MH/s per mm^2 in efficiency.  To give Avalon some margin lets say they improve die efficiency to 100 MH/s per mm^2 (improved clock speed, tweaked hashing engine).   Now Avalon likely isn't going to keep a single hashing engine design as the die would be insanely small (~4mm^2 as 55nm).  So it seems plausible they will take the v1 design shrink it and use the additional space to put more hashing engines running in parallel, similar to how Intel can make a 6 core chip today which has the same die size as a 130nm chip from the past.  Exactly how many parallel hashing engines Avalon uses doesn't really matter because it doesn't change the die efficiency (MH/s per mm^2).  A 6 HE chip is going to have 6x the throughput but take up 6x the die space.  There is some overhead for controller logic and I/O but it is minimal.  Bitcoin mining is an "embaressingly parallel problem".  My hypothesis is that since time is short, Avalon isn't looking for a redesign from scratch but rather they will take the v1 hashing engine (possibly with some minor tweaks/improvements and higher clock speed), shrink it to 55nm and then use as many in parallel which will keep the die size small enough to fit their existing package.  My guess is that would be 4 to 6 making the nominal output per chip 2GH/s to 3 GH/s.

A 300mm wafer has an area of 70,685 mm^2, lets assume 80 MH/s per mm^2 with a 10% drop due to wasted space (squares inside a circle).  That comes out to ~6.5 TH/s per wafer.  There are more accurate methods of calculating number of full dies but it requires knowing the exact dimensions of the chip but 90% effective is a good enough guesstimate.  If they get 95% yield that would be ~6TH/s usable chips per wafer.  Standard batch is 50 wafers so we are looking at 300 TH/s per batch.   Now they can order as large of a run as they want but given they have to front this cost/risk and with uncertainty on demand/pricing I could see them going with 2 batches (100 wafers) or 600 TH/s.  Avalon should have the resources to do that ($1M @ $10K nominal per wafer plus NRE).  While they could prepay for more that would be taking a big risk (no pre-orders to dump the risk on the customer).  They can always purchase more wafers at a later start is their is enough demand for follow on months.

So 600 TH/s in January for Avalon 55nm?  What does anyone else think?



4484  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: SHA-256 is designed by the NSA - do they have a backdoor? on: September 10, 2013, 04:19:51 PM
By the way: What might have been the reason that Mr. Nakamoto decided to use an NSA algorithm (SHA-256) for Bitcoin?

There are more than a few hints that Mr Nakamoto himself (themselves) may be linked to NSA. just saying...

A cite?  The only comments I remember is when Gavin went to CIA for a presentation on Bitcoin, Satoshi wasn't interested.
4485  Other / CPU/GPU Bitcoin mining hardware / Re: AMD sales going good guns down to mining? on: September 10, 2013, 04:03:39 PM
Just curious; any of you guys holding AMD stock?

Not any more.  I held AMD for a long time but Intel is a ruthless competitor.  I began buying AMD back in the 90s and continued through the end of the decade.  For a while things looked bright but post 2002 AMD has struggled and that is more to due to Intel then any failure at AMD.  I sold out the last of my relatively large position in the mid 2000s.  The situation has only gotten worse since then.

As much as I like AMD the company I would not recommend anyone buy AMD the stock.  Intel is just very good at what they do and being "second best" is a bad spot to be in.  With NVidia and AMD/ATI they trade top spot back and forth.  However for pretty much the last decade Intel has been solidly on top.  Gone are the P4 days where they were sloppy and chips were overpriced.  Today they are a full process node ahead of AMD, their "tick tock" strategy has been solid for a half dozen product upgrades, and they can manipulate margins to squeeze AMD out.  Intel can build chips cheaper than AMD and they simply set the price points of various models in the lineup to minimize AMD margins.  Intel pricing isn't just to maximize current dollars for Intel but also to prevent AMD from gaining the resources necessary to become a better competitor in the future.  I doubt Intel will ever risk AMD going bankrupt (monopoly investigations) but they have essentially cornered AMD into a lower margin, lower share business.  Given Intel will keep AMD alive if I absolutely had to put money into AMD it would be AMD corporate bonds.  In the GPU space AMD buying ATI was pure genius and well timed however there is less and less need for more and more CPU cores so expect more "CPU" die space to be devoted to GPU.  As on die GPU become better and better is squezes the discrete graphics market.  Not many people know this but Intel has 70%+ of the GPU space.  All low end but the low end is getting better.



To link back to the OP all the GPU are a rounding error for AMD annual sales.  Total GPU mining was ~25 TH/s.  Lets be generous and say that ended up costing ~$1 per MH/s (GPU cost only).  So we are talking $25M in GPU sales directly due to mining.  Now some of those were existing sales converted to mining but lets ignore that.  Still $25M isn't in one year, GPU mining has been going on for three years, so say ~$8M annually is increased sales.  AMD average sales for the last three years were $5.8B annually.  So we are talking <0.2% of gross sales. Now hypothetically if ASIC/FPGA were impossible then maybe someday it might have been more important.
4486  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Downloading the Blockchain.... on: September 10, 2013, 03:17:19 PM
Strange I bootstrapped a node from genesis block to current in less than 18 hours.  Smiley  As others have pointed out sufficient memory (bitcoind doesn't seem to use >2GB regardless of available resources) and fast disks are far more important than bandwidth speed.   I think you will find if you monitor your network connectivity your average download speed is nowhere near the linespeed of your ASDL connection (20Mbps = 9GB per hour).

4487  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Ripple starts to conquer the world from China on: September 10, 2013, 03:10:17 PM
Also a huge amount and volume of Bitcoin transactions takes place in centralized, truly closed-source (and they are NEVER even claiming to open up!) and profit oriented IOU issuer's proprietary accounting tools. I find it kinda strange that OpenCoin generates so much mistrust, while others (who pull off even weirder stuff --> Mastercoin) seem to be more welcomed. It looks like "Ripplers" then seem to be of the impression that "Bitcoiners" are afraid because obviously Ripple is the better system and could potentially drive Bitcoin out of the market. On the other side there is usually a lot of mistrust since Ripple does not only claim to be a working distributed exchange (which it is!) but also that there is a currency implemented that is used to fund a company instead of just taking a fixed cut (something that is not really possible for distributed exchanges...) from trades.

Someday there may be Bitcoin banks too but the difference between Bitcoin and the existing banking system is you can "opt out".  You don't have to use exchanges, and you don't have to use future Bitcoin banks.  The core network remains open and anyone can choose to be a node.  With Ripple the entire network is proprietary, closed source, and centrally controlled.  Nodes only run closed source code owned by OpenCoin, Inc and operate with the express limited permission of the owner.   There is no way to "opt out" other than never use it.  
4488  Other / Politics & Society / Re: This man owed $134 in property taxes. The District sold the lien to an investor on: September 10, 2013, 03:07:09 PM
So if the house is auctioned off for say $150,000 the private investor can keep the full amount of the money that was raised? And not pay back the surplus to this guy? That seems wrong to me. It must be very lucrative to be in this business then. Roll Eyes

No.  Although the OP makes it seem like that.  The house is foreclosed and sold at auction.  All creditors including the lien holder and mortgage company are paid any excess equity ends up going to the owner.  No different than any other foreclosure.

In this mans case he owed $134 didn't pay it, the lien was sold, 6 months passed and the lien increased to ~$5,000 due to interest, penalties, and fees.  That is likely predatory and some caps should be put into place but I would point out the lien holder "only" got $5K not $197,000.  The amount of his mortgage and lein were more than the house sold at auction so the residual equity was zero.  In other words the man was already broke before the foreclosure occurred.


I do agree with others that there is no such thing as owning property.  Not with perpetual property tax.
4489  Bitcoin / Mining / Re: What happens when there is a big difficulty drop? on: September 10, 2013, 02:35:10 PM

With this exponential growth in difficulty lately I was wondering:  Because the difficulty is adjusted each 2016 blocks and not some other measure of time, if there were a substantial decrease in network capacity wouldn't the blockchain get "stuck"?  For example,  say things keeps growing nicely and then the next reward split rolls around and half the miners decide to shut down their operations overnight because it's not profitable.  It might go from 10 minutes to find a new block to 2 hours or more.  Then it could take 168 days to reach 2016 blocks and have the difficulty readjust.

Is this a real danger, or an I missing something in the specification?

Thanks,

-Jay     



If half the miners shut down the average time per block would rise to 20 min nominal and it would take 4 weeks not 2 weeks for difficulty to adjust and when it does difficulty would be cut in half doubling the reward for the remaining miners.  If 99.9% of miners all stopped on the same day yes that would be bad but miners tend to act independently and shutdown at different times.
4490  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Butterfly Labs 30 day countdown to the end of September on: September 10, 2013, 02:16:07 PM
BFL is plainly using pay date data rather than actual numbers of units ordered and shipped/day to ensure that current and future victims cannot draw meaningful conclusions about their own lead times. It's also given them some cover to defend their own non-performance by generalizing about how many orders were paid on a particular day. It's the time honored tactic of controlling the flow of information while bashing the opposition for having a lack of information. These guys are slick.

This.

Also it is very likely BFL has presold a staggering amount of hashing capacity.  So much that if they were a monopoly and nobody else on the planet was mining with anything but BFL hardware those in the later portion of the queue had no chance to ROI% when they placed the order.  Conservatively BFL has sold at least 3 PH/s of dreams.  It is 100% in their interest to ensure customers never know how much capacity was sold.
4491  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: In-person Bitcoin purchases - no problem! on: September 10, 2013, 02:04:49 PM
I assume that once the transaction has been confirmed though, that it is safe?

Safer.  Meni did an analysis of the cost to reverse transaction.  The higher the tx value the more confirmations that are necessary.  You really should search for his paper as I am not doing it justice but here is a simplified version.

Imagine an attacker has 20% of the network capacity.  They have a ~4% chance of building a longer alternate chain the rest of the network once they are 1 block behind.  4% doesn't sound bad and the cost for 20% of the network is pretty high but on a large purchase it may be worth it.  The attacker doesn't have a certainty but they can play the odds.  If the attacker loses $1,000 on each failed attempt, gains $50,000 on each successful one and has a 4% chance of success then in the long run he will nearly double his revenue by double spending.  

There is no "one size fits all" approach.  For some transactions zero confirm is probably viable, for some 1 confirm is good enough security for others anything less than multiple (3,4,5,6,20) confirms is too risky.
4492  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: cpu coins - why so unprofitable to mine?? on: September 10, 2013, 01:43:08 PM
All computers have a CPU.
Botnets are made of up infected computers.
Therefore all botnets have lots of CPUs.

You are competing against people who have "free" access to tens of thousands of CPU and no power cost.
4493  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: SHA-256 is designed by the NSA - do they have a backdoor? on: September 10, 2013, 01:39:40 PM
Why would the NSA ever release a 'secure' algorithm? It's like shooting yourself in the foot, it would make their job so much harder. They would only ever release something that they could control. It's just the way the world works.

Because you can never definitively prove a cryptographic system is secure.  The only way to "know" a cipher is secure is to make it publicly available and let the best in the world take a crack at it.  It is very easy to write a cryptographic system that you yourself can't break but that is next to useless.  Secret cryptography usually is weak cryptography.  History is littered with examples of failed "strong" systems.  One classic one is WEP which is so unbelievably broken it is hard to believe cryptographers came up with it.  Security through obscurity doesn't work.  Had the specs for WEP been made publicly available in the design phase people would have found the flaws in a matter of weeks and saved everyone a ton of problems down the road.  For every good cipher there are dozens and dozens of flawed ones.  No matter how smart a single developer is the combined intellect of the planet is better, that is the entire rationale for open source.  The NSA is not only responsible for finding the secrets of others they are responsible for ensuring others don't find the secrets of the United States. 

The US government uses SHA-2 in secure cryptographic systems including SIPERNet.  I know this from personal experience.
4494  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: SHA-256 is designed by the NSA - do they have a backdoor? on: September 10, 2013, 01:31:10 PM
By the way: What might have been the reason that Mr. Nakamoto decided to use an NSA algorithm (SHA-256) for Bitcoin?

The same reason that banks, the US government, foreign governments, millions of websites, the SSL protocol, PGP, and other secure systems use it.
It is the most widely studied and analyzed algorithms in the last twenty years.  It has held up to extensive public scrutiny and been shown to be a strong hashing function.

4495  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: In-person Bitcoin purchases - no problem! on: September 10, 2013, 02:55:49 AM
Not sure what you mean here... I know about the "change" transaction, but that doesn't say anything about the vendors involved.  I was meaning that the same person would not try to double-spend against the same vendor; the second spend would have to take place elsewhere physically, introducing the problem of coordination.

There is no second "spend" in a double spend.  Just a second tx.  For example I make a tx to pay you 100 BTC.  I use the same inputs to send 100 BTC to myself in a second tx.  No double spend involves 2 merchants.  Just a "legit" tx and a double sending the money back to the attacker.

The "double" can be setup ahead of time and triggered remotely.
4496  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: How Western Union could bring bitcoin to everywhere in the world on: September 10, 2013, 02:18:42 AM
They already ARE subject to regulatory risk
Right, because Bitcoins present the same regulatory risk as dollars.

In the US Bitcoin exchangers are money transmitters.  WU is a money transmitter.  

WU is registered with FinCEN
WU has a MT license in every state which requires one.
WU has surety bonds in every state which requires one (by the regs it is in excess of $20M face value)
WU has an AML program.
WU has AML training for employees.
WU has a BSA compliance/audit team.
WU collects and records KYC information.
WU blocks suspicious transactions.
WU files various MT related transaction reports with FinCEN.
WU keeps transaction records as required by FinCEN and state regulators.
WU implements per tx and per day limits for customers in accordance with FinCEN and State MT programs.
WU has the legal teams, the size, and the industry contacts to get direct answers from regulators.

Per FinCEN guidance WU is ALREADY doing everything they need to be a 100% compliant Bitcoin exchanger.  So yeah if there is ANYONE on the planet which has the compliance structure already in place it would be WU.  Still they aren't going to support Bitcoin until it is "game over" for the business model.  If/when Bitcoin is is so pervasive that they are losing revenue, they will consider offering bitcoin exchange services not before.
4497  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: In-person Bitcoin purchases - no problem! on: September 10, 2013, 01:50:07 AM
It all depends on the target risk.  A Bitcoin ATM machine (deliver BTC and get USD) where an exploit could rapidly be exploited and empty the machine?  You probably want confirmations unless you want to go broke.   A $6 combo meal for lunch where "delivery" is going to take a couple minutes anyways?  You are unlikely to be successfully double spent (or at least no more likely then customer using counterfeit or stolen CC).

However you are misunderstand that in a double spend there aren't two vendors. The second tx just sends funds back to the user.  A lot would depend on how sophisticated the merchant (or merchants provider) is.  If the merchant runs a network of nodes that connect to a large fraction of the Bitcoin network it is unlikely that the double spend could reach a miner without the merchant detecting it during the transaction.  0-confirm tx are also subject to finney attacks so the value of the transaction is going to matter a lot.  It isn't worth it to try and Finney attack a $5 transaction but a $50,000 one?  Well it certainly would be and the merchant would be unable to detect the threat.

TL/DR version:
There is no single risk level acceptable for all merchants under all scenarios.  0-confirm for low value in person transactions may certainly be viable but the merchant should either be sophisticated or use a sophisticated payment processor which actively monitors the risk.
4498  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Mining (Altcoins) / Re: Swedish ASIC miner company kncminer.com on: September 10, 2013, 01:42:16 AM
it has 6 separate PCIe according to the specification and the picture
http://cwsmgmt.corsair.com/media/catalog/product/a/x/ax860i_psu_sideview_a.png

or did I misunderstand sth. ?

The 6 connectors are on three seperate "strands".  Since you will need four, you will need to use both PCIe connectors from at least one strand*.  If the PSU can't supply enough current to that strand (half the current used by Jupiter) it "could" be a problem.  Not saying it IS a problem just that there is no good way to know without testing.


* This is why EPS12V connector plus 1,2, or 3 PCIe connectors depending on model would be more flexible.  6 connectors usually come as three pairs of PCIe connectors. It probably would be possible to make an EPS12V (8 pin motherboard connector) to PCIe 8pin adapter.  Note an adapter would be necessary because the pinout is different.
4499  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Mining (Altcoins) / Re: Swedish ASIC miner company kncminer.com on: September 10, 2013, 01:19:58 AM
One thing to watch out for is that KNC for some reason decided to use 4 PCIe connectors instead of EPS12V connector + 3 PCIe connectors.  On the 860 Corsair 2 of the PCIe connectors are on the same PSU connector (i.e. single set of wires with 1 PSU connector on one end and 2x PCIe connector on other end).  Without testing it there is no way to know for sure what the overcurrent limit is for that connector (good PSU limit both overall current and current per wire).  The PCIe standard only mandates that two 8 pin connector supply 300W (1.25@ @ 12VDC).  Now the PSU probably can supply a lot more than that but just by looking at it there is no way to know for sure.  Most reviews only show total load not max load per connector and certainly not at amperages beyond what a PC would use anyways.  
I believe such a limit would violate the EPS12V specification (see Table 28 of version 2.91, but other versions have a similar requirement) which specifies that overcurrent protection may not trigger until a rail reaches, at minimum, its specified peak current.

For those wondering what JK is referencing:
Quote
Table 28: Over Current Limits
Voltage  Over Current Limit (Iout limit)
+3.3 V  110% minimum; 150% maximum
+5 V  110% minimum; 150% maximum
+12V1  Peak current minimum; 20A maximum
+12V2  Peak current minimum; 20A maximum
+12V3  Peak current minimum; 20A maximum
+12V4  Peak current minimum; 20A maximum (22A maximum for 750W-800W)
http://www.pcpower.com/downloads/EPS12VSpec2_91.pdf

IIRC later version of the spec removed the requirement for multiple 12V rails and with it the max current on the 12V rail.  

Joel, I think what may be unclear Joel is that in the PSU linked above while the PSU has 6 PCIe connectors it puts TWO connectors on one strand of wires. So each pair of PCIe connectors is limited to 22A.  With three pairs of PCIe connectors at least one rail will need to drive TWO PCIE connectors and thus the load on that rail is half of a Jupiter.  To be clear this wouldn't be a problem if a PSU with four PCIe connectors connected each one to a seperate rail but for cost reasons they don't.  If you look at the wiring of all ATX PSU you will find each set of cables has two PCIe connectors in parallel.  So multi-rail PSU are going to be bad news.   

However it isn't quite that bad.  Later versions of the ATX spec removed the requirement for multiple 12V rails and today almost all high end PSU use a single massive (100A+) single 12V rail.  It is cheaper, more efficient, and easier to manage.  However despite all the connectors attaching to the same rail for safety no PSU is stupid enough to allow 100A to flow down one connector.   100 amps is a massive amount of power enough in a short circuit situation to cause a fire or death.  So while technically a PSU can deliver 100A+ on any connector (PSU connector not downstream PC standard connectors) no PSU is allowed to do so.  It is just a lawsuit waiting to happen to design a product than if a short circuit occurs will allow 100A+ to flow to wires and connectors not designed for that kind of current.  All single rail PSU employ over current rotection at the connector level to prevent the full PSU current from unsafely flowing down one connector.  They will trip if "excessive" current is going down one connector.  It might be 20A, 30A, 40A all depends on the design and configuration.  There is no way of just looking at the PSU what the limit might be.  To put it into perspective the PCIe spec only require 150W per 8 pin connector so a set of wire with two PCIE connectors in series "normally" won't pull more than 25A.

Lets imagine a Jupiter pulls 790W (65A @ 12VDC) that means the current at each PCIe connector is 16.25A. No problem there.  However if there are two PCIe connectors on a single "strand" and both are used then the current on the strand is 32.5A.  If the overcurrent protection for the connector is 40A well there is no problem but if it is 30A?
4500  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: How Western Union could bring bitcoin to everywhere in the world on: September 10, 2013, 12:48:47 AM
I think Western Union could bring bitcoin to everywhere in the world without any infrastructural change.

Users who want to buy bitcoin could pay at a WU outlet with an agreed exchange rate. They will fill-in a remittance form to indicate the recipient country as "Bitcoin" and the recipient address as a bitcoin address. The request will be forwarded to the WU headquarter, which will send the bitcoin to the destination.

Users who want to sell bitcoin will send bitcoin with the WU website, and collect fiat at the preferred WU outlet.
Where do they get the Bitcoins from? What do they do with the Bitcoins they receive? How do they handle exchange rate risk? How do they handle regulatory compliance?

They already ARE subject to regulatory risk and they ALREADY have spent tens of millions to become compliant in the US and dozens of countries.  As for exchange rate risk they are subject to that in fiat to fiat transactions.  Given their hefty margins and the fact that just like any other exchange people will want to buy and sell they could float a small amount of Bitcoins as working capital and accept the risk on that.  Much like they do with fiat exchange rates if the intra-hour volatility is "too high" they can always give customers a worse rate. I mean by your logic coinbase and bitpay can't work either right?  Yet they do.  WF would bring "down the street" access to a billion or more people on the planet. 


Still this isn't going to happen anytime soon for complete different reasons (see my post above).
Pages: « 1 ... 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 [225] 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 ... 800 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!