wareen,
nice find. However, I think your conclusion is premature. The document and other references do not mention VAT. So the only thing it means that if you pay with bitcoins, or as a merchant accept bitcoins, you do not need a permit in Germany. Which is good. However, it still leaves the question of VAT open. I lean towards the conclusion that the current laws in Germany classify the usage of Bitcoin as barter (Tauschgeschäft) and is subject to VAT. But I'm not a lawyer :-).
Thanks wareen for this. IANAL I disagree the key conclusion is that Bitcoins are financial instruments (Finanzinstrumente) even though Bitcoin does not meet the narrow definition of e-money under the EU directive. This then makes Bitcoins not subject to VAT as financial instruments themselves are not subject to VAT. |
|
|
|
|
Virtex has been trading below the MtGox price for quite a while now. Seriously MtGox USD 5.63. Virtex ask 5.45 CAD or 5.31 USD. That is a 5.7% difference. I have seen the spread even higher. A great place to buy Bitcoin at market.
|
|
|
|
|
It could be as simple as asset preservation especially in these economic times.
|
|
|
|
I would read through this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=84669.0 first. I would not even consider an iPhone or for that matter any other phone in a "walled garden" such as a Windows phone for Bitcoin. That leaves Android phones, but check first that the ability to install applications outside the Android market has not been disabled by some dinosaur carrier. Also phones running GNU / Linux with third party GPLv3 / AGPLv3 code where such code needs root access in order to be modified are a good choice because they cannot be locked down for licensing reasons. |
|
|
|
“We have a planning assumption that virtual currencies will become mainstream in three to five years,” Mr Davis said. “One of the reasons why we need to reach a view two to four years out is to influence our decisions around enterprise architecture, because it doesn’t change very often. This is the crux of the article. A bank needs to start planning now to be able to trade Bitcoin and provide Bitcoin services to its customers in 3 - 5 years when Bitcoin becomes mainstream. |
|
|
|
Can't you just host the app outside the apple store? Or would they shut it down through lawsuit threats
Non-jailbroken iPhones can't install anything but aproved apple store apps. Period. No workaround possible. When you consider that 90%+ of user base is never going to jailbreak their phone it means you have an effective marketshare of less than Windows Mobile.  Android on the other hand by default only installs apps from android marketplace (now stupidly rebranded "google play" WTF?) but if you go into settings it is simply an off/on slider to allow installs from other locations. This does beg the question: Is a person who jailbreaks their iPhone more likely to use Bitcoin than one who does not? Realistically given the current market share of Bitcoin I would not ignore the jailbroken iPhone market. |
|
|
|
There are two issues here:
The first is that Apple does have the right, as does any retailer to decide if they wish to carry a product in their store. This in itself is not objectionable, what makes the situation highly objectionable in the Apple case is that Apple uses DRM to prevent an application that is not obtained from their store from being installed on devices they have already sold to end users. This turns the normal actions of a retailer in choosing to carry a product or not into an act of censorship. Furthermore in many situations regardless of whether Apple chooses to approve or to not approve an application, Apple will always be in the wrong. This by the way does not apply only to Apple it equally applies for example to Microsoft’s Windows 8 on ARM or to a locked game console for example.
This is highly objectionable: if one is equipped with an IOS smartphone, the appstore becomes the only store one has access to unless one replaces it (people without computer skills will NOT jailbreak it). That's a high exit cost. Similar exit costs in retail are nowhere to be found. Combined with the fact that Apple as a company is commanding the majority market share in smartphones (even if android surpasses iOS in OS market share) , that gives enough reasons to ask Apple to be specific as to why they reject a bitcoin app, since the Apple guidelines are not specific. Bold added to place quote back in context. Jailbreak the iPhone! If one does not have the skills then one pays someone who does to do it. Is Apple accountable here? Of course it is; however arguing whether on not an application should be in the appstore plays right into Apple's hands. The focus needs to be on the DRM and lockdown that prevents the end user from obtaining an app from another source. Consumers also need to be accountable here. If one chooses to buy a DRM laden locked device then one must also accept the consequences of that choice. Now to help lower the exit cost here are some resources (No warranties of course): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_jailbreakinghttp://www.redmondpie.com/jailbreak-5.1.1-untethered-iphone-4s-ipad-3-ipod-touch-and-more-using-absinthe-2.0-video-tutorial/http://www.ijailbreak4s.com/http://www.ijailbreak.com/how-to-jailbreak/and to get a small sample of what you missing (it is not just Bitcoin) here is another resource http://www.cultofmac.com/141796/the-best-jailbreak-apps-for-the-iphone-4s/Finally one way to learn about this issue to to enter "Apple Censorship" into a major search engine. |
|
|
|
One factor to consider here is the weather. Where will many Bitcoin mines be located? The coldest countries in the world. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tfs4jPR3BDI We are already see this effect in BTC prices on BTC-e (Russia) and Virtex (Canada) when compared to MtGox. Now what do Russia and Canada have in common when it comes to mining Bitcoin? |
|
|
|
I hope the market will speak and these platforms are forced to open up to alternative app stores. If I'm not mistaken, even Android phones are locked by carriers into walled gardens for their apps (mostly because carriers want to charge extra for tethering). Fortunately it's pretty trivial to unlock or jailbreak these devices (I wouldn't buy any device that I couldn't jailbreak).
What I would like to see is an app store that actually did review and approve apps, but that the criteria is solely that the app is relatively bug free and free of viruses, spyware or malware. I would pay a premium to buy apps in such an app store. I'm hoping that maybe Cydia or someone like them figures this out and starts such a premium app store. Then I hope they make enough money doing it that they can sue Apple and the others to open up their platforms for alternative app stores.
The carrier argument used to be a case for “walled gardens” as recently as two years ago but not anymore. This has been the result of 3G+ networks and simply that many of the carriers have grown up and recognize that tethering data is a product they can sell and make money from. I am not saying that it is not possible to still find a dinosaur carrier however who only allows “walled gardens” on their network but they can be avoided in the marketplace. I regularly use my Android phone as a wireless hotspot included in my plan and did not even need to root or unlock my phone. This allows me to “tether” any device that has wireless g. Ironically I could even “tether” an iPad if I so desired. The carrier by the way markets this as a feature. Also I can install applications from out side the Android market without any problems. This is all on a phone obtained from a carrier that has not been unlocked or rooted. Two years ago the same Telco would have wanted an arm and a leg for “tethering”. I remember this because I signed up for the plan so soon after the change in policy that the store employees were not even aware of it at the time. I do agree that there is place for app stores that have clearly defined quality guidelines. The key here is to allow competition and the let free market do its job. I also do believe that the market will force the “walled gardens” open or punish those that wish to keep them closed nevertheless it is important for the Bitcoin community to remain vigilant. By the way. This very same carrier will sell you today an iPhone all locked up of course. |
|
|
|
There are two issues here: The first is that Apple does have the right, as does any retailer to decide if they wish to carry a product in their store. This in itself is not objectionable, what makes the situation highly objectionable in the Apple case is that Apple uses DRM to prevent an application that is not obtained from their store from being installed on devices they have already sold to end users. This turns the normal actions of a retailer in choosing to carry a product or not into an act of censorship. Furthermore in many situations regardless of whether Apple chooses to approve or to not approve an application, Apple will always be in the wrong. This by the way does not apply only to Apple it equally applies for example to Microsoft’s Windows 8 on ARM or to a locked game console for example. The second is very specific to Bitcoin and is in fact a very critical threat to the viability of Bitcoin. The security and viability of Bitcoin is totally dependent on the complete control of computers and devices by their respective owners. If one allows a situation where a single corporation or a group of corporations can control a majority of nodes or a majority of the hashing power, by the use of DRM locked computers or devices as is currently the case with IOS, then virtually every kind of attack including double spend attacks is possible against the Bitcoin network either by the corporation(s) involved, by a government or as a result of malware in the “walled garden”. The key here is not the complete elimination of “walled gardens” but rather that they be prevented from having a majority market share. It is therefore critical that in order for Bitcoin to be viable “walled garden” business models such as is the case with Apple's IOS must either fail or be at least prevented from reaching a majority market share.So what is the solution? In the case of iPhones it is very simple jail breaking. This, for smart phones, is now legal in the Unites States thanks to the efforts of the EFF among others. One simply needs to accept the fact that Bitcoin is fundamentally incompatible with IOS unless the IOS device is jail broken. My suggestion to the OP here is very simple. Release the software under either the GPL v3 or the AGPL v3 so that it can be distributed for jail broken iPhones via the Cydia store http://cydia.saurik.com/ for example. I am suggesting GPL v3 or AGPL v3 because of the strong anti Tivoization provisions in these licenses that will keep the software out of the Apple store and similar “walled gardens” such as the one planned by Microsoft. If Apple at a subsequent date changes its mind the OP can then, in addition to the GPL v3 or AGPL v3, license his software under a propriety license for distribution through the Apple store for a royalty. This has the added benefit to the Bitcoin network of providing a financial incentive to jailbreak iPhones by in effect “taxing” the walls of the “walled garden”. |
|
|
|
Ya, if only there was a quick and inexpensive way of getting the money back out of MtGox again
to continue the cycle... I would be doing a lot more of that.
What we have here is a modern variant of the "Gold Shipping Points" applicable to foreign exchange in the days of the gold standard. The exchange of the dollar to the pound would fluctuate by how much it cost to ship and insure gold from New York to London or vice versa. http://chestofbooks.com/finance/economics/Principles/Sec-II-Theory-Of-Foreign-Exchanges-Of-Money.html Now 100 years later we have Bitcoin trading at different rates in different parts of the world between the fiat "conversion and shipping points". Namely how much does it cost to convert say 2000 USD to CAD, insuring the CAD / USD currency risk, and sending said funds form Japan to Canada. The more things change the more they stay the same. |
|
|
|
I have never seen it down, at least not recently, and I have the order book opened all the time while I am working on the computer and refresh it often throughout the day. But what I would like to know is... who is that Mr. 2.54 filling up the order book and making it less useful with garbage like this: May 29, 2012, 10:08 p.m. 2.54/2.54 5.20000 13.21 CAD May 29, 2012, 10:08 p.m. 2.54/2.54 5.20000 13.21 CAD May 29, 2012, 10:08 p.m. 2.54/2.54 5.20000 13.21 CAD May 29, 2012, 10:08 p.m. 2.54/2.54 5.20000 13.21 CAD May 29, 2012, 10:08 p.m. 2.54/2.54 5.20000 13.21 CAD May 29, 2012, 10:08 p.m. 2.54/2.54 5.20000 13.21 CAD May 29, 2012, 10:08 p.m. 2.54/2.54 5.20000 13.21 CAD May 29, 2012, 10:08 p.m. 2.54/2.54 5.20000 13.21 CAD May 29, 2012, 10:08 p.m. 2.54/2.54 5.20000 13.21 CAD May 29, 2012, 10:08 p.m. 2.54/2.54 5.20000 13.21 CAD May 29, 2012, 10:08 p.m. 2.54/2.54 5.20000 13.21 CAD May 29, 2012, 10:08 p.m. 2.54/2.54 5.20000 13.21 CAD  Don't tempt me 5.200 CAD = 5.025 USD. Now what was the MtGox price again? |
|
|
|
|
It is up for me now. I just managed to l my log into my account without any problems. It was down for over an hour yesterday; however the site came back, the deposit was approved and I managed to complete all my trades yesterday with no problems. I also did get through and they promptly did resolve the problem with the delay in approving my deposit earlier in the day.
I would not consider it a "money loosing hobby" or a "highly profitable business" It is more like a small part time business getting off the ground and close to breaking even.
I do agree it is hard to complain. In the future it is likely that these small glitches will be fixed the site will be up 24/7; however the cost to purchase a BTC can also be a lot lot higher.
|
|
|
|
|
Can this also be used to purchase a sim card and data from the wireless providers? This can be really useful for someone who is traveling internationally and does not wish to pay usurious roaming fees.
|
|
|
|
Anyways.. on a serious note.. I pray nothing has become of them.. hacks or anything..
But they have been known to have small hiccups here and there.. and have always come back..
Yes. This is very true. |
|
|
|
The Canadian Exchange VirtEx. https://www.cavirtex.com/ is down. Also when I try to reach them by phone there is only voice mail. Does anyone know what is happening? |
|
|
|
|
Yes but can't you find anyone else to escrow USD? There is no need to use the same escrow service for both USD and BTC.
|
|
|
|
what was not entirely clear:
will you yourself be the counterparty in this trade?
or are you also matching buyers+sellers but for options?
Thanks for the question. Things are not set up for me to be a counterparty, but I could be. The system simply lets anyone create an option then sell it on the open market. Let me walk through an example. You are user-A and I am user-B. user-A (you) decide to create a CALL 100 option for 1 year from now, with strike price of $5. You don't think much about the future of bitcoins. You think they will hold steady at $5. You buy 100 bitcoins on Mt.Gox and use that to create your option on BitcoinOPX. You then place that option on sale with a price of $100, which you think is a good deal for having your money locked away for 1 year (20% return if you're right). user-B sees this option, but I'm a big believer in Bitcoin. I think 1 year from now they will be at least $20 each, probably more like $50. That means I would have the right to buy 100 bitcoins at a cost of $500 at Maturity. However, my projection is their true value would be 100 x $20 (or $50) = $2,000 (or $5,000). That's a profit of $1,500 (or $4,500) if I'm right. At that rate I think paying $100 for the option is a good deal. When you create the option the bitcoins are placed in escrow with an independent escrow service. This means all options can be settled, if need be, without BitcoinOPX in the picture at all (say if shut down for legal reasons). However, with things running normally, every Friday when options mature BitcoinOPX requests back the required number of bitcoins from BTCrow, and settles all member accounts appropriately. I hope that makes sense. Edit: I changed the above wording to a more logical thought pattern for profit from each user's perspective. This works with a call option but does not work with a put option. user-A (you) decide to create a PUT 100 option for 1 year from now, with strike price of $5. You don't think much about the value of bitcoins dropping. You think they will hold steady at $5 or maybe rise. You buy 100 bitcoins on Mt.Gox and use that to create your option on BitcoinOPX. You then place that option on sale with a price of $100, which you think is a good deal for having your money locked away for 1 year (20% return or more if you're right as your collateral bitcoins can also go up in value). user-B sees this option, but I'm a big believer in Bitcoin crashing. I think 1 year from now they will be no more than $0.004 each, probably more like $0.001 each. That means I would have the right to sell 100 bitcoins at a cost of $500 at Maturity. However, my projection is their true value would be 100 x $0.004 (or $0.001) = $0.40 (or $0.10). That's a profit of $499.60 (or $499.90) if I'm right. At that rate I think paying $100 for the option is a good deal. But there is a problem the collateral backing up my $499,60 or $499.90 profit is only worth $0.40 or $0.10 as the case me be. Ouch! Moral: You need to escrow USD and BTC not just BTC. |
|
|
|
There has been a similar service in Canada since 2003. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interac_e-Transfer All this shows is how far behind the US banks are when compared to their counterparts in other countries. This has little to do with Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
