The first question is why do people still use cash, and more importantly who uses it and why? There are two very important surveys in the United States . The first is that “some 29 percent of poll respondents reported that they do not have a credit card, according to the scientific poll, conducted Feb. 5-7, 2010, for CreditCards.com. That was a sharp increase -- more than 10 percentage points -- from the number of respondents who reported having no credit cards in June 2009 (19 percent)” This is from: http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/poll-1-in-10-americans-gives-up-loses-credit-cards-1276.php The second is The 2009 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households http://www.economicinclusion.gov/household_survey.html The results are again telling “ “An estimated 7.7 percent of U.S. households, approximately 9 million, are unbanked. At least 17 million adults reside in these unbanked households. In addition, unbanked adults may also reside in other households” “In addition to the unbanked households, an estimated 17.9 percent of U.S. households, roughly 21 million, are underbanked. The number of adults that reside in these underbanked households is about 43 million” The simple reality is that close to 30% of adult US residents do not have a credit card and a sizable percentage of those do not even have a bank account!. These results are for the United States one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Just imagine for example what the results would be if similar surveys for example were conducted in parts of Africa. What do these people do? Simple they will use cash and will likely continue to use cash so until either the electronic payments industry figures out a way to issue merchant accounts to the poor, destitute, and homeless or poverty is completely eliminated worldwide. So where is the real opportunity for Bitcoin? If one considers in person transactions it is a very tough sell. Bitcoin is competing with Cash, Credit Cards, Debit Cards, and in some cases Cheques, Traveller's Cheques etc. The reality is that a briks and mortar merchant is not going to attract that many new customers by accepting Bitcoin. The really huge opportunity for Bitcoin here is in eCommerce where the only practical competition is Credit Cards. Try buying products or service on-line without a Credit Card. In the United States alone that means close to 30%of the adult population cannot in most cases purchase on-line. For the on-line merchant accepting Bitcoin is a no brainier. Furthermore the customer without a Credit Card will figure out a way to get Bitcoin if that is their only option to purchase the product or service. There is also huge opportunity for some bricks and mortar business in selling Bitcoin for Cash as close to 30% of the population will want to obtain Bitcoin to purchase on-line. The challenge for the Bitcoin community is to first go after the low hanging fruit left behind by the Banks and Credit Card Companies, that in the United States very likely has just lost lost a home to foreclosure and has a FICO score of 350. |
|
|
|
|
This is an excellent idea. As someone who has travelled internationally on many occasions I can really see the value of this for both the merchant and the traveller. Who wants to fiddle around with foreign cash or hand your credit card to an unknown taxi driver in a foreign country? From driver's perspective who wants to accept a credit card from some unknown foreign country. There is a reason why many merchants do not wish to accept credit cards from many parts of the world. What is the driver to do before Bitcoin refuse to take the fare based on the passenger's country of origin?
|
|
|
|
Calling those systems cryptosystems is a strectch. The fact that the researchers were able to attack it by extracting the cipher means it was operating under "security through obscurity". Real cryptographic systems don't. In building a cryptographic system you should not only expect but ASSUME the attacker will have EVERYTHING except the private key/data. He has all public data, copies of other plaintext, copies of other cipher text, all initialization vectors, complete understanding of the algorithm and the system, whitepapers, all other cryptographic analysis and .... the system should STILL BE SECURE. With SHA-256 there is nothing to "find". Here is the representation of 1 round of the SHA-256 hash (64 rounds for final hash):  Here are the functions:     Here are the eight h values: 0x6a09e667, 0xbb67ae85, 0x3c6ef372, 0xa54ff53a, 0x510e527f, 0x9b05688c, 0x1f83d9ab, 0x5be0cd19 Here are the 64 k values: 0x428a2f98, 0x71374491, 0xb5c0fbcf, 0xe9b5dba5, 0x3956c25b, 0x59f111f1, 0x923f82a4, 0xab1c5ed5,
0xd807aa98, 0x12835b01, 0x243185be, 0x550c7dc3, 0x72be5d74, 0x80deb1fe, 0x9bdc06a7, 0xc19bf174,
0xe49b69c1, 0xefbe4786, 0x0fc19dc6, 0x240ca1cc, 0x2de92c6f, 0x4a7484aa, 0x5cb0a9dc, 0x76f988da,
0x983e5152, 0xa831c66d, 0xb00327c8, 0xbf597fc7, 0xc6e00bf3, 0xd5a79147, 0x06ca6351, 0x14292967,
0x27b70a85, 0x2e1b2138, 0x4d2c6dfc, 0x53380d13, 0x650a7354, 0x766a0abb, 0x81c2c92e, 0x92722c85,
0xa2bfe8a1, 0xa81a664b, 0xc24b8b70, 0xc76c51a3, 0xd192e819, 0xd6990624, 0xf40e3585, 0x106aa070,
0x19a4c116, 0x1e376c08, 0x2748774c, 0x34b0bcb5, 0x391c0cb3, 0x4ed8aa4a, 0x5b9cca4f, 0x682e6ff3,
0x748f82ee, 0x78a5636f, 0x84c87814, 0x8cc70208, 0x90befffa, 0xa4506ceb, 0xbef9a3f7, 0xc67178f2
There are no secrets. Every part of the code is publicly available and has been vetted by cryptographers around the world. So what does the failure of GMR mean? "Security through obscurity is no security at all" is still alive and well. One would think after 3 decades of near continual hacks, breaks, and attacks on weak systems (WEP, GSM, CSS, etc) involving "obscurity" that companies would learn but they likely never will. I could not agree more. The cracked systems are in reality a form of DRM and not cryptography based any sound mathematical principals. Bitcoin has nothing to fear from this any more that than from the cracking of the latest DRM promoted by the MPAA or RIAA. Security by obscurity is digital snake oil; however it is a multi billion dollar digital snake oil business, protected by legislation in many parts of the world. Its most popular application is of course DRM. |
|
|
|
|
I would present Bitcoin as complementary to gold rather than as a replacement of gold, while focusing on both the similarities between Bitcoin and gold and also how Bitcoin can complement gold for example for long distance small transactions over the Internet.
|
|
|
|
Buy flowers not guns!
Funny that you mention that because the Terms of Service have some rather interesting conditions: "Additionally please keep in mind that: There are currently no federal restrictions on the sale of high capacity magazines, but several states do have their own restrictions. Repair kits may be shipped to states with high capacity magazine bans. This allows customers to repair magazines that they already legally own. California: Any magazine over 10 round capacity cannot be sold and only repair kits will be shipped. New Jersey: Any magazine over 15 round capacity cannot be sold and only repair kits will be shipped. New York: Any magazine over 10 round capacity manufactured after Sept 1994 cannot be sold and only repair kits will be shipped. (Note all magazines on BitcoinForFlowers.com were produced after Sept 1994 unless specified.) Maryland: Any magazine over 20 round capacity cannot be sold and only repair kits will be shipped. Massachusetts: Any magazine over 10 round capacity cannot be sold and only repair kits will be shipped. Hawaii: Any handFlowers magazine over 10 round capacity cannot be sold and only repair kits will be shipped. Rifle magazines are ok. Exceptions: High capacity magazines can be shipped to properly licensed resalers and law enforcement officers in these states with a copy of their high capacity magazine permit or LEO ID. Documentation should be emailed to tradebitcoin at gmail dot com. The above chart lists state restrictions currently known to BitcoinForFlowers.com on the sale of high capacity magazines. BitcoinForFlowers.com has carefully compiled this list but does not make any guaranty to its completeness. It is the responsibility of the buyer to ascertain and obey all applicable local, state, and federal laws in regard to the possession, use, and sale of any item or purchased from BitcoinForFlowers.com." source: http://bitcoinforflowers.com/?page=tosAre magazines included with each purchase of flowers or are they sold separately?  I wondered about this too. also does the restriction of shipments out side the United States apply also to the flowers or just the guns? The laws regarding shipping flowers and guns internationally I understand are very different. |
|
|
|
|
If I wish to transfer fiat Canadian or United States dollars in or out of a Canadian bank account to Crypto X Change what is the process and how long does it take?
|
|
|
|
From what you wrote further down, Bit-Pay is taking the currency risk fully, since the merchant is guaranteed to get his gross payout (minus the tiny fee of 0.99% as written at your homepage). I assume you are limiting your risk to the 15 minutes acceptance period, or even to the considerable smaller one from starting the period until you notice the transaction (i.e. after maybe 3 minutes you sell the amount being transmitted from your operational deposit at MtGox and redeem them when the transaction is approved). Even with some great trading discount at the exchanges I hardly can see how your business model is profitable. But for sure it is  What is bothering me more with the currency risk is, how do you handle the following obvious attack scheme: assume me (or some automated bot) being the evil guy acting as merchant (using Bit-Pay) and buyer at the same time. Now I order some imaginary expensive stuff and let you calculate the amount in BTC. I let the acceptance period nearly pass and check BTC/USD rate change. If it went up, I won't pay ('sorry, serious technical problems etc.'). I'll repeat this until rate drops by more than 2% within an acceptance period. This time I accept, send the coins and by them immediately back at some exchange. Bottom line: you lost 1%, me and exchange won 0.5% each. Repeat. Profit.  I'm not really evil and eager enough to try this out, but am pretty sure you implemented means to prevent this. Good Luck! Zefir our rate of 0.99% is for merchants who use our automated order processing, and take the bitcoins directly. If we assume all currency risk, exchange, and fiat transfer, we do all that for 2.99%. so there is more padding for us in there, but added costs and risks for us to absorb as well. And we would notice anyone trying to game the system with using our system to buy a 15-minute put option. I found using the Bit-Pay system to purchase Bitcoin Magazine a simple, professional and pleasant experience. It was my first purchase of anything with Bitcoins. Copy and pasting a Bitcoin address takes a lot less time and effort than entering a credit card number, cv2 codes, and in many cases having to re-enter the address and phone number etc. The big plus of course is for the many people who do not have have a credit card. The latter by the way is a huge untapped market in eCommerce for Bitcoin. One thing I must add is that for a merchant entering transactions into their own shopping cart in an attempt to "game" the system is a big no-no with the competition and will cost the merchant their merchant account in no time. I suspect the situation will no be different with Bit-Pay. As for Bitcoin Magazine, I suspect this first issue will soon become a valuable collectors item if Bitcoin reaches even a fraction of its potential. |
|
|
|
Regarding DRM--- The unofficial direction we're started to push towards is:
1) A version for kindle that is 95% similar to the print version as per their requirements
2) An Apple newsstand version that is also 95% similar to the print version but less than 95% like the Kindle version
3) An Android version that is also 95% similar to the print version but less than 95% like the kindle or Apple versions.
4) A web version downloadable in PDF or viewable on the site that is less than 95% like the Kindle, Apple, or Android versions.
Regarding languages:
A) An English print version printed and distributed in USA and mailable internationally.
B) A German digital version distributed separately.
C) A Spanish digital version distributed separately.
D) An Italian digital version distributed separately.
E) A Portuguese digital version distributed separately.
We will expand as allowed and these are all long term goals. Just thought everyone would want to know which way the wind is blowing.
Just purchased. PS: I have loathed DRM since before many members of this community were born. |
|
|
|
I'm looking into this right now. Last I checked, selling something on the Kindle for example required that no other digital copy be available. I need to see if simply offering different 'versions' of our magazine would suffice.
That was exactly what I was trying to get at: If you use DRM, you aren't the publisher anymore; you are the author. The DRM vendor wants to lock your readers into their proprietary platform. Of course they don't want you releasing a superior product at the same time! I didn't see the bigger picture. I do now. There is no way we are taking a part of that nonsense. If we make the decision to go mainstream using the well-built assets of major companies like Amazon, Apple, Google, etc, we'll make a legally-different version for each. I would suggest one version of the magazine and I would not paint all the mainstream stores with the same brush. If they do not require exclusive digital rights (I do not believe that Android Market and possibly iTunes do, but check the rules first) then there is no reason to avoid those channels as long as a DRM free version is also available to those paid subscribers that desire it. Now for my question. If I purchase the print and digital bundle, first issue or one year subscription, does that include a DRM free .pdf digital file for each the issues I purchased within 60 days of the publication of each issue? |
|
|
|
If you want to sell DRM encumbered content for example via Apple iTunes, then at least make sure that it is also available to GNU / Linux users who are using 100% Free Software at the same time and also make a DRM unencumbered copy of the content available to your paid subscribers at no additional cost within a reasonable period of time say one or two months.
I'm looking into this right now. Last I checked, selling something on the Kindle for example required that no other digital copy be available. I need to see if simply offering different 'versions' of our magazine would suffice. UPDATE: Looks like we're moving for a Spanish version of the magazine as soon as Issue #2. If anyone has any recommendations for a cheap way to get this done, please contact me. Quite independently of the DRM issue an exclusive right on a digital copy makes no sense at all. It is your magazine but, I would not give exclusive digital rights to anyone Apple, Amazon etc. |
|
|
|
Yes it will be pirated with and without DRM, but that will not prevent the Magazine for being successful.
That to me smells of speculation. If it were even remotely true, people would't be using DRM in the first place. On the other hand if I have to license specific propriety software and / or hardware from Microsoft, Apple, Amazon etc in order to be able to read it for a limited time, [...] than I am not.
We won't have a time limit. You bought what you bought. It's yours. Time limits used to be used as a way to help differ hosting costs, but when the file is a download to your mobile phone for example, why would we care? The whole plan is not crystal clear yet to me either as I am rather new to this. I will tell you that we are planning for: - iTunes newsstand
- Android
- Kindle
- BitcoinMagazine.net direct view
I haven't checked yet, but I have reason to believe none of those purchasing mediums would give you a timeline, and even if they did (like what, a whole year?) we would just give it to you again for free on request. If that's not good enough, then we're arguing about free vs paid and we go back to my original statement that we simply haven't figured it out yet. We need to gauge interest, pay for printing+shipping, then we can see about making things better for everyone involved. I really appreciate your passion and if you have any suggestions, I am more than willing to play Devil's Advocate. To understand why DRM does not work one simply needs to look at the myths regarding DRM. Myth 1: DRM Prevents Copyright Infringement To debunk this myth one simply needs to visit ThePirateBay.org and look at those torrents that point to infringing content. In almost all cases the original content was released with some form of DRM. The torrent comments with typically have the crack of the DRM unless the DRM has already being stripped from the content. It even gets more interesting if the DRM is particularly restrictive and vile your content may make the top 100 most downloaded torrents on ThePirateBay. I saw this phenomenon a few years back with a game that had a particularly nasty form of DRM. By the way getting your content on the top 100 most downloaded torrents on ThePirateBay gives the publisher very valuable free exposure. So if the objective is to get free exposure by deliberately inducing copyright infringement of your work, then this is the one and only scenario where DRM actually makes sense. Myth 2: Selling propriety digital content without DRM is equivalent to giving it away for free. This is a very common myth that is used to sell the DRM snake oil. The best example of why this is wrong is the history of Microsoft. Between 1985 and 2000 Microsoft sold is software without DRM, yet this is the period of time when the Microsoft millions and billions were made. So if Microsoft was giving their software for free where did the millions and billions come from. Since 2000 when Microsoft turned to the dark side and embraced DRM the stock has gone nowhere. The fortunes were made before the company embraced DRM no afterwards. In the 1980's and 1990's DRM consisted of among other things deliberately creating bad sectors on 5.25in floppy disks. It was called "copy protection" in those days and the term DRM was created for marketing reasons. Myth 3: DRM content is permanent and not time limited. This is a huge myth that actually leads to outright fraud. The trouble is that technological change makes the DRM content unreadable after only few years. I have digital files that are over 30 years old. They were originally created using IBM punch cards, yet are completely readable today on my brand new laptop. I also installed a 20 year old propriety Windows program on my brand new laptop from its original media, 5.25in floppies. It works fine only because the original media were not infected with DRM in the day by the publisher. I also have books that are over 300 years old. So please if you sell digital content with any form of DRM, and that includes Apple iTunes, Amazon Kindle etc., at least be honest with your customers and warn them it is not permanent. Myth 4: DRM does not hurt legitimate paying customers. The biggest harm to the customer comes down the road long after any potential harm to the publisher can occur. In many cases a customer will purchase a content license under the understanding it is permanent when in fact it is not for the reasons I stated above. In my opinion this is fraud pure and simple. Another harm to the customer is that in many cases DRM forces the customer use Windows over GNU / Linux. I do suspect that the proportion of GNU / Linux users among Bitcoin users is much higher than the general population. Myth 5: DRM must work because companies use it The reality is that the strongest proponents of DRM are those whose business models belong in the 19th Century, and not in the 20th or 21st Centuries. It was is nothing more to attempt to turn back the clock to the 1890's when content was placed on an Edison Cylinder or a Player Piano roll and distributed around the world by sailing ship. Lets us not forget that Universal Studios, a major proponent of DRM, went to court in an attempt to ban the VCR, and then Macrovision was developed as a way to infect VHS tapes with DRM. DRM is not new. It has been around, and failed for a long time. Now for some suggestions: 1) Do not force your print subscribers to pay for a DRM infected digital copy by bundling both together. If you wish to provide them with with a digital copy then treat your customers with respect and provide them with a DRM free .pdf. 2) If you want to sell DRM encumbered content for example via Apple iTunes, then at least make sure that it is also available to GNU / Linux users who are using 100% Free Software at the same time and also make a DRM unencumbered copy of the content available to your paid subscribers at no additional cost within a reasonable period of time say one or two months. |
|
|
|
Has anyone uploaded the digital copy to a Torrent site yet?  And actually, I was curious about this Matthew - what stance will you take on piracy? Are you fine with people sharing the digital copy with each other, knowing that it will happen regardless? Or are you going to attempt to fight it somehow? I don't represent everyone at the magazine or BitTalk Media with the following comment, so take this with a grain of salt. I personally think that if we have a magazine that is easily stealable, then it deserves to be stolen. We're not going to be giving out a pdf file for example. On another note, I believe in the power of community. The only people ripping this magazine off would be those with absolutely no money and no thought of supporting the magazine- in which case they have their reasons and I appreciate that. There is a dangerous line between print and digital though, and I want to make sure that the actions of digital release never complicate the print release. I have no problem with giving the digital away for absolutely free-- it's the fact that we'd have no revenue to print the physical issues that would be the problem. Whatever we decide, everyone will find out at the same time as we're planning on Android, iPhone and general Web releases as well. I am also very open to suggestions for how to handle it (please, nothing like "Pay with a Tweet") and still keep the magazine alive. Here is my question: If I purchase the print plus digital edition in what format will the digital edition be? If it is a .pdf file, that is not infected with DRM, which I can read with the operating system and software of my choosing now and in the future then I am interested. On the other hand if I have to license specific propriety software and / or hardware from Microsoft, Apple, Amazon etc in order to be able to read it for a limited time, because of some DRM scheme that will in any case be broken within months if it has not already being broken than I am not. As far as I am concerned DRM is a deal breaker on any digital product regardless of the currency used to pay for it. Yes it will be pirated with and without DRM, but that will not prevent the Magazine for being successful. |
|
|
|
Bribery is legal in the US, it's called "lobbying".
There is a major difference between lobbying and bribery, and bribing or attempting to bribe public officials is not legal in the United States. |
|
|
|
I always hated megaupload, but it sucks that its government action that took them down
Eh, they're just looking for someone to sue. I doubt MegaUpload did anything much different from the plethora of other similar file-hosting sites. If you bothered to read the actual indictment then you'd know that they did do things differently from other file-hosting sites. For a start, they paid users for uploading illegally obtained files and then charged other users for downloading them. They also knowingly and quite deliberately failed to comply with take-down requests (the emails show the extent to which this was intentional) by not actually removing content. Kim Schmitz is a nasty piece of work who's been prosecuted in the past for credit card fraud, embezzlement and insider trading (to name a few). You're incredibly naive if you don't believe that he intentionally used the model he did so that users would be the ones at risk of prosecution and that the business itself could claim safe harbour. Fortunately, he's not as smart as he likes to think he is - he also recently lost a copyright infringement action brought by a porn distributor. File-hosting sites will never gain legitimacy unless people like Kim Schmitz are prosecuted. He's not some kind of free speech champion - he'd have assumed the legal risk himself if he was instead of operating in a manner he thought made him immune to prosecution while transferring that risk to his users. He's a scum-bag opportunist who has always sought to enrich himself at the expense of others and international conspiracy charges couldn't happen to someone more deserving. I have read the indictment and it is fair to say that this is no "dancing baby" copyright case. It will be interesting to see if the United States Government will be able to prove this in court, in particular the part about the $500,000,000 in losses. If they can make this criminal case stick, I have no sympathy for Mr. Dotcom and his co conspirators. Interestingly the fact that these people could make so much money of pirated content serves to demonstrate how wrong the big copyright business models really are. |
|
|
|
I agree that. Most of our profits come from 2:5 traders and 5:1 traders. Not only 10:1 traders lost a lot themselves during volatile periods, we lost a lot due to market slippage as well.
Which begs the question as to why you are offering 10:1 leverage for small accounts under your new proposal? The proposal is a step in the right direction; however given the volatility of Bitcoin I would suggest at most 2.5:1 leverage for everyone regardless of account size. I am not a Bitcoinica customer by the way. |
|
|
|
The issue with SOPA is that even though it is a UnitedR States domestic law it has a huge impact outside the United States. While US citizens can and should contact their members of Congress, those that are not US citizens on the surface have no say. The reality is that those that are not US citizens can have a major impact by targeting those corporations and labour organisations that support SOPA. The list is here: http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/Rogue%20Websites/List%20of%20SOPA%20Supporters.pdf. How many are prepared to boycott the Superbowl over the National Football League's support of SOPA or make the point of crossing a Teamsters' picket line over the International Brotherhood of Teamsters' support of SOPA for example? The recent Go Daddy boycott has already shown that targeting supporters can and does have an impact. As for bitcoin.org I would say no. There is nothing wrong with keeping the "official" site politically neutral. The discussion of this issue in the forum can accomplish a lot more. SOPA by the way may actually benefit Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is revolutionary because it is decentralized, with no single point of control or failure. However, over the last six months or so it has become obvious to me that the rest of the world isn't set up to interact with a radically decentralized system like Bitcoin, and I think forming a not-for-profit organization will be a positive step towards Bitcoin's long-term success. I'm posting this to see if there is a consensus on what a Bitcoin Foundation should be. To get the conversation started, here are some functions I think a Bitcoin Foundation could perform: - Interact with the legal system, where a centralized entity is needed: for example, to hold the Bitcoin trademark, own/control the bitcoin.org domain name, etc.
- Act as a central library for accurate information about Bitcoin, so journalists and policymakers have an 'official' place to learn about Bitcoin.
- Collect donations to fund infrastructure necessary for Bitcoin's growth (organize regular developers' conferences or get-togethers maybe? pay for development of cross-implementation testing tools? pay core developers' salaries? create a certification/testing program for Bitcoin implementations? create a central clearinghouse for information about legal issues surrounding Bitcoin across the world?)
Other not-for-profit organizations that could be emulated: - The Anti-Phishing Working Group (the APWG's chairman, David Jevans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Jevans, is willing to help make a Bitcoin Foundation happen).
- The Tor Project
- The Apache Software Foundation
Are there others that work well, or are there examples of what NOT to do? Assuming there is rough consensus that a Bitcoin Foundation is a good idea, I would like to get something imperfect up and running quickly, with the expectation that it will evolve over time. I like the idea. David Jevens is the kind of person one wants on board by the way. One suggestion is to encourage the creation of sister organisations in different jurisdictions that are loosely, in that they share similar objectives, but are not legally related. This is similar to the relationship between the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and its sister organisations Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE), Free Software Foundation Latin America (FSFLA), FSF France, Free Software Foundation of India etc. The idea is to avoid a single point of failure at the Foundation / Association / Organisation level. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
