i have nothing against mtgox. i think more active exchanges would be good. i think multiple active exchanges, a p2p option, and a large amount of face to face (including retail) exchange would be optimal.
This is why bitcoin should build up presence in New Hampshire! Concentrate bitcoin in one location, and you get a lot of face to face usage and stronger network effect that will begin to spread across NH's border! |
|
|
|
Geeze…where do you start? This is was immediately comes to mind.
- slashdot's first report of dollar parity
- loss of 25k bitcoins by allinvain
- Chuck Schumer's press release about silk road and bitcoin
- mtgox hack sending the price of bitcoin to close to zero (from the mid $20's at the time)
- bitcoin7 accidentally losing all their bitcoins
- mybitcoin disappearance
- Dwolla/TradeHill scandal (when it first broke)
We need good news too! |
|
|
|
Gox is pioneering, you say? If you call pioneering to buying something that already exists(MtGox was bought) and copying bit-pay, only integrated into their exchange, then yes, they are pioneering...  I usually listen to what you say and agree with you, but pioneering, really?  Well, MtGox was beaten when the first bitcoin exchange appears. MtGox won by being more convenient than others. They're also one of the first to implement mutli-factor authentication. Now they're competing with bitpay, which provide competition. Not exactly original, but winners are often decided on execution, not the most original idea. |
|
|
|
Again, there is all the difference in the world between "forced, coercive centralization" and "voluntary, market-based centralization." There should probably be different terms for each, because it leads to terrible confusion. So long as Bitcoin isn't heading toward the former, it is nothing like the dragon we're trying to slay.
Such market centralization often trade convenience for resiliency. I prefer to err a little bit on the safe side, but that's not what the market decide. Anyway, I think resiliency will come from having a stronger market. Right now, we're still peanuts. |
|
|
|
And again, market-based (voluntary) centralization shouldn't get anyone upset. Strategically, it'd be nice to have more, but any of you who are concerned with Gox's market share is very free to use other exchanges, or make your own.
Strategically, that should be our main focus. It what allows the bitcoin system to survive hit after hit and keep on running. Keep in mind that mtgox and other exchanges were absorbing failed exchanges. It's proof of our resilience. But to survive and to thrive, we need more, and much more. |
|
|
|
Many thoughts running through my mind after reading this. Considering shorting BTC. Dwolla probably relies a lot on Bitcoin-related businesses for revenue, but all the trouble they're having might push them toward dumping all Bitcoin-businesses as Paxum did instead of fixing their problems. Dwolla's a pretty small start-up... Hopefully they can't afford to dis-associate from Bitcoin. I know a LOT of people who use Dwolla. It's pretty darn close to free for US citizens to get cash into an exchange, and it's the only method I've ever used to transfer money into reserves. So close to seeing a sustained push through $5, too. Hmm.
Either way - good luck, TH.
We're a small portion of their business now and they are never really part of our community to begin with. |
|
|
|
From all of my experiences with Dwolla it seems like they act like a corporation, have no sense of humility, and resembles PayPal.
Many of us have been through the TradeHill fiasco last year. From what I know about TradeHill they seem to have a lot of integrity since I've seen them in videos, in the forum posts, and in emails.
Yeah. They're real communicators and owe up to their mistakes. Corporation are to me, highly defaced, zero authenticity, every single channel managed by PR, etc. When people shout at the corporations, the corporation doesn't seem to reply and keep doing the same thing oblivious to people's problem. I like people who actually talk to their customer, very casual, and no nonsense. That's reassuring to me. |
|
|
|
It's voluntary centralization so I don't care. If they screw us over, we are all free to go somewhere else. Until this choice exists I don't really mind their share of the market.
Doesn't mean that our situation can be improved. The point of decentralization is resilience, after all. |
|
|
|
Here we go, publicity! Hope to see an article on this in ArsTechnica....
I wish we can get some positive publicity for a change. |
|
|
|
To anyone that has money with BtcBuckets, please withdraw it at your convenience. The money will not be sent immediately! I have to do that manually, but I can't know where you want the money to go until you try to send it somewhere.
Thank you all for trusting me with your money and I'm sorry things had to end this way.
EDIT: Please be advised that the home page is disabled. Just go directly to your bucket.
Hmm. Can you tell us what's going on? |
|
|
|
We wanted to keep operating and hold on to the domain but it just wasn't possible. Ideally it wouldn't have mattered that we had that obligation but things changed when we lost the funds. We weren't able to innovate and had to cut all the features / employees we had planned. I've personally blown all my savings to stay afloat.
Does that mean you're going to provide services as planned in bitcoin.com? If not, what will happen? Anyway, wish you best of luck and the most expeditious lawsuit as possible. |
|
|
|
Is this an anti-MtGox thread?
I don't take it as that. I don't have anything against Mt Gox personally at all. What I don't like and I think everyone will agree is having a single point of failure in Bitcoin. Anyone is capable of making mistakes or having really bad luck / target of a crackdown etc. If Mt Gox fails and is doing 5% of the Bitcoin exchanges taking place then it's tolerable. If they're doing 95% (not counting OTC) and fail then the blow to Bitcoin is huge. It's not that it can't be recovered but it would be devastating and becomes more likely as the monopoly makes them a target. I don't care what company it is, we don't benefit from a monopoly. -Jered They are so good that they basically become a monopoly in itself. Maybe, they don't offer the best services in the world and so on, but it is very attractive and as bitcoin grow, so does mtgox's strength. Also Mtgox's strength also come from the owner's pre-existing hosting business, allowing them to bankroll mtgox's growth. I think the best way to achieve this is to increase liquidity between all the exchanges, like what bitinstant is doing right now. This ease the ability of exchanges' ability to compete and differentiate. If MtGox is forward thinking and willing, they should cooperate because it is in the collective interest of bitcoiners to do so. They might have to compete harder now and in the future, but if they're good entrepreneurs, they should welcome the challenge. |
|
|
|
As a result of these losses, TradeHill was unable to pay its employees and was forced to shut down exchange operations on February 13, 2012. We did not want to do this. We believe in Bitcoin and greatly enjoyed being involved in the community in such an integral way. Though we had hoped to continue different business operations on bitcoin.com, we were contractually obligated to return that domain name (along with bitcoin.co and bitcoin.co.nz) once we stopped operating as an exchange. As such, bitcoin.com is no longer owned and operated by TradeHill.
I am extremely surprised. As far as I know, you did not disclose to us that the bitcoin.com domain have a constructional obligation tied into it until today. Now, it simply redirect to bitcoin.org. Who is the owner of this bitcoin.com and what are they going to do with it? Is it satoshi. |
|
|
|
|
I hope the lawsuit end as expeditiously as possible, or otherwise, only the lawyers will win.
|
|
|
|
- lots of gold-owners in the crowd
- "Creating something completely different from scratch is something very hard to do" <- let me quote JFK: "we choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard". and also: dude, we kinda did it already, didn't we?
- how would this gold-based currency "idea" of yours work online and why are pecunix and e-gold (started early last decade) not reaching the tipping point yet, then?
- I agree that Thiel did not do his homework on bitcoin.
Yeah, nobody use gold for anything BUT storing it as wealth protection. |
|
|
|
|
They should obviously looks for way to automate the whole send and receive thing. If it's microbitcoin they're dealing with, they can even afford to have only a 10 BTC hot wallet for instant transfer outside and withdrawal.
|
|
|
|
|
What revenue you derive from this project?
|
|
|
|
WICKED COOL!  Anyway, bitcoiners foresee this a long time ago. We just didn't know who's going to execute it. |
|
|
|
All of you are missing the point. China violates IP laws left and right. If you are tied up to dollars who is there to sue you? It seems like there is no such thing as international court that can say "China, bad!" I am considering bitcoin in this light. Your pie/apples examples are stupid, because no IP dealer would consider trading in a currency like that.
So what? The Chinese are not doing anything bad. |
|
|
|
|
Why don't you make it a policy to distribute CC content and not any of the products produced by those big corp?
By not sharing big evil media corp's content, you're effectively boycotting them.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
