|
2015 is the year of the stress tests and the block size debate.
I think the block size debate is the cause and that is what 2015 will be remembered by.
|
|
|
|
|
The title of this article is misleading.
Non-cash payments have definitely been increasing. That is because of the stage of development that these countries are in. They are slowly transitioning from cash payments to non-cash payments, with credit card payments growing significantly every year. Bitcoin still has only niche uses.
|
|
|
|
The article says that the warnings might have been triggered by the DDOS attacks on Russian banks, and the extortion attempts with payment in Bitcoins. That really shouldn't be a reason for the National Bank of Ukraine to start thinking negatively about Bitcoin. As long as it provides only 'warnings', bitcoin companies should be okay. |
|
|
|
Would you still use and believe in bitcoin if it became reversible, say if satoshi himself managed the disputes like paypal does?
Will you quit?
One person handling millions of disputes? Laws of which jurisdiction would apply? I wouldn't be interested in using the hypothetical centralized currency you mention. |
|
|
|
They will soon have to go to court for this action, because it's against the laws in that country to push out the competition.
They already have their excuses ready. They didn't close down accounts because Bitcoin is competition. It is because of this. lack of transparency and regulatory oversight raises a number of risks for users and also poses risks for the payments system, the integrity of the financial system and the erosion of the tax base |
|
|
|
|
As usual, it is the banks which are the pain points.
This coordinated move by banks against Bitcoin seems fishy. I doubt if it is only because of Bitcoin's potential crime links.
|
|
|
|
The equivalent of a stock split, is doubling the total number of bitcoins from 21 million to 42 million. That is not going to happen.  |
|
|
|
The graph is a joke. It is clear that Bitcoin is highly volatile, even when compared to the Latin American currencies such as the Brazilian Real and the Venezuelan Bolivar. For the last few weeks, Bitcoin has remained some-what stable (day-traders and short-sellers losing their interest in Bitcoin?). But that is not enough to claim that the Real is more volatile than the BTC.
Agreed. Why look at a 30-day average? Why not 60-day or 360-day average? Of course, if Bitcoin remains this way for months together, people might thing differently. They, however, won't be taking decisions only based on what has happened in the last 1 month. |
|
|
|
Alleged $32m Gemcoin crypto-bucks scam busted by FedsThe US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) says it has broken up an investment scam that defrauded citizens out of $32m by promising to mine minerals out of the ground – and pay out profits in cryptocurrency. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/02/gemcoins/ Yet another ponzi scheme. The only difference is that the payout was supposed to be in an altcoin. |
|
|
|
Simply don't understand why a bitcoin has any value at all. who was the first person that decided a bitcoin was worth trading for real cash?
The first people were just playing around with bitcoins. They believed that it could succeed, as a means to transfer value. Bitcoin now has the trust of a large community, and so it's price has risen (ignore the last 2 year time frame) from the initial stages. |
|
|
|
Derivatives are not dangerous per se. They were used in a dangerous way.  I believe innovation just cannot be stopped. Bitcoin (or some alt) will succeed in the future. It might just take longer if the government put up road blocks. |
|
|
|
A single framework is certainly easier to follow for businesses that are attracting customers around the globe (Coinbase, LocalBitcoins, etc.)
That would need different governments agreeing to the proposed framework. Not impossible, but governments are loathe to agree on something like this - which involves money and taxation. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin could disrupt banks warns Westpac boss Westpac Banking Corp chief Brian Hartzer describes bitcoin and the blockchain as "potentially disruptive" technologies which could be "quite powerful from an efficiency point of view" but says there's no need for banks to panic about being cut out from the monetary system because any impact will only come in the long term. http://www.afr.com/technology/bitcoin-could-disrupt-banks-warns-westpac-boss-20150908-gjhjnk We have come a long way - banks talk about the potential of Bitcoin, rather than dismissing it outright. Banks are really not the place where you expect technological novelties to be implemented quickly - given the regulations that they have to comply with. If they are exploring / experimenting, it is good news. |
|
|
|
The interest of big players in bitcoin is something we should cheer about, but it also makes me feel a bit paranoid, though BTCitcoin is the perfect coin for Remittance, a company like AXA might have a hidden agenda, just like the banks who are hopping onto the BTCitcoin train to get something out of it. Just to once again f* us all over and push us back to the drawing board because we failed at the attempt to take over the world..
It really matters. I believe in the free market. Competition would result in the best solution getting adopted. If Bitcoin makes remittance cheaper, I don't care if it is AXA (or any other company) which adopts it. Western Union and others will have to adapt or fade away. |
|
|
|
http://coinjournal.net/what-is-going-on-with-barclays-and-bitcoin-we-clear-up-the-noise/More info than the CCN article, clarifies exactly what the situation is with quotes from Barclays themselves. "We will be advising charities on how to use bitcoin, to make it work for them, to use it for fundraising and other activities, but none of that is going through any Barclays system, we don’t hold or accept bitcoin. [. . .] We are advising a charity on how to accept or use and make sense of the technology." This indeed makes sense. It won't be easy for banks to start dealing with Bitcoin, given the regulatory uncertainty. The first moves on Bitcoin will have to be made by a Central bank; the Commercial banks can act only then. |
|
|
|
With Bitcoin, the gov can't do manipulate, Bitcoin is transparant.
But i think there are the ways gov is do to refuse Bitcoin is:
- Made it illegal, it's means who do a transaction will be arrested, like bangladesh case CMIIW
- Made a regulation which the cost is high, like BitLicence
- Maybe some minions of gov hoards of Bitcoin which come from the crime, like police who hoards of bitcoin from the bitcoin crime
A pissed off government might end up doing all of the above, but I don't think any bitcoin user would worry about being arrested for making transactions as their ID will always be private, as long as they are not cashing out/trading in exchange for fiat. I don't think banning bitcoin would have an effect on bitcoin if grass root adoption takes place among people for btc, which seems very unrealistic at the moment. You don't need bitcoin adoption only among individuals. You need bitcoin adoption among corporates as well. And corporates try to stay on the right side of the law. |
|
|
|
|
We don't need Bitcoin ATMs.
We need widespread adoption, so that people don't feel the need to convert bitcoin into fiat.
Once we have that people will be able to obtain bitcoins very easily.
|
|
|
|
I found that interesting comment on reddit about that topic. What do you think? Is this a possible and good way Bitcoin might going to reach a bigger user base? Could you imagine being able to move money from fiat to bitcoin as easily as you move cash from checking to savings?
I envision very soon online banking having a savings, checking, and bitcoin line, with the ability to move funds between each seamlessly.
Sure there's a bit of reserve banking going on there, but it will definitely increase the demand for bitcoin in a non-zero amount.
If Barclays fully commits to this, they should have no problem managing this very effectively.
Let's get behind this because if the last 5 years has taught us anything it's that virtually no one is going to dump their checking accounts for full bitcoin dependency. This is the natural transition. Don't listen to the loony all-or-nothing libertarians around here; this is how bitcoin goes mainstream. There will be regulatory issues involved. Even if Barclays (or any other bank) wants to do this, you will have to look at the regulations in the jurisdiction in which they operate. Most regulators still frown upon Bitcoin. Your bank deposits are covered by insurance to a certain extent. Would insurers be willing to insure bitcoin losses? |
|
|
|
Bitcoin has truly arrived on the scene. Now even your grandmother can look up the dictionary and find the meanings of these words. It is no longer technical jargon, restricted to nerdy computer science types. |
|
|
|
This is not surprising. When a country's monetary and fiscal policies fail to keep inflation in control, people tend to look for alternatives. Brazil's inflation rate hit a 12-year high of 9.5% this month. No wonder, bitcoin volumes are surging. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
