|
I just received the annual Survey of GoldMoney where the usual things are asked (what can we improve, how much would you recommend us, etc), and guess what? There are some specific questions about Bitcoin:
12. How much are you interested in using Bitcoins for online transactions?
13. Please specify below which Bitcoin functionality you would like to use:
* Use Bitcoin to buy precious metals with GoldMoney
* Use GoldMoney to store Bitcoins in a secure wallet
* Other
(I note that the option "Use precious metals to buy bitcoins" is missing from the choices, though)
This means Bitcoin is very seriously being evaluated by them.
|
|
|
|
What a fantastic clip.
WOW I never heard about Katherine Mangu-Ward before and she will definitely be on my radar from now on :-) |
|
|
|
Wow, I check out bitcointalk after a while I hadn't the time to do it and I discover TMG and LR accepting bitcoins, this is a very, very welcome news  |
|
|
|
That's a very welcome move from Lew |
|
|
|
Al momento però non è così, e quindi fare prestiti in BTC è un rischio enorme. Ok, d'accordissimo, ma da come l'avevi messa sembrava una qualche impossibilità tecnica. Direi quindi semplicemente che non è vero che non può funzionare (posso ad esempio prendere un prestito in BTC per mettere in piedi un sito che frutta in BTC) ma semplicemente che non è conveniente, oppure che è molto rischioso. @Lang: grazie per i dettagli. Direi che quindi molto dipende dal costo per entrare nel circuito: hai detto che è proporzionale al giro d'affari (al fatturato) e non a quanto potrebbe essere il venduto all'interno del sistema sardex? Sono interessato a conoscere le cifre, se sono disponibili. Ad esempio con visiotrade paghi un rapporto di un decimo rispetto al numero di "eurocrediti" che acquisti. Grazie |
|
|
|
mi spiace per te ma Euro e Sardex sono due monete private !!! e questo le accomuna, ma caspita non sai leggere ?!?! possono avere modalità d'uso differenti ma appartengono comunque a persone giuridiche private ! non come il BTC che non appartiene a nessuno se non al proprietario del conto, e questa poi è la vera rivoluzione nessun soggetto può manipolare la moneta a suo piacimento Stai facendo un po' di confusione: non è il fatto di essere privato o meno che permette di manipolare la moneta a piacimento. L'oro è una moneta privatissima (le prime monete d'oro coniate da soggetti chiaramente privati esistono da migliaia di anni), ma il fatto stesso di usare quel materiale non permette di inflazionare la moneta. Anzi: a suo tempo accadeva che il proprietario di un po' d'oro che volesse coniare delle monete andava dal signore che aveva una zecca, gli dava l'oro ed otteneva un equivalente (in peso) numero di monete d'oro meno una piccola parte trattenuta per il lavoro di conio. Quella parte veniva chiamata diritto di signoraggio, ed era il pagamento del servizio fornito dal proprietario della zecca. Per tornare a Bitcoin, è una moneta privatissima (inventata da Nakamoto), ma che chiunque può usare liberamente, esattamente come i metalli preziosi (oro, argento, etc). A differenza di questi ultimi però, Bitcoin può essere utilizzata per le transazioni online in maniera molto più comoda e senza bisogno di intermediari. |
|
|
|
Salve a tutti, non riesco a postare sul vecchio thread, quindi riporto qui alcune delle domande che avrei fatto li. Senza dubbio! Infatti trovo che l'idea sia interessante proprio perché non è alternativa, ma semmai complementare: il credito con Bitcoin al momento non può funzionare, proprio a causa del valore ballerino. Il problema è "solo" se uno vuole restituire il prestito in euro, se invece uno restituisce in bitcoin la cosa è certamente possibile (e viene anche fatta). Poi è chiaro che se uno utilizza i BTC per convertirti in euro allora ha il rischio cambio, come del resto per qualunque valuta. Ma questo non toglie che ovviamente prestare i Bitcoin è certamente possibile. Mi è chiara l'idea di base (un "baratto" incrociato tra più persone e non limitato nel tempo), ma proprio questa possibilità di spostare nel tempo la restituzione del credito ricevuto (che corrisponde a tutti gli effetti un debito, seppure a tasso 0) mi fa chiedere: cosa impedisce ad una persona di contrarre debiti infiniti, o di rimandare il saldo alla fine dei tempi? Non conosco Sardex ma ho studiato a fondo http://www.visiotrade.it/ che a sua volta è stato creato a partire dal WIR, ti rispondo da quello che mi aspetto che sia: usando questo sistema di "crediti" (la parola a mio avviso è fuorviante, ed in un altro intervento proverò a spiegare il perchè) le transazioni vengono decise/fissate in tempo reale e quindi non si possono avere nè debiti nè crediti. In altre parole funziona così: tu acquisti dei sardex dall'azienda che li gestisce, entri quindi nel loro circuito (le altre aziende che hanno comprato sardex oppure che sono pronte a vendere in sardex) e puoi comprare da esse. Siccome usi il loro sistema per pagare, nel momento in cui effettui la transazione il pagamento (sardex) è avvenuto: viene scalato il numero di sardex a chi compra, ed al contrario per chi ha venduto. Il debito, eventualmente, lo puoi avere nei confronti dell'azienda che ti vende i sardex, se è disposta a farti credito (è loro interesse farlo, perchè il loro rischio è estremamente basso, vendendendoti una moneta che non gli costa nulla). Se c'è qualcuno esperto di Sardex sarei felice di avere correzioni in merito a quanto asserito perchè appunto io mi baso sul funzionamento di visiotrade/WIR. |
|
|
|
but MySQL will still implicitly order on the primary key column which is an auto-incremented integer. In other words oldest orders should get matched first. From my experience (and also from specifications) that's not true: if you want ordering on the primary key you have to specify it. If you don't specify any ordering then you can receive any order is easier for the dbms, and that's usually the order in which they are stored on disk: this depends on the history of insertion/deletion on that table (or db) |
|
|
|
|
Very good piece by Jon, right on spot.
|
|
|
|
in other words, you don't have to have defaults on the debt to have contraction of the money supply.
I would like to bring this topic up again b/c I feel it's not clear enough (for me, at least). What I would like to assert, and understand if it's correct, is that a default imply a contraction of the money supply only if the creditor is not the central bank. So, for example: if Alice has a loan on bank B and she defaults, the money supply is debased. But if Bank B has an even enormous loan with the central bank and it defaults no contraction of the money supply occurs. Does everyone agree on that? Thanks for any insight on the subject. |
|
|
|
I quote the text from this article, that seems very relevant to this community: At the request of the U.S. Secret Service, eBay has begun purging the online auction site of listings offering for sale Liberty Dollar medallions in gold, silver, platinum and copper.
Officials at eBay indicate the systematic removal beginning Nov. 29 of the listings is intended to conform with its policy implemented Feb. 20 banning the listing of counterfeits and replicas on eBay.com.
In emails sent by eBay to sellers whose listings for Liberty Dollars were canceled, officials at the online auction site expressed their regrets for having to take the action.
“The United States Secret Service has requested the removal of all Norfed Liberty dollars on the eBay site as counterfeits. ...
“Please do not relist this item(s).
“We appreciate that you chose to list this coin on our site and understand there was no ill intent on your part. Your listing fees have been credited to your account.”
Contacted by Coin World, eBay spokesman Ryan Moore offered the following comment: “The listings for Norfed Liberty Dollars have been removed as they have been deemed counterfeit by the United States Secret Service. Counterfeits are illegal and not welcome on any of eBay’s sites.”
NORFED is more formally known as the National Organization for the Repeal of the Federal Reserve Act and the Internal Revenue Code. The group issued Liberty Dollar medallions as an alternative to Federal Reserve notes, and advocated their commercial use.
Canceled eBay listings
Dave Gillie, who began buying and selling Liberty Dollars in 2001 and later became a regional currency officer for NORFED, said Dec. 5 that he had eight of his listings for Liberty Dollars canceled on Nov. 29.
Gillie still accepts Liberty Dollars at his Gillie’s Coney Island restaurant in Mount Morris, Mich., in payment for meals.
The dealer was perplexed by the government’s characterization of Liberty Dollars as counterfeits. Gillie said in a Dec. 5 email to Coin World that out of respect for eBay’s “coerced” decision he will not list Liberty Dollars for sale at the website until “they change their policy again.”
Gillie estimates he has sold and exchanged thousands of Liberty Dollars in the years he’s been involved with them. Gillie says he’s also purchased hundreds of Liberty Dollars from former NORFED regional currency officers leery about what legal action authorities could take against those own Liberty Dollars.
Liberty Dollars targeted
The Liberty Dollar, introduced in 1998 by its monetary architect, Bernard von NotHaus, was deemed counterfeit during a March 2011 federal trial in North Carolina. Von NotHaus was convicted on four counts involving the production and distribution of the Liberty Dollars. Von NotHaus has yet to be sentenced.
Von NotHaus billed Liberty Dollars as an alternative form of money for those who do not want to use Federal Reserve notes. Federal officials claimed the metallic Liberty Dollars violated federal counterfeiting laws.
Coin World contacted the U.S. Secret Service’s Office of Public Affairs in Washington, D.C., as well as the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Charlotte, N.C., for specific comments regarding the issues of ownership and sale of Liberty Dollars still in collector hands. As of Dec. 7, no responses had been given to Coin World.
In 2006, the U.S. Mint issued a press release stating that prosecutors at the Department of Justice determined that using Liberty Dollars as circulating money is a federal crime.
The Liberty Dollar was introduced by NORFED as a “private voluntary barter currency,” with the medallions exchanged for goods and services with merchants willing to accept them according to the stated face value on each.
Several questions remain unanswered by the Secret Service:
➤ Are the pieces legal to own, sell, distribute or even exhibit for educational purposes at a coin show or other venue?
➤ Will federal law enforcement authorities seek to seize any of the tens of thousands of Liberty Dollars still in private hands?
Collector interest
Liberty Dollars were issued in multiple sizes and stated face values, with the silver 1-ounce pieces being the most popular used in exchanges. Face values changed over the years as the price of silver rose.
The medals proved popular with collectors.
With von NotHaus’ March, 18, 2011, conviction, values for Liberty Dollars were driven higher still. The number of eBay sales for such pieces also rose subsequent to the court case.
The seizure by federal authorities in November 2007 of millions of the Liberty Dollars held in a third-party warehouse in Idaho effectively shut down von NotHaus’ Liberty Services.
NORFED had been dissolved in December 2006, and resurrected as Liberty Services, doing business as Liberty Dollar. ■
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your detailed article Evo, I find it right to the point.
I'm usually 100% with Jon but this time I think he is wrong.
Big time.
|
|
|
|
Is the website loading very slowly for anyone else? It takes like 5-10 seconds to load for me.
Yes, it's painfully slow for me too, almost to the point to be unusable. |
|
|
|
I largely agree, except that the final step isn't tiny and in my opinion won't happen on a global scale until exchange rates stabilize.
There will be no stabilization: bitcoin value will always go up in respect to fiat  So, SEPA sounds like a fast ACH. Most people in the US don't know what ACH is though. If I say to a European customer, "The best method to pay me will be probably making a SEPA transfer; here's my IBAN number.", are they going to know what I am talking about and not be reluctant to do it? SEPA is the standard way to transfer money between banks in Europe: not only it's known to everybody (maybe with a different name in every country) but the law forces the cost of the transaction to be the same for in-country or between countries. So if you have a contract with your bank which gives you free bank transfers in your country, by law the bank must give you free transfers in all the EU zone (like mine). |
|
|
|
|
It's nice to know that someone begins to grasp the implication of such a different currency system.
(as always, thanks Julz for your precise summary)
|
|
|
|
this is why banks so strongly resist taking the writedowns as it would wipe them out. this is why they are letting delinquent homeowners live rent/mortgage free for years on end. this is what is happening to Greece and the Northern European banks; the ECB keeps extending loan packages to enable the Greeks to repay their loans to these banks. it isn't sustainable as you can't solve a debt problem with more debt.
I undestand this but... I undestand also that central banks can keep extending loans ad libitum because they have no limits and no constraints (not really, anyway). So I guess it depends on who is the lender: while a normal bank or financial institution has to make his balance sheet work otherwise it can go bankrupt (as Lehman Bros), central banks have not, and they can do whatever they want, for any amount of time they desire: creating money for them is free, since it's their job. |
|
|
|
Media, let's say, nourishes itself on scandals.
And what's more scandalous that the currency systems we all are using? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
