The future of Bitcoin is illegal

[Roger_Murdock]

And the claim has NOT been made that BTC is currently useful for the "average joe".  It is not useful for him... today. Just as the internet was not useful to the average joe in 1995.

I'd qualify that and argue that Bitcoin IS currently useful to the average Joe at least as a store of value / inflation hedge (the same way that gold is useful to the average Joe). It's just that the average Joe has yet to recognise that fact.

[1713961005]

1713961005

[1713961005]

1713961005

[1713961005]

1713961005

[Roger_Murdock]

No, you are redefining supply to mean something completely different, as it suits you.  The coins are still there, and people will work hard to get any money from them at all, because noone are going to want them.  Do you think Bitcoin would be more valuable if it were much harder to buy them?  Because that's what you are writing.  So far every new exchange and service has made the price go up.  Demand increases as the coins get more liquid and easier to buy and sell.  You seem to think the value will increase if all exchanges close, and you have to find a miner on the street to buy a coin.  And when you get it, you can only use it to buy something illegal.  This does not make sense anywhere but in your own head.  Back in the time when this forum was the only exchange for Bitcoin, a pizza would cost 10,000 BTC.

The definition I'm using is pretty standard:

Economists have a very precise definition of supply. Economists describe supply as the relationship between the quantity of a good or service consumers will offer for sale and the price charged for that good. More precisely and formally supply can be thought of as "the total quantity of a good or service that is available for purchase at a given price." Supply is not simply the number of an item a shopkeeper has on the shelf, such as '5 oranges' or '17 pairs of boots,' because supply represents the entire relationship between the quantity for sale and all possible prices charged for that good.

I've already said that I think making Bitcoin illegal would probably reduce its price, but that's because I think the leftward shift in the demand curve would "overpower" the rightward shift in the supply curve. Again, the coins would come to rest somewhere at the time the ban goes into effect. (Of course, to the extent that people DO in fact delete their wallets to comply with the ban, that also reduces supply.) Holding coins (e.g., knowing the passphrase for a brain wallet) is impossible to prevent. But if you're risking criminal sanction by selling those coins, you're going to demand a premium. Otherwise, you'd prefer to just sit on them and hope for a change in the law.

You finally hit the nail.  People aren't going to use bitcoins if bitcoins are outlawed.  There is no reason to do so.  There are plenty legal payment methods, so why risk using an illegal one?  Or go through any kind of hassle to buy it?  There will be no demand for it, and plenty supply.  You could just as well switch to NMC, in case they forgot to outlaw NMC at the same time.

You're addressing the demand for Bitcoin. Again, I agree that the demand curve shifts left. Why is there still any demand at all? Because Bitcoin is still great money because of its properties, e.g., reliable scarcity, anonymity, low transaction fees, etc.

But cash is legal, and owning or using cash will not get you arrested.  The same applies to Bitcoin, and Bitcoin is doomed as a currency unless it stays this way.  If the future of Bitcoin is illegal, Bitcoin will become worthless in the future.

How is that responsive? Yes, cash is legal. I was responding to your hypothetical about the effect of making cash illegal and explaining why it's not particularly instructive when thinking about what would happen if Bitcoin (or gold) were made illegal.

[mobile4ever]

it's not particularly instructive when thinking about what would happen if Bitcoin (or gold) were made illegal.

Gold is illegal, at least in Indiana. (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2007/nov/15/liberty-dollar-office-raided/)

[Roger_Murdock]

Gold is illegal, at least in Indiana. (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2007/nov/15/liberty-dollar-office-raided/)

From that story:

Von NotHaus developed the Liberty Dollar in 1998 as an "inflation-proof" alternative currency to the U.S. Dollar, which he has claimed has devalued since the Federal Reserve was established in 1913.

Is that qualifier really necessary?

[Statesman]

There is only one reason for a normal person to want a Bitcoin - to break rules, laws, and regulations. This is the future of Bitcoin, this is what will drive the price up, and I think this is what we should all be focusing on.

That is a bold assumption. It's like saying the only reason to enrich uranium is to build nuclear weapons.
Bitcoin has no intrinsic purpose - just properties. It's up to the people to use it for different things.

I think it's wrong to promote illegal activities to increase the value of bitcoin. The only exception is when the illegal is ethically pleasing.

Thus I am fixing this for you:

There is only one a reason for a normal person to want a Bitcoin - to overcome rules, laws, and regulations.

I can't agree with this poster enough.

[sunnankar]

evoorhees has purchased very geek centric services I suspect. Bitcoin being geek centric currency, it wasn't hard to find a willing seller of geek services.

But, your average joe... what is he going to buy? Computer parts? probably not.. Speculation investments? probably not.... Drugs... More likely than not.

I then countered with the point that I've bought services from people which were not illegal (or anything close to it).

And the claim has NOT been made that BTC is currently useful for the "average joe".  It is not useful for him... today. Just as the internet was not useful to the average joe in 1995.

I think people are totally underestimating the market's need for a safe, reliable payment system that is NOT subject to counter-party risk. Counter-party risk refers to the risk that a borrower will default on any type of debt by failing to make payments which it is obligated to do.

Let me illustrate this with an example from someone, Person A, who has been approaching me about implementing Bitcoin with their business.

Person A has a business with many blue collar employees. Person A is worried about the business's cash balances being kept in various US banks because they do not know which bank will fail next so Person A keeps most cash reserves in banks outside the US which are more solvant. But Person A is even worried about those banks due to the European sovereign debt crisis and would rather be managing their business instead of worrying on a daily basis about whether their cash balances are safe or not in institutions which are very murky with their finances.

About 2 years ago Person A sent wire instructions late Thursday night to the European bank to move $1,000,000 (the actual amount, not hyperbole) for payroll. Friday the funds had still not hit the US bank but this could be normal due to time differences and Person A thought nothing of it. The $1,000,000 was to be wired to Wachovia and Saturday morning Person A woke up and began watching the news that Wachovia had failed.

Because I knew Person A pretty well and know more about finance, or whatever, he called me frantically and asked, "Is my money safe?" I replied, "I don't know. If the wire transfer was sent off and the federal government does not bailout Wachovia then likely your money is not safe and you will have to wait in line at the FDIC to recover a fraction of the $1,000,000 and it may take many weeks to get the cash in your account." He responded, "This could seriously and materially impact my business and I may not be able to make payroll." I responded, "I know. It sucks."

It is important to keep in mind that with Bitcoin there is NO counter-party risk. Additionally, if the wallet is secured properly there is NO performance risk related to a trustee, fiduciary, etc. who may embezzle funds, etc. like MF Global and others.

When deposits are held at US banks the depositer becomes an unsecured creditor. For businesses the FDIC limits are in most cases extremely small relative to the working capital needs of the businesses.

So a question becomes: What is Person A's fiduciary duty to the corporation in the management of cash balances?

In this case, there is now an alternative available that completely eliminates both counter-party and performance risk. The only material issue with using Bitcoin then becomes ease of integration with employees and exchange rate fluctuations.

It is all fun and games until the average Joe doesn't get his paycheck because of failures in the current banking and payment system. If you were an average Joe and your employer were to say they were offering Bitcoin now because the current banking system is not safe and that corporate funds were almost lost due to a bank failure that would have prevented payroll being met then would you agree to take some or all of your paycheck in Bitcoin. Especially if there were an easy integration with the current banking system with a debit card, etc.?

Just some things to think about.

[CharlieContent]

It would be awesome if these threads had a garbage disposal button. If garbage disposal is upvoted enough times, then everyone who posted in the thread would be banned from the forum.

Hey, y'know what would be even more awesome? If everyone who posted in a thread made some kind of constructive and intelligent contribution to the debate.

[CharlieContent]

You finally hit the nail.  People aren't going to use bitcoins if bitcoins are outlawed.  There is no reason to do so.  There are plenty legal easier to use and more widely accepted payment methods, so why risk using an illegal one one where if you get scammed there is no legal recourse?  Or go through any kind of hassle to buy it?  There will be no demand for it, and plenty supply. 

Hey sturie I fixed that for you buddy.

[CharlieContent]

Yes, the OP claim was silly, because it stated that the ONLY reason to use BTC is for illegal uses. I then countered with the point that I've bought services from people which were not illegal (or anything close to it). Unless I am lying, this invalidates the OP's point completely. Perhaps he could change his statement to say a large use is for illegal items, but saying the "only use" is hyperbole BS.

And the claim has NOT been made that BTC is currently useful for the "average joe".  It is not useful for him... today. Just as the internet was not useful to the average joe in 1995.

You remind me of a comic strip character called Mr. Logic in a magazine called Viz. Some UK people might get a laugh out of that.

Do you have autism? I am not trying to be rude, it's a serious question, because people with autism often get confused like you are.

Let me put it in a more simple way. Let's say I don't currently hold any Bitcoins. I want to buy a product or service. What am I going to do? If I am paying for it online, I would use my Visa card. I punch in the numbers on the website, and I am done. If the product does not arrive then I can put in a dispute to Visa and get my money back. I think it's a good system.

Now, why the fuck would I, instead of going through that simple process, go through the hassle of buying Bitcoin, try to find a merchant who accepts Bitcoin for the product I want, pay him, and then have no recourse either through a payment processor or the police if something goes wrong? Why the utter fuck would anyone do that? It's so utterly bizarre that anyone thinks they would...unless of course it is a product that isn't available through the usual (legal) channels.

Also, as to your second point, I was actually on the internet in 1995. It was a million times more useful than Bitcoin is now. It had so many uses, even back then, that the comparison is actually hilarious.

[mobile4ever]

If you were an average Joe and your employer were to say they were offering Bitcoin now because the current banking system is not safe and that corporate funds were almost lost due to a bank failure that would have prevented payroll being met then would you agree to take some or all of your paycheck in Bitcoin. Especially if there were an easy integration with the current banking system with a debit card, etc.?

Yes. Easily.

[Severian]

If I am paying for it online, I would use my Visa card.

I'm beginning to think that credit cards are some kind of religious object with many critics of Bitcoin.

[CharlieContent]

If I am paying for it online, I would use my Visa card.

I'm beginning to think that credit cards are some kind of religious object with many critics of Bitcoin.

Credit cards are just the easiest and safest way to buy things. You know it and I know it, so don't be ridiculous.

It is Bitcoin that seems to be held (by some) with such divine reverence that to even mention that it has some shortcomings is blasphemy here.

Also, to describe me as a critic of Bitcoin is an unfair and inaccurate characterization. I am a Bitcoin supporter. I just have a more realistic view than most.

[mobile4ever]

Gold is illegal, at least in Indiana. (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2007/nov/15/liberty-dollar-office-raided/)

From that story:

Von NotHaus developed the Liberty Dollar in 1998 as an "inflation-proof" alternative currency to the U.S. Dollar, which he has claimed has devalued since the Federal Reserve was established in 1913.

I found it hard to believe that my own "free" country had banned owning gold in some ways...

[CharlieContent]

First of all, one way or another, you pay for all the features of a credit card. Several times in the past year, at brick and mortars, I've been offered a sizable discount for paying in cash instead of using a credit card.

Now, consider that Bitcoin is cash that can be used over the internet. Yes, I realize that you probably won't find a Bitcoin discount today (after all, Bitcoin has only been around a few short years), but if Bitcoin does make it to the mainstream, I fully expect a similar discount. You can be certain that I would take that discount at trusted internet retailers such as Amazon or Newegg. ]

This is very unlikely to happen because of the way credit card processors charge their customers. Small businesses usually pay per transaction, and this can be pretty expensive. Huge chains pay a large flat fee to handle unlimited transactions. This is why small stores and bars often impose a minimum transaction for credit card purchases, but supermarket chains don't.

Even if an online store did offer a discount for paying BTC, I doubt it would be much larger than the transaction costs associated with buying BTC. Plus the store themselves would no doubt incur costs when they sold the BTC, plus the high risk of price fluctuations, etc.

A very large chain of stores here in the UK called Marks and Spencers used to accept EUR as well as GBP for a while. They had to stop because fluctuations were harming their bottom line. And this is with very stable currencies (when compared to BTC).

So, your argument that Visa is superior to Bitcoin may, for most people, hold true today, but I fully expect, if Bitcoin is around 5 to 10 years from now, things to be very different.

I think superior is the wrong word. More like "vastly more practical for most purchases." Bitcoin is superior for other things. Like buying drugs online.

Maybe in 5 to 10 years things will be vastly different. We'll see.

[SolarSilver]

Credit cards are just the easiest and safest way to buy things. You know it and I know it, so don't be ridiculous.

There are a whole class of people who can't get credit cards, for example young people, students (in Europe) who have no regular income. Poor people who are too poor to get even a bank account, in developing countries. Illegal immigrants who can't go to a bank where they live. People with bad or no credit rating, ...

The list can go on and on.

This is a sizable chunk of the market which is currently not served by regular credit card companies.

[julz]

Credit cards are just the easiest and safest way to buy things. You know it and I know it, so don't be ridiculous.

There are a whole class of people who can't get credit cards, for example young people, students (in Europe) who have no regular income. Poor people who are too poor to get even a bank account, in developing countries. Illegal immigrants who can't go to a bank where they live. People with bad or no credit rating, ...

The list can go on and on.

This is a sizable chunk of the market which is currently not served by regular credit card companies.

Yes, but the banks aren't standing still as far as moving to serve that market.
This just making headlines today:

Prepaid Enters Mainstream
Venture Between Wal-Mart and American Express Illustrates Industry Shift
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444897304578044313831625492.html

Not long ago, mainstream financial institutions shunned people without checking accounts. Now those former undesirables are among the industry's most coveted customers.

The latest example of the shift came Monday when American Express Co. and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. rolled out a prepaid card aimed at tens of millions of middle-class and lower-income Americans eager to avoid fees charged by banks.

[sturle]

the average joe

The average joe, if they've ever heard of Bitcoin, have no idea what it is or how to use it.

The average joe don't buy drugs on SR either.  The number of computer geeks in the world outnumber the number of SR users many times, and how many computer illiterates know about SR at all?

[sturle]

Let me put it in a more simple way. Let's say I don't currently hold any Bitcoins. I want to buy a product or service. What am I going to do? If I am paying for it online, I would use my Visa card. I punch in the numbers on the website, and I am done. If the product does not arrive then I can put in a dispute to Visa and get my money back. I think it's a good system.

For you, not for the merchant who don't get his money because you took the product and filed a dispute with VISA.  Actually it is not good for you either, because VISA's merchant fees of 3% or more is added to the price tag, and the losses due to fraud.  PayPal is even worse.

Now, why the fuck would I, instead of going through that simple process, go through the hassle of buying Bitcoin, try to find a merchant who accepts Bitcoin for the product I want, pay him, and then have no recourse either through a payment processor or the police if something goes wrong? Why the utter fuck would anyone do that? It's so utterly bizarre that anyone thinks they would...unless of course it is a product that isn't available through the usual (legal) channels.

If the item is offered for sale in bitcoins, and you own bitcoins, it is the simplest way to pay.  It is like paying with cash on the net.  The police and other agencies are already investigating a number of Bitcoin related crimes.  I agree we need to work out a legal status for Bitcoin, so they can aid more and the tax status is clarified.

There are plenty of legal things you may not want on your credit card bill, btw.  I'm sure you can think of a few for yourself.

Also, as to your second point, I was actually on the internet in 1995. It was a million times more useful than Bitcoin is now. It had so many uses, even back then, that the comparison is actually hilarious.

Say 1992 then.  Before the WWW.  The number of internet users then is probably comparable to the number of Bitcoin users now.  Basic services like E-mail, Usenet, IRC, games (MUD), gopher and FTP were in place.  Typical transfer rates were rather low.  Or internet banking in 1995.

[FLHippy]

the average joe

The average joe, if they've ever heard of Bitcoin, have no idea what it is or how to use it.

The average joe don't buy drugs on SR either.  The number of computer geeks in the world outnumber the number of SR users many times, and how many computer illiterates know about SR at all?

Anyone who reads rolling stone regularly would have heard of silk road. Gavin Andresen is quoted in that article.

When the gawker article came out in 2011, a lot of news aggregators linked to it with  the same headline.....
"The underground website where you can buy any drug imaginable" or a more recent headline "Amazon.com for illegal drugs"

http://gawker.com/5805928/the-underground-website-where-you-can-buy-any-drug-imaginable
http://pointsadhsblog.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/amazon-com-for-illegal-drugs/

And there is word-of-mouth to spread the word.. which is part of the core culture of drug use. Help a brutha out.

How does the average joe participate? Through eBay sales. Joe isn't going to go through the trouble of signing up for an MtGox account. He's willing to pay as much as 50% over value to get bitcoins on ebay. The going rate is 30% over value. Of all the coins I have sold on eBay, the buyers are either holding on to them long term or they head directly to tumblers.

Based on sales and comments by buyers, I also assume that a group of people work through a tech savvy friend and coordinate/combine purchases. Also a core part of the drug culture.

Nothing new really except the guy who knows a guy is buying online and the price is a little higher but the options are greater. The casual user is you, your next door neighbor, your boss, your mom. If nothing else... Silk Road is a safer alternative than buying off the street.

[becoin]

How does the average joe participate?

Nothing new under the sun. During the entire humankind history always criminals were the first to adopt every new technology. Should we stop developing new technologies just because of this fact?