Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[octaft]

If it benefits the merchant, prospective entrepreneurs will build infrastructure so that the consumer will find it beneficial to use. Simples.

I'll believe it when I see it, but yes, if there is a convincing way to sway consumers into using bitcoin, THAT'S what you really need. So why is the focus always on the benefits to merchants?

We've been seeing it every day for two years. 100s of millions of dollars have been pumped into bitcoin-related startups this year. The Bit License and forthcoming legislation in the UK and Japan, will encourage a flood of more money in as regulatory compliance fears are eased. It won't happen over night, but its happening is an inevitability.

And I believe those startups have a big obstacle in front of them in convincing anything more than a fringe portion of consumers that bitcoin is worthwhile over more traditional methods. All those businesses will suffer immensely if they can't figure it out, or if their proposed solutions are not embraced by the consumers.

[silverfuture]

If you aren't anarcho-capitalist (free market), you are a socialist. There is no third choice.

[superresistant]

The Gold standard was eventually abandoned in 1971.
Deregulation and globalisation : 80s - 90s
Since, the banking system is baked by centralized-obese-governments which is the reason it exist.
So what 20-30 years ? Wow that's all human History !

>Lists of things having nothing to do with anarchy<->governed society debate.
You realize we had governments and laws and consumer protection before 1971, right?  How old r u?

Money is power.
A government have no power if you separate it from bank and the ability to print infinite money.
A government is not necessarily a bad thing, it becomes a monster only if you give him power.

No, money is money, power is power.  But that's beside the point.  The point is centralized governments, in one form or another, existed throughout human history.  While Anarcho-capitalism remained a fiction.

Feudalism anyone ?
Oh I see, you're American.
USA before it becomes fat-USA then ?

[NotLambchop]

The Gold standard was eventually abandoned in 1971.
Deregulation and globalisation : 80s - 90s
Since, the banking system is baked by centralized-obese-governments which is the reason it exist.
So what 20-30 years ? Wow that's all human History !

>Lists of things having nothing to do with anarchy<->governed society debate.
You realize we had governments and laws and consumer protection before 1971, right?  How old r u?

Money is power.
A government have no power if you separate it from bank and the ability to print infinite money.
A government is not necessarily a bad thing, it becomes a monster only if you give him power.

No, money is money, power is power.  But that's beside the point.  The point is centralized governments, in one form or another, existed throughout human history.  While Anarcho-capitalism remained a fiction.

Feudalism anyone ?
Oh I see, you're American.
USA before it becomes fat-USA then ?

Lol, thanks 4 teh link.  The d00d wearing a crown, he b liek the King Libertarian, right?

[NotLambchop]

If you aren't anarcho-capitalist (free market), you are a socialist. There is no third choice.

[lyth0s]

Isn't this the BTC/USD wall observer? "Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion". Seems like we are quite a bit off-topic.

[marcelus]

If it benefits the merchant, prospective entrepreneurs will build infrastructure so that the consumer will find it beneficial to use. Simples.

I'll believe it when I see it, but yes, if there is a convincing way to sway consumers into using bitcoin, THAT'S what you really need. So why is the focus always on the benefits to merchants?

We've been seeing it every day for two years. 100s of millions of dollars have been pumped into bitcoin-related startups this year. The Bit License and forthcoming legislation in the UK and Japan, will encourage a flood of more money in as regulatory compliance fears are eased. It won't happen over night, but its happening is an inevitability.

And I believe those startups have a big obstacle in front of them in convincing anything more than a fringe portion of consumers that bitcoin is worthwhile over more traditional methods. All those businesses will suffer immensely if they can't figure it out, or if their proposed solutions are not embraced by the consumers.

No mate. They don't have to convince consumers. That's the point. They'll never know their money is being sent using the bitcoin network just like people don't know anything about http works when they're surfing the web now. To the consumer, the infrastructure and methodology they use will be the same as it is now. There's no leap of faith they have to make.

https://stripe.com/blog/bitcoin-the-stripe-perspective

[NotLambchop]

...
No mate. They don't have to convince consumers. That's the point. They'll never know their money is being sent using the bitcoin network just like people don't know anything about http works when they're surfing the web now. To the consumer, the infrastructure and methodology they use will be the same as it is now.
...

... thus learning nothing about Bitcoin, which brings us back to

...
Why and how will this transition take place?  Consumers have grown to trust these payment services, not Bitcoin.

[marcelus]

...
No mate. They don't have to convince consumers. That's the point. They'll never know their money is being sent using the bitcoin network just like people don't know anything about http works when they're surfing the web now. To the consumer, the infrastructure and methodology they use will be the same as it is now.
...

... thus learning nothing about Bitcoin, which brings us back to

...
Why and how will this transition take place?  Consumers have grown to trust these payment services, not Bitcoin.

Infrastructure will be built that allows the consumer the freedom to not to have to use a gateway. Also greater awareness, confidence, etc. Do you always make everyone repeat themselves?

[superresistant]

Lol, thanks 4 teh link.  The d00d wearing a crown, he b liek the King Libertarian, right?
http://s16.postimg.org/zb30y0fl1/Capture.jpg

You think you're kidding but it's true.
At that time, being a kind give no power at all.
There are no state and no frontiers.
Allegiance to the King is only temporarily.

Power is extremely decentralized between many European Noble families.
Each family divide land between members.
Anyone can claim a land at any time.

[cbeast]

Lol, thanks 4 teh link.  The d00d wearing a crown, he b liek the King Libertarian, right?
http://s16.postimg.org/zb30y0fl1/Capture.jpg

You think you're kidding but it's true.
At that time, being a kind give no power at all.
There are no state and no frontiers.
Allegiance to the King is only temporarily.

Power is extremely decentralized between many European Noble families.

There were regional kings and High Kings that sat on large Iron Thrones made from the swords of their slain enemies.

[NotLambchop]

...
No mate. They don't have to convince consumers. That's the point. They'll never know their money is being sent using the bitcoin network just like people don't know anything about http works when they're surfing the web now. To the consumer, the infrastructure and methodology they use will be the same as it is now.
...

... thus learning nothing about Bitcoin, which brings us back to

...
Why and how will this transition take place?  Consumers have grown to trust these payment services, not Bitcoin.

Infrastructure will be built that allows the consumer the freedom to not to have to use a gateway. Also greater awareness, confidence, etc. Do you always make everyone repeat themselves?

Repeating yourself doesn't help to make your point.  If the consumers don't "know their money is being sent using the bitcoin network," how are they learning about Bitcoin?  How are they in a better position to use Bitcoin without relying on the infrastructure they have grown to trust, i.e. for-profit gateways providing it?

[superresistant]

There were regional kings and High Kings that sat on large Iron Thrones made from the swords of their slain enemies.

The hierarchy doesn't tell about your wealth or power.
It is only a title.
During feudalism, Kings where most of the time less powerful that rich Duchies.

[brg444]

Repeating yourself doesn't help to make your point.  If the consumers don't "know their money is being sent using the bitcoin network," how are they learning about Bitcoin?  How are they in a better position to use Bitcoin without relying on the infrastructure they have grown to trust, i.e. for-profit gateways providing it?

They will learn Bitcoin is better money, with more features and eventually the same security they have grown accustomed to.

[NotLambchop]

There were regional kings and High Kings that sat on large Iron Thrones made from the swords of their slain enemies.

The hierarchy doesn't tell about your wealth or power.
It is only a title.
During feudalism, Kings where most of the time less powerful that rich Duchies.

Err...  Obama is less wealthy than a number of Americans, what's your point?

[marcelus]

...
No mate. They don't have to convince consumers. That's the point. They'll never know their money is being sent using the bitcoin network just like people don't know anything about http works when they're surfing the web now. To the consumer, the infrastructure and methodology they use will be the same as it is now.
...

... thus learning nothing about Bitcoin, which brings us back to

...
Why and how will this transition take place?  Consumers have grown to trust these payment services, not Bitcoin.

Infrastructure will be built that allows the consumer the freedom to not to have to use a gateway. Also greater awareness, confidence, etc. Do you always make everyone repeat themselves?

Repeating yourself doesn't help to make your point.  If the consumers don't know how "know their money is being sent using the bitcoin network," how are they learning about Bitcoin?  How are they in a better position to use Bitcoin without relying on the infrastructure they have grown to trust, i.e. for-profit gateways providing it?

They know it works and will be provided with the tools to not need gateways for security, insurance, risk-assumption, etc. Repeating myself doesn't help make my point but your irrelevant rebuttals force me to. This is the last time I'll do it.  

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[Richy_T]

You think you're kidding but it's true.
At that time, being a kind give no power at all.
There are no state and no frontiers.
Allegiance to the King is only temporarily.

Power is extremely decentralized between many European Noble families.
Each family divide land between members.
Anyone can claim a land at any time.

Sorry, I consider myself pretty hardcore libertarian. Feudalism does not really connote freedom. Sure, if you were a lord or king or whatnot, it was probably a pretty fun time (until your rival ran a sword through your gizzards) but the common man had it pretty rough. It wasn't really until firearms came along and started to level the playing field that that was redressed.

However, there were regions and times where freedom was more prevalent and we can see its positive effects within the societies that exist currently. Control? Soviet Russia, North Korea, Communist China. More freedom? South Korea, current hybrid China. Even more freedom? 20th century US and UK. Bit less freedom? Declining 21st century US and UK.

[superresistant]

There were regional kings and High Kings that sat on large Iron Thrones made from the swords of their slain enemies.

The hierarchy doesn't tell about your wealth or power.
It is only a title.
During feudalism, Kings where most of the time less powerful that rich Duchies.

Err...  Obama is less wealthy than a number of Americans, what's your point?

Obama is not a government. What's your point ?

My point was that (1) Europe used to be extremely decentralized for most of its History and (2) that the title of "King" did not mean that you own anything.

Sorry, I consider myself pretty hardcore libertarian. Feudalism does not really connote freedom. Sure, if you were a lord or king or whatnot, it was probably a pretty fun time (until your rival ran a sword through your gizzards) but the common man had it pretty rough. It wasn't really until firearms came along and started to level the playing field that that was redressed.
However, there were regions and times where freedom was more prevalent and we can see its positive effects within the societies that exist currently. Control? Soviet Russia, North Korea, Communist China. More freedom? South Korea, current hybrid China. Even more freedom? 20th century US and UK. Bit less freedom? Declining 21st century US and UK.

Yes that's right if you compare to now but in Feudalism, people were no more "slaves" like they were during the Roman Empire.
It was still very hard but they had the right to own land and trade which make a big difference.

[justusranvier]

this is why states and borders exist, and some kind of enforced regulation has to exist so people can live with each other.

Here's the problem - you're confusing yourself for humanity. That's called projection.

Maybe you need enforced regulations in order to get along with other people. If so, that's a personal problem you should discuss with a competent psychotherapist.