► ► ►HashFast Endorsement

[Ytterbium]

this brings up an interesting point that applies to all of these companies.

you seem to have been arguing from the beginning that cc/pp are acting as some sort of insurance company that will take responsibility for providing FULL refunds if KNC scams everyone and takes off with their money.  nothing is further from the truth.  if KNC is able to get away with everyone's money and removes it from their bank accounts, the cc/pp companies have nowhere to go to retrieve those monies.

you'll be left with a loss.

That isn't even remotely true.  Credit card debt is a LOAN.  You don't actually lose anything until you pay down your card debt, and you're not contractually obligated to pay that debt if you didn't get what you paid for, within a certain time frame.

The bank loses the money, not you. Insurance is exactly what it is.

[cypherdoc]

this brings up an interesting point that applies to all of these companies.

you seem to have been arguing from the beginning that cc/pp are acting as some sort of insurance company that will take responsibility for providing FULL refunds if KNC scams everyone and takes off with their money.  nothing is further from the truth.  if KNC is able to get away with everyone's money and removes it from their bank accounts, the cc/pp companies have nowhere to go to retrieve those monies.

you'll be left with a loss.

That isn't even remotely true.  Credit card debt is a LOAN.  You don't actually lose anything until you pay down your card debt, and you're not contractually obligated to pay that debt if you didn't get what you paid for, within a certain time frame.

The bank loses the money, not you. Insurance is exactly what it is.

many moving parts here.

i happen to pay off my cc right when i incur the "debt" so i look at this differently than you do. 

as for what Bitcoinorama posted earlier, that coverage will be limited and will vary depend on where you are.  in a worst case scenario where a company absconds with your money and the cc/pp has no avenue to recover said money, you will take a loss.

[Ytterbium]

the problem with what you're saying is that you're thinking of BTC as purely a form of currency.  many of us already know that the definition of what BTC is differs.  many think of BTC itself as a "good" or "asset".  they don't view it purely as a means of transacting.  they view it as an investment with the potential to grow in value and act as a store of value.

speculation on the value of BTC itself has played a big role in building the Bitcoin economy.  it's a well known fact that the faster it changes hands and circulates, the better it is and will be for the Bitcoin economy as it provides fees for the miners/exchangers and it increases it perception of utility.

you making the statement that the price will definitely go down by selling them on an exchange is ridiculous.  i happen to know that is false.  you have no way to predict what demand will be when HF does this.  there are plenty of hidden buyers waiting in the wings who want to buy a big chunk of BTC when it becomes available on the market.  no one knows they're there, especially you.

Crumbs is a ridiculous troll, who I have on ignore.  However he is correct on this.  While you could argue that BTC are goods, the best you could argue in that case is that when you sell them on an exchange, you increase the velocity of dollars in the economy.  But you're not really increasing the velocity of bitcoin.

On the other hand, simply buying the miners in BTC would increase the velocity of bitcoin, since it would cause BTC that was tied up in wallets to be actually transferred from one person to another, in exchange for something. That would not be the case if they were purchased with dollars.

[Ytterbium]

this brings up an interesting point that applies to all of these companies.

you seem to have been arguing from the beginning that cc/pp are acting as some sort of insurance company that will take responsibility for providing FULL refunds if KNC scams everyone and takes off with their money.  nothing is further from the truth.  if KNC is able to get away with everyone's money and removes it from their bank accounts, the cc/pp companies have nowhere to go to retrieve those monies.

you'll be left with a loss.

That isn't even remotely true.  Credit card debt is a LOAN.  You don't actually lose anything until you pay down your card debt, and you're not contractually obligated to pay that debt if you didn't get what you paid for, within a certain time frame.

The bank loses the money, not you. Insurance is exactly what it is.

many moving parts here.

i happen to pay off my cc right when i incur the "debt" so i look at this differently than you do.  

as for what Bitcoinorama posted earlier, that coverage will be limited and will vary depend on where you are.  in a worst case scenario where a company absconds with your money and the cc/pp has no avenue to recover said money, you will take a loss.

No. You're straight up factually wrong.

If the bank does not recover  your money, they will cover it themselves. That's in the contract you sign when you sign up, and I'm pretty sure it's the law. The bank loses the money, not you. If you have a zero balance on your CC then your debt will go negative.

The bank can basically create money out of thin air, and they consider things like this to be a cost of doing business, easily covered by all the fees and interest they collect on CCs.

[vokain]

When your hoarded coins in cold storage are spent for a miner, either by paying HF for them to sell, or selling your coins directly on an exchange, you increase velocity, eventually. Your coins get sold to someone, they'll sooner or later do something with them.

[vokain]

this brings up an interesting point that applies to all of these companies.

you seem to have been arguing from the beginning that cc/pp are acting as some sort of insurance company that will take responsibility for providing FULL refunds if KNC scams everyone and takes off with their money.  nothing is further from the truth.  if KNC is able to get away with everyone's money and removes it from their bank accounts, the cc/pp companies have nowhere to go to retrieve those monies.

you'll be left with a loss.

That isn't even remotely true.  Credit card debt is a LOAN.  You don't actually lose anything until you pay down your card debt, and you're not contractually obligated to pay that debt if you didn't get what you paid for, within a certain time frame.

The bank loses the money, not you. Insurance is exactly what it is.

many moving parts here.

i happen to pay off my cc right when i incur the "debt" so i look at this differently than you do.  

as for what Bitcoinorama posted earlier, that coverage will be limited and will vary depend on where you are.  in a worst case scenario where a company absconds with your money and the cc/pp has no avenue to recover said money, you will take a loss.

No. You're straight up factually wrong.

If the bank does not recover  your money, they will cover it themselves. That's in the contract you sign when you sign up, and I'm pretty sure it's the law. The bank loses the money, not you. If you have a zero balance on your CC then your debt will go negative.

The bank can basically create money out of thin air, and they consider things like this to be a cost of doing business, easily covered by all the fees and interest they collect on CCs.

Chargebacks are typically charged to the merchant, with a fee

[vokain]

the problem with what you're saying is that you're thinking of BTC as purely a form of currency.  many of us already know that the definition of what BTC is differs.  many think of BTC itself as a "good" or "asset".  they don't view it purely as a means of transacting.  they view it as an investment with the potential to grow in value and act as a store of value.

http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/19/germany-recognizes-bitcoin-as-private-money-sales-tax-coming-soon/

So? I use bitcoin as an investment and a savings account. Sometimes I buy goods with it. Sometimes I send money to relatives in developing countries using it. It's not just a currency.

[Ytterbium]

When your hoarded coins in cold storage are spent for a miner, either by paying HF for them to sell, or selling your coins directly on an exchange, you increase velocity, eventually. Your coins get sold to someone, they'll sooner or later do something with them.

There's no reason to think they'll be any more likely to do anything with them then you.

Anyway, I don't really see why velocity is supposed to be a good thing for bitcoin.  The lower the velocity, the higher the price.

From a Keynesian perspective, high monetary velocity is good because more velocity means more economic activity. And of course high inflation means high velocity because people want to get rid of their money as quickly as possible instead of hoarding it.

But on the other hand, if you want the price of bitcoin to go up, then  you want to hoard it, and restrict supply.

[crumbs]

Let me repeat:  Transactions where BTC are exchanged into dollars do not increase BRC vlocity.  I assumed we were past that.  If you feel that they do, state so now so i can show that you're dead-wrong again, and move on.  
Do BTC->$$$ transactions increase BTC velocity?  Simple yes or no, and we're done.  Like pulling a tooth, Cypherdoc, why drag it out?

Yes, selling BTC for USD is, in fact, increasing BTC velocity.  the BTC is exchanging hands and moving thru the Bitcoin economy as a result.

Wrong.  Here's a wikip quote for you, you like those:
"The velocity of money ... is the average frequency with which a unit of money is spent on new goods and services produced domestically in a specific period of time."

Note the red, emboldened text above.  BTC is not being spent on goods or services.  It is being converted into dollars, which are neither goods nor services.  
The above definition is oversimple, but it is specific enough to point out that it's not a just "changing of hands" that needs to take place.
Also, note the presence of the word "domestic."  Why do you suppose it was introduced into such a rudimentary definition?  I'm not going to lecture you in economics, suffice it to say that exchanging one kind of money for another kind of money does not increase the velocity of *anything,* dollars or BTC.

You clearly don't have the capacity to understand what i've been saying ad nauseum.  for HF to sell those BTC for USD, there has to be a willing buyer on the other end of that tx who "wants" those BTC and is more than willing to part with their USD.

You're right, there has to be a willing buyer.  Simply because more BTC appeared on an exchange (HashFast selling our BTC) *does not mean that there will be more people looking to buy BTC.*  The number of buyers stays the same, there's a greater supply of BTC, what happens to the price, do you suppose?  Must we go over this again & again?
 ...

the problem with what you're saying is that you're thinking of BTC as purely a form of currency.  many of us already know that the definition of what BTC is differs.  many think of BTC itself as a "good" or "asset".  they don't view it purely as a means of transacting.  they view it as an investment with the potential to grow in value and act as a store of value.

In that case, what does money velocity has to do with anything?  Or are you claiming that increasing the dollar velocity helps bitcoin economy?  Try to be consistent & remember what we're talking about.  Have we at least come to an agreement that selling BTC for $$$ has nothing to do with bitcoin velocity, though, if you view BTC as a commodity, it increases the $$$ velocity?

speculation on the value of BTC itself has played a big role in building the Bitcoin economy.  it's a well known fact that the faster it changes hands and circulates, the better it is and will be for the Bitcoin economy as it provides fees for the miners/exchangers and it increases it perception of utility.

"A well known fact"?!  In that case:

If you think that cashing out BTC into dollars increases BTC velocity, "perception of utility" or that *buying BTC with dollars* increases BTC velocity,"perception of utility" do this:

1.  Buy BTC with dollars from yourself, then sell it to yourself for the same amount.
2.  You're an honest guy, you probably won't cheat yourself, so your risks are minimal.
3.  ? ? ?
4.  Velocity!!!"perception of utility"

*This "perception of utility", is it a good thing, or are we foolin' ourselves?  I take it it's just a perception & not actually utility

you making the statement that the price will definitely go down by selling them on an exchange is ridiculous.  i happen to know that is false.  you have no way to predict what demand will be when HF does this.  

I happen to know that you're wrong.  The demand could not be higher simply because the supply has increased.  If the demand happens to be higher, and there's no extra BTC dumped by HashFast, BTC prices would climb.  If there's the extra supply provided by HashFast, the price would not climb.  Cypher, learn to supply & demand

there are plenty of hidden buyers waiting in the wings who want to buy a big chunk of BTC when it becomes available on the market.  no one knows they're there, especially you.

This is simply goofy.  Do you think they're waiting in hopes of the price being *higher*?  You're trying to talk yourself out of a simple supply and demand equation, and unless you're well versed in sophistry, it ain't going to happen.

[cypherdoc]

When your hoarded coins in cold storage are spent for a miner, either by paying HF for them to sell, or selling your coins directly on an exchange, you increase velocity, eventually. Your coins get sold to someone, they'll sooner or later do something with them.

There's no reason to think they'll be any more likely to do anything with them then you.

Anyway, I don't really see why velocity is supposed to be a good thing for bitcoin.  The lower the velocity, the higher the price.

From a Keynesian perspective, high monetary velocity is good because more velocity means more economic activity. And of course high inflation means high velocity because people want to get rid of their money as quickly as possible instead of hoarding it.

But on the other hand, if you want the price of bitcoin to go up, then  you want to hoard it, and restrict supply.

Bitcoin is many things.  hence the conundrum to authorities.

i'm a big defender of hoarding b/c i do some of that myself.  but pure hoarding by everyone won't work out so well.  the best outcome for BTC to rise in price is if it also utilized by an active economy and grows to the point of increasing tx's. 

how else can miners, like you, be incentivized to mine in light of the block reward eventually being eliminated?

[cypherdoc]

crumbs, let us not forget your original supposition.

you said that b/c HF was using BTC-only tx's, this was BAD for the Bitcoin economy.

this is wrong.

stay on track please.

[Bitcoinorama]

this brings up an interesting point that applies to all of these companies.

you seem to have been arguing from the beginning that cc/pp are acting as some sort of insurance company that will take responsibility for providing FULL refunds if KNC scams everyone and takes off with their money.  nothing is further from the truth.  if KNC is able to get away with everyone's money and removes it from their bank accounts, the cc/pp companies have nowhere to go to retrieve those monies.

you'll be left with a loss.

That isn't even remotely true.  Credit card debt is a LOAN.  You don't actually lose anything until you pay down your card debt, and you're not contractually obligated to pay that debt if you didn't get what you paid for, within a certain time frame.

The bank loses the money, not you. Insurance is exactly what it is.

many moving parts here.

i happen to pay off my cc right when i incur the "debt" so i look at this differently than you do. 

as for what Bitcoinorama posted earlier, that coverage will be limited and will vary depend on where you are.  in a worst case scenario where a company absconds with your money and the cc/pp has no avenue to recover said money, you will take a loss.

Yes, but why wouldn't you offer the facility for those that are entitled that kind of protection?

[crumbs]

crumbs, let us not forget your original supposition.

you said that b/c HF was using BTC-only tx's, this was BAD for the Bitcoin economy.

this is wrong.

stay on track please.

No.  Now you're simply lying.  
You said that HashFast was helping the bitcoin economy by only allowing bitcoin transactions.  I said that it was not.
Don't make me dig through the thread & pull the quote.
Try to be honest in cases where your lying will be *immediately exposed.*  
I mean *minutes.*

[cypherdoc]

crumbs, let us not forget your original supposition.

you said that b/c HF was using BTC-only tx's, this was BAD for the Bitcoin economy.

this is wrong.

stay on track please.

No.  Now you're simply lying.  
You said that HashFast was helping the bitcoin economy by only allowing bitcoin transactions.  I said that it was not.
Don't make me dig through the thread & pull the quote.
Try to be honest in cases where your lying will be *immediately exposed.*  
I mean *minutes.*

who's lying?

who put in big bold lettering somewhere above "Bad Thing"?

[crumbs]

crumbs, let us not forget your original supposition.

you said that b/c HF was using BTC-only tx's, this was BAD for the Bitcoin economy.

this is wrong.

stay on track please.

No.  Now you're simply lying.  
You said that HashFast was helping the bitcoin economy by only allowing bitcoin transactions.  I said that it was not.
Don't make me dig through the thread & pull the quote.
Try to be honest in cases where your lying will be *immediately exposed.*  
I mean *minutes.*

who's lying?

who put in big bold lettering somewhere above "Bad Thing"?

Oh, please try harder

...
the only counterpoint i'd make is that HF, by only accepting BTC, has demonstrated a restraint to NOT bring in as much money via pre-orders as the other companies seem not to be able to resist by using cc/pp.  they also do want to help the BTC economy by doing it this way.  it allows BTC to circulate and change hands to buy real products, not just Alpaca socks.  
...

This argument is absurd on its face.  The BTC will be immediately cashed out to fiat, to pay for expenses, development & production.
If that's "circulation," simply cash out your BTC to credit card yourself, then pay with your credit card.
It makes no difference to the bitcoin economy who cashes out bitcoins, you or HashFast.
Cypherdoc, if you're going to spin, step up your game.

The post that started it all ^^^^

Do you want me to go through the thread & put some context on the quote you've pulled out?

EDIT:  Full quote that you stripped from content:
More BTC on the order books *needing to be sold* is a bad thing, Cypherdoc.

Learn how to lying

[erschiessen]

crumbs, let us not forget your original supposition.

you said that b/c HF was using BTC-only tx's, this was BAD for the Bitcoin economy.

this is wrong.

stay on track please.

It is bad for the economy, because the more scam-laden the community becomes,
1. Increasing number of persons of integrity involved with BTC *leave*
2.  the more governments will meddle into bitcoin.

Both hurt the bitcoin economy.

Hashfast, through their bitcoin only policy, appear to position themselves for a BFL styled Long Con.
(or a Yifu styled Long Con)

If Hashfast truly cared for bitcoin, it would look after the community as much as themselves. Then again, that is just plain old Customer Service, right?
I find it difficult to believe that Hashfast thinks that purposefully taking away any and all consumer protections from their customers, is somehow good for the economy.

Might be time for another area of studies.

(items in between *  * added)

[vokain]

the problem with what you're saying is that you're thinking of BTC as purely a form of currency.  many of us already know that the definition of what BTC is differs.  many think of BTC itself as a "good" or "asset". they don't view it purely as a means of transacting.  they view it as an investment with the potential to grow in value and act as a store of value.

http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/19/germany-recognizes-bitcoin-as-private-money-sales-tax-coming-soon/

So? I use bitcoin as an investment and a savings account. Sometimes I buy goods with it. Sometimes I send money to relatives in developing countries using it. It's not just a currency.

LOL are you serious, I honestly can't tell.

Let me reword your sentence to see if it helps you understand what you are trying to say.

So? I use fiat as an investment and a savings account. Sometimes I buy goods with it. Sometimes I send money to relatives in developing countries using it. It's not just a currency.

I do not see holding USD as an investment. Maybe in Argentina. Bitcoin is not simply currency because I use it as an investment and a way to transcend traditional financial barriers. Is land a currency? Is a stock a currency? Is an ETF a currency?

Is gold JUST a currency, or is it more?

[cypherdoc]

Yes, but why wouldn't you offer the facility for those that are entitled that kind of protection?

first of all, let's not forget it's them not me.

as a form of self protection from refund volatility.  yes, it comes at the expense of some buyer protection.

but they've tried to make up for it at the backend with the full refund policy and the MPP.  my guess is that they also only want true believers in what they're doing.

[vokain]

crumbs, let us not forget your original supposition.

you said that b/c HF was using BTC-only tx's, this was BAD for the Bitcoin economy.

this is wrong.

stay on track please.

No.  Now you're simply lying.  
You said that HashFast was helping the bitcoin economy by only allowing bitcoin transactions.  I said that it was not.
Don't make me dig through the thread & pull the quote.
Try to be honest in cases where your lying will be *immediately exposed.*  
I mean *minutes.*

who's lying?

who put in big bold lettering somewhere above "Bad Thing"?

Oh, please try harder

...
the only counterpoint i'd make is that HF, by only accepting BTC, has demonstrated a restraint to NOT bring in as much money via pre-orders as the other companies seem not to be able to resist by using cc/pp.  they also do want to help the BTC economy by doing it this way.  it allows BTC to circulate and change hands to buy real products, not just Alpaca socks.  
...

This argument is absurd on its face.  The BTC will be immediately cashed out to fiat, to pay for expenses, development & production.
If that's "circulation," simply cash out your BTC to credit card yourself, then pay with your credit card.
It makes no difference to the bitcoin economy who cashes out bitcoins, you or HashFast.
Cypherdoc, if you're going to spin, step up your game.

The post that started it all ^^^^

Do you want me to go through the thread & put some context on the quote you've pulled out?

EDIT:  Full quote that you stripped from content:
More BTC on the order books *needing to be sold* is a bad thing, Cypherdoc.

Learn how to lying

It is a good thing. Greater distribution of coins from the holders that traded their coins for miners.

[crumbs]

Yes, but why wouldn't you offer the facility for those that are entitled that kind of protection?

first of all, let's not forget it's them not me.

as a form of self protection from refund volatility.  yes, it comes at the expense of some buyer protection.

but they've tried to make up for it at the backend with the full refund policy and the MPP.  my guess is that they also only want true believers in what they're doing.

Admit to lying plzox, Cypher