Google+Bitcoin vs. Facebook+FB Credits

[evoorhees]

We're aware of a few things:
1) Facebook dominates the world and has created its own currency, mainly for use in wildly popular FB games from companies like Zynga.
2) Google is launching Google+, which is a direct competitor to Facebook. Google has its work cut out for it.
3) Google is engaged in the Google Wallet project, for fund transfer mechanisms... but Google is NOT creating its own currency.

Given these facts, if I were a decision maker at Google, I would at least consider the strategic decision to implement Bitcoin in Google+ and across the Google Wallet platforms. This would directly undermine FB credits, and if FB credits fails that is a HUGE win for Google. Consider that Google should already be observing how its relatively unrestricted Android community has amazingly caught up to Apple's iOS "walled garden" environment... the lesson applying perfectly to Bitcoin vs. FB credits.

If Google helps legitimize Bitcoin, FB credits will fail, and Google+ will be further strengthened against Facebook.

Is my Machiavellianesque thinking sound?

[1715432295]

1715432295

[1715432295]

1715432295

[1715432295]

1715432295

[1715432295]

1715432295

[Mousepotato]

I'm rooting for Google+Bitcoin.

[Serge]

FB credits are useless outside of FB realm

[phillipsjk]

The point you are missing is that Google is one big central authority. Google likes storing large amounts of information to see what they can datamine from it. There will be no way to have anonymous transactions if you are using Google Wallet.

As well. Google has been suspending accounts en-mass if the name does not look "real" enough.

Google Plus Deleting Accounts En Masse: No Clear Answers


There have been some reports that users have been locked out of all Google services

[julz]

I actually hope google is a latecomer to the bitcoin ecosystem.
It's a giant squid of a thing with tentacles in too many pies.
It can afford to subsidize operations in one market with profits from another - destroying profitability for other innovators.


 

[dinker]

What makes you guys think google will help promoting BitCoin instead of starting their own currency?

I'd say Google is definitely interested in bitcoins, but will probably not fully commit itself to it.

Financially, making their own currency (Gcoin) will make much more sense than supporting Bitcoins.

[BusmasterDMA]

What makes you guys think google will help promoting BitCoin instead of starting their own currency?

I'd say Google is definitely interested in bitcoins, but will probably not fully commit itself to it.

Financially, making their own currency (Gcoin) will make much more sense than supporting Bitcoins.

I'd settle for the ability to purchase a "Gcoin" with bitcoins.

[Meatpile]

They are competing with paypal, and are already dipping their danks into NFC and mobile user to user payments. There is no need to make or back a new currency, if you can make the existing electronic and easy to use.

[evoorhees]

You guys are missing my point a bit

My question is, does it make logical sense for Google to adopt/advocate/support Bitcoin purely as a way to get a +1 on Facebook.  If Bitcoins become the standard money of the internet, and are usable everywhere except Facebook/Zynga, then Facebook's own currency will look pretty pathetic comparatively. It may mean they'd need to abandon the currency which they will be spending billions of dollars on developing.

So does it make strategic sense for Google to act toward that end?

[btcbaby]

You guys are missing my point a bit

My question is, does it make logical sense for Google to adopt/advocate/support Bitcoin purely as a way to get a +1 on Facebook.  If Bitcoins become the standard money of the internet, and are usable everywhere except Facebook/Zynga, then Facebook's own currency will look pretty pathetic comparatively. It may mean they'd need to abandon the currency which they will be spending billions of dollars on developing.

So does it make strategic sense for Google to act toward that end?

In short, NO.  Google lives in the world of complex regulations and has to spend tons of money on lobbying to keep the feds off its back.  They will not be creating a currency.  If they can supplant Paypal like they set out to do they win.   

[Smalleyster]

If Google helps legitimize Bitcoin, FB credits will fail, and Google+ will be further strengthened against Facebook.

Is my Machiavellianesque thinking sound?

I've read the entire thread so far and do not buy the comments of the naysayers.

I think your idea is sound and brilliant.

And sadly, precisely why Google will not implement it.

[Atdhe]

If Google helps legitimize Bitcoin, FB credits will fail

Not necessarily. For sure there will me MORE currencies around in future.

Guys, you have to take it from economical standpoint.

1st theory is economical "zone" theory described by Hayek. Like 200 years ago many banks issued banknotes, it will be the same in our era. Google will issue currency, FB will issue currency. FB credits will be real and converible into BTC and USD.

2nd theory that should not be forget is related with "money supply" and it says that better money will push away worse money.
BTC=>{Gcoin, FBcredit, gold/commodity}=>Fiat money where => means is better or same depends on competition

States apparently can print money when politicians want.
Private money like Gcoin or FBcredit can be also printed but the company is trying to maximize profit and does not need to corrupt voters.
BTC is here the best since no one owns it.

BTC or some other currency easily can be reserve currency in future. But once things will settle down (in years or tens of years, after WWIII and revolutions), no one will be aware which currency he will use. State money will probably vanish. I can see that in 100 years some kind of Gcoin/FBcred can be here with higher probability than USD.

[a63ntsm1th]

couldn't a bitcoin e-wallet site build and app for fb and g+ that would allow people to easily send bitcoins through those communities?

(oops did i give that one away? )

[Atdhe]

you did 
but it can take time, there will be power against G and FB, so I can imagine BTC being blocked there for some time, especially when FB wants to establish FBcred

you can see it even now when Google was forced to establish chillingeffects.org that is censorship, but can be avoided with DMCA disclaimers and such shit

we all need strong G and FB even when they are not ideal, but they are not so strong yet

[netrin]

Google has often surprised me in the past. BTC is appealing precisely because it lacks arbitrary inflation. I don't see any advantage for Google to create a new walled garden/gaming currency. They could create their own BTC-like block chain but would only piss off the obvious early adopters (unless they had a wonderful protocol improvement). I would more likely see Google do only two things: make a better paypal (using established fiat) and/or backing BTC POS with faster transactions.

Google could certainly hash up 51% of the network. Maybe they'd offer some mining nodes for a price?

[Atdhe]

I do not think Google would ever start with their currency. The advantage of their "own" currency is their credibility. Soon there will be no AAA states...

BTC can be a bit wild for broad public. But existence and partial success of BTC can speed up the process of issuing Gcoin. In next stage there will be big synergy of all virtual currencies. In the end some independent currency like BTC should be used as reserve currency.

Also do not forget that issuer of "walled" currency gets the initial value for himself even when he is not stealing from inflation (so called seigniorage). That is big incentive at least for future. Also walled currency can be immune against deflation.

[evoorhees]

1st theory is economical "zone" theory described by Hayek. Like 200 years ago many banks issued banknotes, it will be the same in our era. Google will issue currency, FB will issue currency. FB credits will be real and converible into BTC and USD.

2nd theory that should not be forget is related with "money supply" and it says that better money will push away worse money.
BTC=>{Gcoin, FBcredit, gold/commodity}=>Fiat money where => means is better or same depends on competition

Your two theories are a bit off. Banknotes were indeed issued by individual banks, but they were all backed by gold/metals at fixed exchange rates. In other words, they were all the same currency.

Second, good money pushing away bad money (Gresham's Law) only pertains to currencies that are artificially fixed in an exchange rate (such as the government fixing the rate between silver and gold). If the rate is free-market (floating) then it will adjust appropriately, and one money will not "drive out" the other in Gresham's manner.

[Litt]

big players will enter when it's the right time. Right now bitcoin is doing just fine without them involved and for good reason. Right now and for the next two years is all about just laying down the foundation of global population adapting more and more bitcoins for their currency of storing wealth. Then and only then will it be a good move for bitcoin for these big players to get involved directly.

[Rassah]

Thing is, FaceBook is charging something like 30% for people to use their currency (you get paid in FBcreds, you pay 30% of that back to FB). It's a big money-maker for them. BTC for Google will simply be an easier way to send micropayments, since Google won't be able to charge fees on the use of this currency.

[Atdhe]

1st theory is economical "zone" theory described by Hayek. Like 200 years ago many banks issued banknotes, it will be the same in our era. Google will issue currency, FB will issue currency. FB credits will be real and converible into BTC and USD.

2nd theory that should not be forget is related with "money supply" and it says that better money will push away worse money.
BTC=>{Gcoin, FBcredit, gold/commodity}=>Fiat money where => means is better or same depends on competition

Your two theories are a bit off. Banknotes were indeed issued by individual banks, but they were all backed by gold/metals at fixed exchange rates. In other words, they were all the same currency.

Second, good money pushing away bad money (Gresham's Law) only pertains to currencies that are artificially fixed in an exchange rate (such as the government fixing the rate between silver and gold). If the rate is free-market (floating) then it will adjust appropriately, and one money will not "drive out" the other in Gresham's manner.

Incorrect. There was gold backing, but there indeed were money that were NOT BACKED. This happened 1st time in 13. century in Italy when local bankers realized they have too much cash and they can lend it for credit. Even the private banks were issuing money like the states issue them today. The difference was in something else. There was no monopoly for printing money so the banks were regulated by competition. Fiat money only copy what banks were doing before; but states added the printing monopoly rule (oligopoly in the USA).

Second note: People can and will decide which money will be "reserve" according to the law. They will decide ofc based on stability of the currency. If there is no way how can be stolen value from BTC, but there is a way how to steal it from USD, they will choose BTC as reserve currency. Yes, if we imagine existing and developed BTC and USD and they would indeed float, the push-away effect would not be that USD would vanish as currency  that is actively used. But that is not important - it would lose its independence. USD would be forced to peg himself to BTC. This is what I meant.

[TraderTimm]

Google could earn fees if they setup their own mining nodes. I doubt enough GPUs exist to make it practical, but they certainly could divert some of their collective CPU power to make the support of bitcoin more 'tangible' for them.

I'm still on the fence if they would actually go for the idea, as some have already mentioned, they have many different projects going on.

[evoorhees]

Google could earn fees if they setup their own mining nodes. I doubt enough GPUs exist to make it practical, but they certainly could divert some of their collective CPU power to make the support of bitcoin more 'tangible' for them.

I'm still on the fence if they would actually go for the idea, as some have already mentioned, they have many different projects going on.

The purpose of them adopting Bitcoins is not to make money on the Bitcoin system per se. Rather, the purpose is to rob their now-direct competitor Facebook of a huge investment Facebook has made. By undermining Facebook and the FB credits, they promote usage of Google+. Bitcoin is useful to them as subterfuge against Facebook, because if Facebook credits don't "catch on" then Facebook is seriously disadvantaged.

[netrin]

As far as I can tell, Google is all about creating a moat around search./advertising I'm not sure if Google+ is part of that moat or a new fortress (still advertising of course). I don't think bitcoins adds to the moat very much. I should think Google would want a bit of lock-in or demographic tracking. On the otherhand, I can't picture their competitors embracing bitcoin either, so it could be a distinguishing advantage. Apple should accept bitcoins for its app and music stores, but they won't. Apple doesn't think different.

[Atdhe]

G is trying to find balance between speleology into gvmnts asses and reasonable search results. But I would guess if this currency goes thru there will be a big press on G not to use it.

But as always they will leave a way how to avoid the bans. But the way will not be for regular companies. They would, at least, use some "shady" middlemen. Life as usual.

[mc_lovin]

I think one day Google will unveil it's Google Dollar.  Juuuuuuust as the US economy hits rock bottom.

[kloinko1n]

We're aware of a few things:
1) Facebook dominates the world and has created its own currency, mainly for use in wildly popular FB games from companies like Zynga.
2) Google is launching Google+, which is a direct competitor to Facebook. Google has its work cut out for it.
3) Google is engaged in the Google Wallet project, for fund transfer mechanisms... but Google is NOT creating its own currency.

Given these facts, if I were a decision maker at Google, I would at least consider the strategic decision to implement Bitcoin in Google+ and across the Google Wallet platforms. This would directly undermine FB credits, and if FB credits fails that is a HUGE win for Google. Consider that Google should already be observing how its relatively unrestricted Android community has amazingly caught up to Apple's iOS "walled garden" environment... the lesson applying perfectly to Bitcoin vs. FB credits.

If Google helps legitimize Bitcoin, FB credits will fail, and Google+ will be further strengthened against Facebook.

Is my Machiavellianesque thinking sound?

No, not sound at all, and I think it's not even Machivellic.
You seem to forget that the CEO's of FB, Google, Ebay, PayPal, Banks are visiting the same conferences of Bilderberg, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, some even the Bohemian Groove. So they seem to be offering you a choice, but it isn't. It's all about setting you up against each other through the creation of fake differences. (Which make it even harder for you to transact with your fellow human if he doesn't have the same financial service provider as you do, unless you and him pay a 'conversion fee'. Got it?)
Multi-brand corporations, f*ck the customer to get rich together and above all: rule the world and make all human 'useless eaters' our slaves!

[cbeast]

All large corporations fear the unknown. CEOs forget their roots and the fearless way they pursued their dreams. It's time for Google and FB to go the way of Myspace, AOL, Compuserve, etc. The future CEO of the company that promotes Bitcoin, Ripple, and other decentralized currencies will find a place in history and sit next to his or her predecessors.

[Atdhe]

All large corporations fear the unknown. CEOs forget their roots and the fearless way they pursued their dreams. It's time for Google and FB to go the way of Myspace, AOL, Compuserve, etc. The future CEO of the company that promotes Bitcoin, Ripple, and other decentralized currencies will find a place in history and sit next to his or her predecessors.

+1
the only problem is that such CEO will be in serious life threat
look what they did with CEO's of gambling companies, that are licenced outside of USA

and Bitcoin will be much bigger pain in the ass; "illegal gambling" only causes flow of money that goes outside, successful BTC will destroy the system

we can not expect anything else than total battle and such CEO will not be someone from Ivy league

[cbeast]

All large corporations fear the unknown. CEOs forget their roots and the fearless way they pursued their dreams. It's time for Google and FB to go the way of Myspace, AOL, Compuserve, etc. The future CEO of the company that promotes Bitcoin, Ripple, and other decentralized currencies will find a place in history and sit next to his or her predecessors.

+1
the only problem is that such CEO will be in serious life threat
look what they did with CEO's of gambling companies, that are licenced outside of USA

and Bitcoin will be much bigger pain in the ass; "illegal gambling" only causes flow of money that goes outside, successful BTC will destroy the system

we can not expect anything else than total battle and such CEO will not be someone from Ivy league

You may be right. Perhaps a new business model itself will evolve. Fear of the long blades of the Samurai will lead to a new order of business. Maybe Satoshi Nakamoto will become the inspiration for a new kind of Ninja entrepreneur.

[evoorhees]

Multi-brand corporations, f*ck the customer to get rich together and above all: rule the world and make all human 'useless eaters' our slaves!

God I'm tired of people bitching about companies that offer services and products voluntarily. I assure you that I only do business with "multi-brand corporations" with whom I see mutual benefit. How exactly are they "f*cking" you, when you don't have to buy their stuff?

[kloinko1n]

Multi-brand corporations, f*ck the customer to get rich together and above all: rule the world and make all human 'useless eaters' our slaves!

God I'm tired of people bitching about companies that offer services and products voluntarily. I assure you that I only do business with "multi-brand corporations" with whom I see mutual benefit. How exactly are they "f*cking" you, when you don't have to buy their stuff?

Cool down man.

It was a ',' (comma), and not a ':' (colon) written after 'multibrand corporations'. Those corporations are only part of the listing, not the subject, and were mentioned because they obfuscate the fact that the 'choice' they offer are not really a choice because they have the same mother/owner.

That 'f*ck the customer' was aimed at different corporations that collude against their mutually shared customers, and the 'above all: etc...' was aimed at the banks.

Happy now? 

[evoorhees]

Multi-brand corporations, f*ck the customer to get rich together and above all: rule the world and make all human 'useless eaters' our slaves!

God I'm tired of people bitching about companies that offer services and products voluntarily. I assure you that I only do business with "multi-brand corporations" with whom I see mutual benefit. How exactly are they "f*cking" you, when you don't have to buy their stuff?

Cool down man.

It was a ',' (comma), and not a ':' (colon) written after 'multibrand corporations'. Those corporations are only part of the listing, not the subject, and were mentioned because they obfuscate the fact that the 'choice' they offer are not really a choice because they have the same mother/owner.

That 'f*ck the customer' was aimed at different corporations that collude against their mutually shared customers, and the 'above all: etc...' was aimed at the banks.

Happy now? 

Corporations can't "f*ck" anybody unless they perpetrate fraud. If two companies are "colluding" and you don't like it, then don't buy from them. It's a very elegant system. The only problem with banks is that they're subsidized in myriad ways by the Federal Government - but your antagonism seems misplaced towards the "business seeking profit" side instead of the "government interfering with the market" side. It's the government that deserves vilification, because it uses force and coercion. Businesses, no matter how big, cannot coerce anybody except to the extent the government is enabling it.

[phillipsjk]

Haven't you heard of externalities? Corporations can hurt you even if you are not a customer or employee.

Right now the entertainment industry is dictating terms to the computer/electronic industry: even though the latter is a much larger industry. It means that since 2006, it is much harder to find a general-purpose computer. If you think your computer is general-purpose, take a second look at any paper work or EULAs that came with it.

The free market relies on the price system. Unless everybody switched to bitcoin, there is a lot of government intervention there. Even if the world adopts bitcoin, government intervention is going to be needed for contract enforcement.

[Atdhe]

Haven't you heard of externalities? Corporations can hurt you even if you are not a customer or employee.

Right now the entertainment industry is dictating terms to the computer/electronic industry: even though the latter is a much larger industry. It means that since 2006, it is much harder to find a general-purpose computer. If you think your computer is general-purpose, take a second look at any paper work or EULAs that came with it.

The free market relies on the price system. Unless everybody switched to bitcoin, there is a lot of government intervention there. Even if the world adopts bitcoin, government intervention is going to be needed for contract enforcement.

Well externalities and monopoly power indeed are a problem, but government is not necessary to enforce contracts. Everyone who has power/is trustworthy can enforce contracts. It already works with unregulated industries over the internet and the problem is that people think, like you, that only gvmnt can do it. No. Other entities can be even better with this, but the human prejudice is "stealing" the beliefs. It is the approach you represent here, that "there is some natural monopoly of state for contract enforcement", that is the main problem here IMO.

Actually it will be very nice when people realize they can not trust the state and they will trust the hated companies instead. The competition might help here.