Google+Bitcoin vs. Facebook+FB Credits

[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.