Eric Schmidt talked about Bitcoin on MWC Keynote

[marketGuy]

It seems that Eric Schmidt did just talk about P2P money on his MWC Keynote.

Schmidt also revealed that Google wanted to create a rival to Internet peer to peer currency Bitcoin. The company planned to call it "Google Bucks." Though Schmidt said peer to peer currencies like Bitcoin are "a great idea," Google Bucks never got off the ground because these currencies are illegal in many countries.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/28/technology/google_future_of_internet/index.htm

Also, Google at one point had considered a virtual currency akin to Bitcoin, named Google Bucks, but had backed off over concerns it would violate US law.

http://www.electronista.com/articles/12/02/28/google.chief.talks.phones.and.robots.at.mwc.2012/#ixzz1ninmGB00

Bad thing is, he thinks P2P money is illegal in US. On the other hand, i am not so sure if we ever want money in the hands of Google

[cypherdoc]

of course Google couldn't create its own currency; it would be centralized and prone to gov't intervention.

Bitcoin is not.

its not illegal until there is some sort of ruling. and even then...

[Stephen Gornick]

Is there video of this anywhere?

[proudhon]

Free advice for Eric Schmidt:

1.  Buy a bunch of bitcoins.
2.  Integrate bitcoin into Google Wallet.
3.  Go to sleep.
4.  Wake up.
5.  Eat breakfast.
6.  Check the price of bitcoin on MtGox.
7.  Profit.
8.  See step 7.
9.  See step 8.
10.  See step 9.

[Serge]

conspiracy theory idea: google created bitcoins and open sourced it after realizing they wouldn't pull it off as google bucks

[rjk]

conspiracy theory idea: google created bitcoins and open sourced it after realizing they wouldn't pull it off as google bucks

Eric is Satoshi! </tinfoil>

[Steve]

conspiracy theory idea: google created bitcoins and open sourced it after realizing they wouldn't pull it off as google bucks

I've mentioned a similar theory about amazon.com before.  While unlikely, I don't think it's completely out of the realm of possibility.  

I must say, I do like the fact that the chairman of a major corporation has just endorsed Bitcoin as a "great idea."  

Edit: In fact, if someone can get the exact quote, it should be put on the front page of bitcoin.org, weusecoins.com and lovebitcoins.org.

[MemoryDealers]

Here is the video,  but it is long.

Link removed.
(Sorry wrong year)


I'm not sure which section has the quote,  but I am watching it now.

[ineededausername]

Free advice for Eric Schmidt:

1.  Buy a bunch of bitcoins.
2.  Integrate bitcoin into Google Wallet.
3.  Go to sleep.
4.  Wake up.
5.  Eat breakfast.
6.  Check the price of bitcoin on MtGox.
7.  Profit.
8.  See step 7.
9.  See step 8.
10.  See step 9.

the first major existing company to adopt Bitcoins will definitely make immense profits.

[Steve]

I don't think all of the video has been posted yet.  But, I went searching for video on Schmidt and google bucks.  He talked about Google Bucks at the 2011 MWC keynote as well.  The segment is between 8:45 and 11:20 in the following video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYxP5bLY5gI

The interesting part about this segment is that he mentions "Larry and Sergey have periodically mentioned we should offer something called Google Bucks and I pointed out the regulation issues, etc…and, uh, probably not going to happen."  Schmidt was also very quick to dispel any notion that they were interested in being a "bank."  From his mannerisms, I'm guessing that they wish to avoid that topic not because they don't think they could be very good at banking, but quite the contrary…that they could be very good at banking.

I think Bitcoin is Google Bucks.  And Larry and/or Sergey is Satoshi.

[Gabi]

because these currencies are illegal in many countries.

Once more, just FUD

Nothing sure, just "in many countries", wich mean nothing. What countries? Syria? Lybia when there was gheddafi?

but had backed off over concerns it would violate US law.

Of course we must trust you on that because ehi he would never lie uh? I wonder wich US LAW is being violated. Oh, no one?

[rjk]

because these currencies are illegal in many countries.

Once more, just FUD

Nothing sure, just "in many countries", wich mean nothing. What countries? Syria? Lybia when there was gheddafi?

but had backed off over concerns it would violate US law.

Of course we must trust you on that because ehi he would never lie uh? I wonder wich US LAW is being violated. Oh, no one?

In the context of a large corporation, these statements may very well be true. Not to mention that Google also has large teams of lawyers available to them to look at this kind of stuff all the time.

In the context of something decentralized... well to put it simply, it's murky.

[bb113]

What does P2P mean if not decentralized?

[cbeast]

I'm not sure Eric even realizes what Bitcoin really is. Google isn't a big enough company to control the block chain. It would be susceptable to many types of attacks.

[mrb]

I don't think all of the video has been posted yet.  But, I went searching for video on Schmidt and google bucks.  He talked about Google Bucks at the 2011 MWC keynote as well.  The segment is between 8:45 and 11:20 in the following video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYxP5bLY5gI

This is the wrong video. It was uploaded in May 2011. The keynote happened in 2012. Nevermind.

[memvola]

I don't think all of the video has been posted yet.  But, I went searching for video on Schmidt and google bucks.  He talked about Google Bucks at the 2011 MWC keynote as well.  The segment is between 8:45 and 11:20 in the following video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYxP5bLY5gI

This is the wrong video. It was uploaded in May 2011. The keynote happened in 2012.

Read the comment you've quoted.

of course Google couldn't create its own currency; it would be centralized and prone to gov't intervention.

"Google's own blockchain" is a topic that's been around since I first started using Bitcoin in 2010. My common answer is, it makes more sense for Google to wait and see, and adopt Bitcoin itself if and when it proves to be useful, rather than create a competitive product. This is what big companies do. It's good to know that the higher-ups of Google are keeping an eye on Bitcoin. That says to me, if Bitcoin overcomes some of the regulatory issues, it has a good chance of being adopted by Google.

[memvola]

 2) Is this his REAL opinion ?Has he personal blog or something ?

http://live.theverge.com/Event/Eric_Schmidt_keynote_at_MWC_2012?Page=2

6:36 pm Q: If it comes to real democracy, payment has to be peer-to-peer. Would you like to know about my technology called FairCash?

6:37 pm A: Are you familiar with BitCoin? There are some issues with peer-to-peer money. In most cases it's illegal, besides that it's a great idea. We had our own proposal called Google Bucks, but we didn't want to get into these issues. Most of these systems will have reguatory issues.

[memvola]

 Also i am stick with the 1) thought from my above post -- the laws in concern
  are not CURRENT, but the FUTURE ones...

I don't think he is particularly talking about laws even. What he means is that the State will not want to let people have free money, and that's a war they will not fight. Decentralized money has both freedom of use and independence from economical control.

Indeed, how to mine data for profit, when there is only encrypted "garbage" in the net ?

I thought he was talking about closed systems that require authentication to access content.

[memvola]

Closed for / from whom ?
Unaccessible for Google ?  

No, precisely, I agree. However I'm with Schmidt on that one, the more information that is directly reachable, the better. Yeah, it's good for Google, and he could be all about profits, but it's an open situation. Who's to say a decentralized search engine won't replace Google one day? I would like it to be able to index as much as possible too. With that kind of segregation, it would be impossible to index the web without making deals with giants like facebook, and that won't work for an open search engine.

[BkkCoins]

"Balkanize the internet" refers to splitting it up into separate networks under different control/jurisdiction and that they don't play well together.

For example, the SOPA stuff with rules for foreign websites vs. US websites and other similar ideas. You could end up with hundreds of national networks that may/maynot link with each other according to national laws. Basically he's saying we should try our best to avoid going down that road.

Obviously for Google that would be terrible but also for many other companies and just the general public. But it may be what legislators want due to special interest lobbying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkanize