Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Adrian-x]

Have used Uber twice now while on vacation.

Great service with courteous drivers and reasonable if not cheaper cost. The drivers also understand the economic reality of what's happening.

Uber is good, bitcoin is great.

Next Up the taxi wars. I LOL’ed rolled my eyes every time I read a headlines “X killed taxi war”, yes crazy but when these taxi drivers start killing passengers to maintain their monopolies, you get an idea why people like the state to intervene.   

[1713976863]

1713976863

[1713976863]

1713976863

[Erdogan]

Have used Uber twice now while on vacation.

Great service with courteous drivers and reasonable if not cheaper cost. The drivers also understand the economic reality of what's happening.

Uber is good, bitcoin is great.

Next Up the taxi wars. I LOL’ed rolled my eyes every time I read a headlines “X killed taxi war”, yes crazy but when these taxi drivers start killing passengers to maintain their monopolies, you get an idea why people like the state to intervene.   

You have that inside out. The state intervened in the free market to give some friends a monopoly.

[Adrian-x]

Have used Uber twice now while on vacation.

Great service with courteous drivers and reasonable if not cheaper cost. The drivers also understand the economic reality of what's happening.

Uber is good, bitcoin is great.

Next Up the taxi wars. I LOL’ed rolled my eyes every time I read a headlines “X killed taxi war”, yes crazy but when these taxi drivers start killing passengers to maintain their monopolies, you get an idea why people like the state to intervene.  

You have that inside out. The state intervened in the free market to give some friends a monopoly.

That’s almost how Wikipedia puts it, I don’t think I have it the wrong way round, I’d agree the problem was exacerbated by the state but until the mid 80’s taxi’s for practical purposes didn’t exist.  

Sanctions made cars or minibus taxi's unaffordable to the masses, so in effect the free market was oppressed by law and sanctions, if you were a laborer you had to use the monopoly PUTCO to get around. Taxi’s only served a minority and became viable for the masses in the mid 80 with the production of the Toyota HiAce.

After the mid 80’s ever tom dick and harry bought a HiAce when Toyota started making them in South Africa, the result was a flood of entrepreneurs started called themselves taxi drivers, and by the late 80’ the market was saturated, and competition drove out profit. If there ever was a taxi monopoly, no one in South Africa cared and it was never part of the race, they were left behind at the start with the production of the HiAce. What resulted was a gold rush and after market saturation it was taxi gang warfare, called informal associations, then the state intervened in the free market to give some "friends" a monopoly, but they weren't friends, it was still apartheid.

[tvbcof]

The Feds sale of btc  is  great news for fungibility.

Yes and no. I've noted that large potential investors may be specifically interested in this sale since it's gov-approved bitcoin. But if that's true, then these are "special" bitcoins right now...

Quite a good point.  It will be very interesting to know what these BTC sell for if that info is public.  Especially whether they command a premium or not.  It will also be interesting to see if they are tagged differently a-la the 'enjoy/sochi' methods.

[tvbcof]

The Feds sale of btc  is  great news for fungibility.

Yes and no. I've noted that large potential investors may be specifically interested in this sale since it's gov-approved bitcoin. But if that's true, then these are "special" bitcoins right now...

But there's an inherent contradiction in the gov't position if they sell for profit these tainted drug coins which was the premise on which they snatched them in the first place and their argument that the rest of us can't transact in tainted coins.

Not at all.  Taint is not an issue.  The important thing is control of taint.  Obviously there will be mechanisms to remove it.  That'll be the incentive to register and pay one's taxes and so forth.  Eventually.  This will be ratcheted in over time of course.

[Melbustus]

Interesting way for a (fairly) mainstream publication to start a bitcoin piece:

By now you know enough about Bitcoin to want in, but you’re not sure how to get some of your own...

"A Beginner's Guide to Owning Bitcoin" - http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/234742

[pastet89]

Gold will collapse to the price of nothing till the end of the world, there is a prophety from a Christian saint for this. He said that in 19th century, so far predictions looking correct. 

[cypherdoc]

The Feds sale of btc  is  great news for fungibility.

Yes and no. I've noted that large potential investors may be specifically interested in this sale since it's gov-approved bitcoin. But if that's true, then these are "special" bitcoins right now...

But there's an inherent contradiction in the gov't position if they sell for profit these tainted drug coins which was the premise on which they snatched them in the first place and their argument that the rest of us can't transact in tainted coins.

Not at all.  Taint is not an issue.  The important thing is control of taint.  Obviously there will be mechanisms to remove it.  That'll be the incentive to register and pay one's taxes and so forth.  Eventually.  This will be ratcheted in over time of course.

More idiotic socialist drivel from you.

Why are you even in Bitcoin? You don't seem  to understand what is being attempted here. If you give gov't the right to be the final arbiter about which  coins are clean versus which are tainted, you've lost any advantage over fiat.

You might as well admit you're an opportunist. And don't come back with some bs about being a pragmatist.

[rebuilder]

The Feds sale of btc  is  great news for fungibility.

Yes and no. I've noted that large potential investors may be specifically interested in this sale since it's gov-approved bitcoin. But if that's true, then these are "special" bitcoins right now...

But there's an inherent contradiction in the gov't position if they sell for profit these tainted drug coins which was the premise on which they snatched them in the first place and their argument that the rest of us can't transact in tainted coins.

I must have missed something, where did the gov't make  any claim about taint?

[Erdogan]

The Feds sale of btc  is  great news for fungibility.

Yes and no. I've noted that large potential investors may be specifically interested in this sale since it's gov-approved bitcoin. But if that's true, then these are "special" bitcoins right now...

But there's an inherent contradiction in the gov't position if they sell for profit these tainted drug coins which was the premise on which they snatched them in the first place and their argument that the rest of us can't transact in tainted coins.

I must have missed something, where did the gov't make  any claim about taint?

It was not said on this occasion, but generally governments will confiscate money that is earned by criminal actions, even if it is not the criminal, but some other, non convicted, party that currently have them. The confiscated money  can then be spent by the governments. It is a double standard and it is not right.

 

[cypherdoc]

Forget ghash.

Apple's making good:

http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-wallet-apps-re-enter-ios-store-apples-digital-currency-policy-shift/

[bitcoinsrus]

Its what steve jobs would have wanted 

[rebuilder]

Erdogan: Governments confiscating assets and taint seem like entirely different things to me. I read cypherdoc's post as implying a US Government agency has stated they will consider some bitcoins illegal to use due to their having reviously been associated with activities frowned upon by the US gov't. That's what I'd like clarified - has such a statement been made, and where?

[tvbcof]

Not at all.  Taint is not an issue.  The important thing is control of taint.  Obviously there will be mechanisms to remove it.  That'll be the incentive to register and pay one's taxes and so forth.  Eventually.  This will be ratcheted in over time of course.

More idiotic socialist drivel from you.

Why are you even in Bitcoin? You don't seem  to understand what is being attempted here. If you give gov't the right to be the final arbiter about which  coins are clean versus which are tainted, you've lost any advantage over fiat.

You might as well admit you're an opportunist. And don't come back with some bs about being a pragmatist.

It's not a matter of 'giving' the gov't any rights.  It's a matter of what they are willing and able to take.  It's a fair assumption that they'll take as much as they can, and it's important to understand what that might be.  Don't be thick.

You and I are both very much opportunists.  So what?  Who isn't?  My hopes for Bitcoin as a beneficial social phenomenon vary and are currently at a relative low point.  So yes, I want to profit as I can and am distinctly an 'opportunist'.  Calling out the potential threats is not helpful in this pump-n-dump, but I don't stroke my ego by believing that what I write on this board makes much of a difference one way or another.

My argument for Bitcoin has always been that it was likely under-valued and a good speculative play.  Now, 100x profits later, I still make that argument but more weakly.  I argue strenuously on this thread (being on-topic) that gold has some very real advantages in some very possible failure mode scenarios and they should be considered for those deciding their financial strategies.  Relatedly, there are some legitimate threats to Bitcoin and they should be considered as well.

I have zero shame about being either a 'pragmatist' or a 'realist', and people will find that I am a staunch defender of Bitcoin in cases where it is being ignorantly, dishonestly, or unfairly maligned.

At the end of the day, I've benefited mightily from Bitcoin already and at this point I'd just as soon walk away with a clear conscience than with even more of a windfall.  But I'd take either.

[boumalo]

Forget ghash.

Apple's making good:

http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-wallet-apps-re-enter-ios-store-apples-digital-currency-policy-shift/

Apple is not the only good news : yahoo, expedia and paypal come to mind as well

I just bought an Android, I may buy an Iphone next if Bitcoin app are kept on the Apple Store that Apple is controlling

[HeliKopterBen]

That's what I'd like clarified - has such a statement been made, and where?

Short answer:  no

The government is not going to give up all that revenue by tainting coins.  Besides, they couldn't do it directly.  They would just have to follow UTXOs, which would be much easier said than done if privacy protocols are used such as coinjoin.  Tainting is out of their control.

[Erdogan]

Erdogan: Governments confiscating assets and taint seem like entirely different things to me. I read cypherdoc's post as implying a US Government agency has stated they will consider some bitcoins illegal to use due to their having reviously been associated with activities frowned upon by the US gov't. That's what I'd like clarified - has such a statement been made, and where?

Not that I know of.

[cypherdoc]

Erdogan: Governments confiscating assets and taint seem like entirely different things to me. I read cypherdoc's post as implying a US Government agency has stated they will consider some bitcoins illegal to use due to their having reviously been associated with activities frowned upon by the US gov't. That's what I'd like clarified - has such a statement been made, and where?

No, but imo they've been skirting very close to that position.

Look at the Silk Road clients who lost their coins but weren't supposedly buying drugs. Also Shrem who's being prosecuted by association.

[justusranvier]

Erdogan: Governments confiscating assets and taint seem like entirely different things to me. I read cypherdoc's post as implying a US Government agency has stated they will consider some bitcoins illegal to use due to their having reviously been associated with activities frowned upon by the US gov't. That's what I'd like clarified - has such a statement been made, and where?

No official public statements, just lots of indirect evidence:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=333824.0

[cypherdoc]

Not at all.  Taint is not an issue.  The important thing is control of taint.  Obviously there will be mechanisms to remove it.  That'll be the incentive to register and pay one's taxes and so forth.  Eventually.  This will be ratcheted in over time of course.

More idiotic socialist drivel from you.

Why are you even in Bitcoin? You don't seem  to understand what is being attempted here. If you give gov't the right to be the final arbiter about which  coins are clean versus which are tainted, you've lost any advantage over fiat.

You might as well admit you're an opportunist. And don't come back with some bs about being a pragmatist.

It's not a matter of 'giving' the gov't any rights.  It's a matter of what they are willing and able to take.  It's a fair assumption that they'll take as much as they can, and it's important to understand what that might be.  Don't be thick.

You and I are both very much opportunists.  So what?  Who isn't?  My hopes for Bitcoin as a beneficial social phenomenon vary and are currently at a relative low point.  So yes, I want to profit as I can and am distinctly an 'opportunist'.  Calling out the potential threats is not helpful in this pump-n-dump, but I don't stroke my ego by believing that what I write on this board makes much of a difference one way or another.

My argument for Bitcoin has always been that it was likely under-valued and a good speculative play.  Now, 100x profits later, I still make that argument but more weakly.  I argue strenuously on this thread (being on-topic) that gold has some very real advantages in some very possible failure mode scenarios and they should be considered for those deciding their financial strategies.  Relatedly, there are some legitimate threats to Bitcoin and they should be considered as well.

I have zero shame about being either a 'pragmatist' or a 'realist', and people will find that I am a staunch defender of Bitcoin in cases where it is being ignorantly, dishonestly, or unfairly maligned.

At the end of the day, I've benefited mightily from Bitcoin already and at this point I'd just as soon walk away with a clear conscience than with even more of a windfall.  But I'd take either.

But as a self admitted socialist, not only do you expect gov't intervention, you want it.