Bitcoin is a hot target for criminals and money launderers.

[polynesia]

Byrne has long complained about investors using various loopholes in the financial markets to improperly boost profits at the expense of public companies and the overall economy—with Overstock even going so far as to sue some of the biggest names on Wall Street

http://www.wired.com/2014/07/overstock-and-cryptocurrency/

Interesting article.  I'm having a hard time imagining the advantages and disadvantages of cryptosecurities, but I guess there are still a lot of details to be fleshed out.  So I'm really not sure yet what issues it would solve.  But, as he points out, it would eliminate high-frequency trading...at least probably.  I could see someone figuring out a way to do it anyway, but it would probably be very difficult.

One of the things it could do is broaden the investor base.
Somebody sitting in rural India could invest in US stocks, which is not possible now.

[tee-rex]

Byrne has long complained about investors using various loopholes in the financial markets to improperly boost profits at the expense of public companies and the overall economy—with Overstock even going so far as to sue some of the biggest names on Wall Street

http://www.wired.com/2014/07/overstock-and-cryptocurrency/

Interesting article.  I'm having a hard time imagining the advantages and disadvantages of cryptosecurities, but I guess there are still a lot of details to be fleshed out.  So I'm really not sure yet what issues it would solve.  But, as he points out, it would eliminate high-frequency trading...at least probably.  I could see someone figuring out a way to do it anyway, but it would probably be very difficult.

One of the things it could do is broaden the investor base.
Somebody sitting in rural India could invest in US stocks, which is not possible now.

The last first thing a peasant in India would want to do is to invest in the US stocks!

[counter]

Byrne has long complained about investors using various loopholes in the financial markets to improperly boost profits at the expense of public companies and the overall economy—with Overstock even going so far as to sue some of the biggest names on Wall Street

http://www.wired.com/2014/07/overstock-and-cryptocurrency/

Interesting article.  I'm having a hard time imagining the advantages and disadvantages of cryptosecurities, but I guess there are still a lot of details to be fleshed out.  So I'm really not sure yet what issues it would solve.  But, as he points out, it would eliminate high-frequency trading...at least probably.  I could see someone figuring out a way to do it anyway, but it would probably be very difficult.

One of the things it could do is broaden the investor base.
Somebody sitting in rural India could invest in US stocks, which is not possible now.

That may be so but atleast they would have the option to choose.  With the current system they have no choice and are left out in the cold.
The last first thing a peasant in India would want to do is to invest in the US stocks!

[the joint]

Bitcoin's concept of anonymity is a hot target for the greedy. Its structure helps criminals do their criminal acts. They can easily participate on illegal transactions without being traced (or a high possibility of not being traced) by the authority. Decentralization also helps them in accomplishing some serious thefts and laundering because nobody has the power to freeze their money unless they're traced by the government. This is just one of the many things why merchants all over the world doesn't accept the idea of using bitcoin into their business. It seems to risky for them to touch knowing that there are many possibilities that they can be victimized by theft and frauds.

Step 1: Company registers with BitPay.

Step 2:  Nothing.  In one step, the company has now avoided any issues with potential fraud, theft, and even price volatility.

Conclusion: "Risk" is a poor reason for a merchant to decide not to use BTC because payment processors like BitPay eliminate the risk.

[polynesia]

Byrne has long complained about investors using various loopholes in the financial markets to improperly boost profits at the expense of public companies and the overall economy—with Overstock even going so far as to sue some of the biggest names on Wall Street

http://www.wired.com/2014/07/overstock-and-cryptocurrency/

Interesting article.  I'm having a hard time imagining the advantages and disadvantages of cryptosecurities, but I guess there are still a lot of details to be fleshed out.  So I'm really not sure yet what issues it would solve.  But, as he points out, it would eliminate high-frequency trading...at least probably.  I could see someone figuring out a way to do it anyway, but it would probably be very difficult.

One of the things it could do is broaden the investor base.
Somebody sitting in rural India could invest in US stocks, which is not possible now.

The last first thing a peasant in India would want to do is to invest in the US stocks!

You will never know until you give him the choice. 

[tee-rex]

Byrne has long complained about investors using various loopholes in the financial markets to improperly boost profits at the expense of public companies and the overall economy—with Overstock even going so far as to sue some of the biggest names on Wall Street

http://www.wired.com/2014/07/overstock-and-cryptocurrency/

Interesting article.  I'm having a hard time imagining the advantages and disadvantages of cryptosecurities, but I guess there are still a lot of details to be fleshed out.  So I'm really not sure yet what issues it would solve.  But, as he points out, it would eliminate high-frequency trading...at least probably.  I could see someone figuring out a way to do it anyway, but it would probably be very difficult.

One of the things it could do is broaden the investor base.
Somebody sitting in rural India could invest in US stocks, which is not possible now.

The last first thing a peasant in India would want to do is to invest in the US stocks!

You will never know until you give him the choice. 

If he were given a choice, he would cease to be an Indian peasant the same very moment.

[Razick]

Bitcoin's concept of anonymity is a hot target for the greedy. Its structure helps criminals do their criminal acts. They can easily participate on illegal transactions without being traced (or a high possibility of not being traced) by the authority. Decentralization also helps them in accomplishing some serious thefts and laundering because nobody has the power to freeze their money unless they're traced by the government. This is just one of the many things why merchants all over the world doesn't accept the idea of using bitcoin into their business. It seems to risky for them to touch knowing that there are many possibilities that they can be victimized by theft and frauds.

Cash can be used for the wrong purposes too. Bitcoin is just a tool, and like all tools it can be used for good or evil. Businesses are not at any more risk of being victimized by theft and fraud as long as they take appropriate precautions.

Do you really believe that the government should be able to trace your transactions? I don't. I believe in privacy rights, my money is my money to do with as I wish, without the government looking over my shoulder, until I am proven guilty of a crime.

[CoinsCoinsEverywhere]

Bitcoin's concept of anonymity is a hot target for the greedy. Its structure helps criminals do their criminal acts. They can easily participate on illegal transactions without being traced (or a high possibility of not being traced) by the authority. Decentralization also helps them in accomplishing some serious thefts and laundering because nobody has the power to freeze their money unless they're traced by the government. This is just one of the many things why merchants all over the world doesn't accept the idea of using bitcoin into their business. It seems to risky for them to touch knowing that there are many possibilities that they can be victimized by theft and frauds.

Step 1: Company registers with BitPay.

Step 2:  Nothing.  In one step, the company has now avoided any issues with potential fraud, theft, and even price volatility.

Conclusion: "Risk" is a poor reason for a merchant to decide not to use BTC because payment processors like BitPay eliminate the risk.

I generally agree, although I would point out that there's still some risk.  I don't know all of BitPay's terms and conditions (or Coinbase's), but I'm guessing that they can't guarantee the exchange rate if they have technical difficulties.  On the surface, this would seem like a very minor issue that would likely have little impact, even if it happened, as it would likely be short-lived.  However, the greatest chances of having such problems usually occur during times of exceptionally high volume, such as during a crash.

[the joint]

Bitcoin's concept of anonymity is a hot target for the greedy. Its structure helps criminals do their criminal acts. They can easily participate on illegal transactions without being traced (or a high possibility of not being traced) by the authority. Decentralization also helps them in accomplishing some serious thefts and laundering because nobody has the power to freeze their money unless they're traced by the government. This is just one of the many things why merchants all over the world doesn't accept the idea of using bitcoin into their business. It seems to risky for them to touch knowing that there are many possibilities that they can be victimized by theft and frauds.

Step 1: Company registers with BitPay.

Step 2:  Nothing.  In one step, the company has now avoided any issues with potential fraud, theft, and even price volatility.

Conclusion: "Risk" is a poor reason for a merchant to decide not to use BTC because payment processors like BitPay eliminate the risk.

I generally agree, although I would point out that there's still some risk.  I don't know all of BitPay's terms and conditions (or Coinbase's), but I'm guessing that they can't guarantee the exchange rate if they have technical difficulties.  On the surface, this would seem like a very minor issue that would likely have little impact, even if it happened, as it would likely be short-lived.  However, the greatest chances of having such problems usually occur during times of exceptionally high volume, such as during a crash.

I'm not exactly sure how they do it now, but I believe BitPay used to take data from the top 3 leading exchanges in terms of price, rule out the third, then average the top two (I always thought this was strange since ruling out the third would be unnecessary if you just looked at the top two, so I'm guessing there's a chance I misunderstood something).

I suppose there may be a window with a duration of a few seconds during which extreme volatility still might lead to a nasty surprise for the merchant, but I'm not so sure about this.  Whenever I send BTC to my BitPay account, I usually receive notice of my deposit credited as USD within about 3-5 seconds (via both an SMS text and an email).  I'm not sure what happens during these few seconds, but the window for risk seems *exceptionally* small, if there is one.  And, in the event of some technical difficulties on BitPay's end, I'd imagine they would eat the loss if such difficulties were to occur.

Merchants also have the ability to set the ratio of BTC they retain.  They could, for example, choose to receive 100% of the converted BTC value in USD, or they could choose to retain 100%  BTC, or any ratio inbetween.  This would allow a merchant to cash out manually at the time they choose, though I don't see how this would give you any more advantage at avoiding loss due to volatility than by letting BitPay do the conversion automatically.

I think the chances of accepting a bad check would far outweigh the chances of loss due to volatility while using a payment processor.  There will always be a hypothetical scenario for risk involved with accepting any currency, but this method of accepting payment seems less risky than many others.

[CoinsCoinsEverywhere]

Do you really believe that the government should be able to trace your transactions? I don't. I believe in privacy rights, my money is my money to do with as I wish, without the government looking over my shoulder, until I am proven guilty of a crime.

I agree that privacy is important, but why would I care whether the government can trace my transactions?  I'm just an average guy--one of 300M people in the US.  I don't do anything illegal, so what difference does it make?  No one else cares what I do.

Edit: Actually, that's not true.  Companies care what I do so they can spam me.  If I want anonymity for anything, it's so that companies don't know how I spend my money.  I don't care about the government.

[Justine]

Bitcoin users also a hot target for scam artists and hackers.

Just heard a company get infected by trojan and the hacker demand bitcoin payment.

[polynesia]

Bitcoin users also a hot target for scam artists and hackers.

Just heard a company get infected by trojan and the hacker demand bitcoin payment.

These people don't care whether you are a bitcoin user or not. Only the payment method is bitcoins. Anybody with a computer is fair game. 

[the joint]

Bitcoin users also a hot target for scam artists and hackers.

Just heard a company get infected by trojan and the hacker demand bitcoin payment.

Bitcoin users aren't a hot target for identity theft, though.

[polynesia]

Bitcoin users also a hot target for scam artists and hackers.

Just heard a company get infected by trojan and the hacker demand bitcoin payment.

Bitcoin users aren't a hot target for identity theft, though.

If you stay pseudonymous, no point in stealing your identity. 

[dontCAREhair]

Bitcoin users also a hot target for scam artists and hackers.

Just heard a company get infected by trojan and the hacker demand bitcoin payment.

Bitcoin users aren't a hot target for identity theft, though.

If you stay pseudonymous, no point in stealing your identity. 

If someone is known to be associated with bitcoin then the theft of their identity could be used to blackmail them into giving coins in exchange for their identity back.

[polynesia]

If someone is known to be associated with bitcoin then the theft of their identity could be used to blackmail them into giving coins in exchange for their identity back.

Not necessary somebody associated with bitcoin. Anybody with money could be blackmailed. The payment route will be through bitcoins. Whether you give bitcoins that you own, or buy bitcoins and then transfer them, the criminal really doesn't care.

[CoinsCoinsEverywhere]

Bitcoin's concept of anonymity is a hot target for the greedy. Its structure helps criminals do their criminal acts. They can easily participate on illegal transactions without being traced (or a high possibility of not being traced) by the authority. Decentralization also helps them in accomplishing some serious thefts and laundering because nobody has the power to freeze their money unless they're traced by the government. This is just one of the many things why merchants all over the world doesn't accept the idea of using bitcoin into their business. It seems to risky for them to touch knowing that there are many possibilities that they can be victimized by theft and frauds.

Step 1: Company registers with BitPay.

Step 2:  Nothing.  In one step, the company has now avoided any issues with potential fraud, theft, and even price volatility.

Conclusion: "Risk" is a poor reason for a merchant to decide not to use BTC because payment processors like BitPay eliminate the risk.

I generally agree, although I would point out that there's still some risk.  I don't know all of BitPay's terms and conditions (or Coinbase's), but I'm guessing that they can't guarantee the exchange rate if they have technical difficulties.  On the surface, this would seem like a very minor issue that would likely have little impact, even if it happened, as it would likely be short-lived.  However, the greatest chances of having such problems usually occur during times of exceptionally high volume, such as during a crash.

I'm not exactly sure how they do it now, but I believe BitPay used to take data from the top 3 leading exchanges in terms of price, rule out the third, then average the top two (I always thought this was strange since ruling out the third would be unnecessary if you just looked at the top two, so I'm guessing there's a chance I misunderstood something).

I suppose there may be a window with a duration of a few seconds during which extreme volatility still might lead to a nasty surprise for the merchant, but I'm not so sure about this.  Whenever I send BTC to my BitPay account, I usually receive notice of my deposit credited as USD within about 3-5 seconds (via both an SMS text and an email).  I'm not sure what happens during these few seconds, but the window for risk seems *exceptionally* small, if there is one.  And, in the event of some technical difficulties on BitPay's end, I'd imagine they would eat the loss if such difficulties were to occur.

Merchants also have the ability to set the ratio of BTC they retain.  They could, for example, choose to receive 100% of the converted BTC value in USD, or they could choose to retain 100%  BTC, or any ratio inbetween.  This would allow a merchant to cash out manually at the time they choose, though I don't see how this would give you any more advantage at avoiding loss due to volatility than by letting BitPay do the conversion automatically.

I think the chances of accepting a bad check would far outweigh the chances of loss due to volatility while using a payment processor.  There will always be a hypothetical scenario for risk involved with accepting any currency, but this method of accepting payment seems less risky than many others.

I don't know all the ins and outs of BitPay and Coinbase, either, but my guess is that they protect themselves from quick, small price movements using a greater spread between the buy and sell prices.  That and/or they may make sure that they match up buys and sells appropriately by locking in the price for a (probably short) period of time.  At least on Coinbase, they don't show you the market depth, so they can probably toy with things as they need to in order to make sure that they don't lose money.

I agree that under the vast majority of circumstances, exchange value loss shouldn't be a problem.  So let me explain a little better.  I wasn't into bitcoin during some the craziest run ups and crashes last year, so I don't know how robust the exchanges are.  But in the stock and futures markets, for example, during times of exceptionally high volume (e.g., flash crashes), I've heard that the computer systems can become overwhelmed, which can lead to much longer order execution times and possible system crashes.  Didn't Mt. Gox have major issues during one of the run ups/crashes earlier last year, such that it took minutes or hours for orders to be executed?  If that kind of thing happened during a major crash--if it took an hour to execute your trade, or worse, the severs go down--you could easily lose 10-20% or more of the exchange value of your coins.  The odds are very small, but the loss potential is pretty high.

[zhinkk]

Yes, if they are doing it wrong. When used properly (escrow/etc), bitcoin is incredible safe and credible. It is proven in the code and the whitepaper.

[Jamie_Boulder]

So is every other fiat currency in the world.....

/Topic

[botany]

hmm bitcoin will be really hard if they do that .
i think big investor will come in end of this year .

If who does what?