/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>363314

They are selling bitcoin mining hardware but it's a step in the right direction. Logically walmart will eventually have to accept bitcoin.

>>363314
>a friend
kek

>considering
I'm sure pretty much every major retailer has or is "considering" it. It really doesn't mean anything unless they actually start doing it.

>>363315
>walmart will eventually have to accept bitcoin
doublekek

>>363316
I understand your disbelief, but he clamied some lawyer on Twitter leaked this. I don't have a Twitter, so I'm unable to research it.

>>363315
How exactly does that logically follow?

>>363320
> some lawyer on Twitter leaked this
hehe

>>363323
Well, that's exactly why I'm asking you guys.

>>363314
>Is this true, bizraelites?
No, unless proved otherwise.

....well...

You know, actually it wouldn't surprise me if large corps were testing it at the point of sale, just to see how easy it is. But I doubt if you would see it publicly any time soon. And you'll see it in smaller chains first.

>>363320
you don't need a twitter to find a tweet.

If it were true, you would be able to google search the tweet to verify it. If their acc. is private, it's shit tier "leak".

Basic stuff 101

>tfw bitcoinfags are shiling here on /biz/

protip: this is what these idiots do. they advertize their coin so others will be interested and possibly buy

saying something like "walmart might accept BTC" makes the retards think "omg, I better buy BTC"

reddit.com/r/bitcoin is full of this kind of hearsay. keep it there

>>363314
In case this happen, wouldnt they overcharge bitcoin? for example if something costs 100$, wouldnt they take say 120$ worth of btc because they are risking it by accepting btc since theres a good chance they will go to poopoo anytime

I could maybe, MAYBE, see them doing this on their web site eventually, but in retail stores? Puh-leeze. They're not going to risk having thousands of 400-lb EBT "single mom" baboons abandoning their carts full of $600 of perishable foods in checkout lanes because Johnny Neckbeard has been trying to properly enter his Buttcoin wallet address on the keypad for fifteen solid minutes.

>>363682
they could a adopt a no refund policy (and mostly get away with it) with BTC purchases that would outweigh negatives like the one you pointed out though

>>363682
>trying to properly enter his Buttcoin wallet address on the keypad for fifteen solid minutes
Can't tell if actually grasping at straws or just being poetryfaggot

oh boy! its surely going to the moon now!
TO THE MOON!

>>363699
It's funny because bitcoin is actually more convenient than credit cards while being more secure

>>363699
>>363715

>having to type in "1BEkUGADFbrEShQb9Xr4pKPtM8jAyiNQsJ" while 25 angry people wait behind you
>more convenient than a credit card

Bitcoin isn't a currency, it's a religion.

>>363721
Surely you jest, anyone who somehow thinks you have to type it deserves to be a laggard

>>363721

no, they would create an app where you have to pre-load coins onto an address (either yours or theirs depending on how jew they are), and then it would use bluetooth or a screen scanner at the register, not enough balance "why don't we start a walmart card for you"

>>363563
doesn't matter if it is shilling, or true or not. A lot of shilling going on means you should buy, the retards you speak of will be buying so the price will go up.

You guys are as retarded as the people that say that Apple is promoting Bitcoin apps. They say "virtual currency" for a reason. This is so that they can create their own. Apple already has a patent to do this. Since Bitcoin is open source this is relatively easy. The idea Walmart would promote or accept Bitcoin instead of Walbucks is silly.

>>363729
sounds convenient.
Walmart must be working on this as we speak. Surely the cost of developing such a system and implementing it in all their outlets will be outweighed by all that business they will get from the horde of BTC users just waiting to spend their BTC.
>being this fucking delusional

>>363756
it's really not as hard as you think. I'm a database developer at a major financial institution and work on stuff harder than this would be every single week.

>>363765
Im glad to know it's easy. Walmart virtual currency here we come! Bye bye Bitcoin!

>>363770

I'll put money down that this is exactly what apple is doing and once they announce it there will be a major BTC dump

>>363771
I'll take that bet and I bet you they will only come out with their own GUI for bitcoin that takes a cut of the transaction. The only reason they don't allow it is because it goes around their fees. And they aren't going to create their own blockchain. No one is going to toss out the one chance we have at finally having a global currency. If they did create their own coin it would have to be implemented as one of those side-chains.

>>363771
It's going to be another shitcoin pump and dump

>>363775
They would have no incentive to use Bitcoin at all. You are talking about Apple who prides themselves on their brand name and steals others patents and technology all the time to make it their own. You think they would really allow a missed business opportunity for something that is open source that they can legally steal the protocol for? Apple has no lofty goals for global currencies. They are a for profit organization.

>>363779
You don't really believe this do you? Apple users are even more fanatical than you Bitcoin shills are and that is saying a lot.

whatever happened to that social network PING apple made?

>>363796
The iTunes thing? Nobody used it so they killed it off.

>>363314
>Walmart
Probably legit.

Apple just accepted Bitcoins
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/is-bitcoin-here-to-stay-133841607.html

The guy in the video has a tumor on his forehead or some shit I dont know wtf is going on

>Apple (AAPL) may have disappointed consumers at its Worldwide Developers Conference Monday, but bitcoin users rejoiced: Apple executives hinted that bitcoin apps would soon be available on the tech giant's operating system. According to new Apple App Store guidelines, "Apps may facilitate transmission of approved virtual currencies provided that they do so in compliance with all state and federal laws for the territories in which the app functions."

>>363779
100% premine with an IPO

>>363808
>"Apps may facilitate transmission of approved virtual currencies provided that they do so in compliance with all state and federal laws for the territories in which the app functions."

please point out to us where it says bitcoin is an approved virtual currency

>>363808
>Apple just accepted Bitcoins
Do you even read threads before you post in them? Apple didn't even hint that Bitcoin apps would be available through them. They said a "virtual currency". It just so happens they opened up a patent for their own virtual currency. This is not related to Bitcoin at all.

>>363793
Still wanna bet on it?

>>363816
>>363813
They literally said you could buy apps with Bitcoins.

>>363823
Reading is too hard for them.
It's fine to be critical of cryptocurrencies, they are volatile, but some people are so fucking dense as to realize they have their cultural impact and the thought of them being slightly wrong makes them lose it.

>>363823
They literally did not. The article literally said it but Apple literally did not. The article is literally biased. Literally.

>>363825
And I'm the one that can't read.
>come on gentlemen

>>363825
It's fucked up, they want to believe Apple- king of proprietary and closed-development software - can somehow be successful in the face of bitcoin's purpose in existing as a platform developed in decentralized consensus.

>>363828
https://developer.apple.com/appstore/resources/approval/guidelines.html

>Apps may facilitate transmission of approved virtual currencies provided that they do so in compliance with all state and federal laws for the territories in which the app functions

I'm assuming you're going to interpret that as "they're now allowing transmission of WoW gold" amirite?

>>363832
Again did you even read this thread before you posted? Apple opened up a patent for their own virtual currency. Connect the dots its obvious.

>>363832
>http://www.coindesk.com/apple-to-create-virtual-currency-imoney/

>>363837
So did JPM. Over 200 times. And look where that got them. Also stop saying "virtual" currency, you look like just as much a dipshit as the Apple zombies who wrote that.

>>363837
Shit, I misread what you meant by that.
Any clarity on that? Google just gives speculations and (apparently false) implications that it means bitcoin.

>>363848
Welp nevermind

>>363845
Thanks

>>363846
Why do you think Apple banned Bitcoin apps on the App store in the first place? Because of some altruistic beef against crypto-currencies? Obviously not. They opened the patent for iMoney last year and Bitcoin is a direct competitor if they are entering the space.

I'm not calling you a dummy because I think that Apple or Walmart silly bucks are any more useful than Bitcoin, I am calling you a dummy because you guys actually think that any major corporation will leave money on the table and just openly accept and utilize a crypto-currency they have no control over. Especially when it is open source.

>>363855
No one will use it if it is developed behind closed doors. Never again, juden.

>>363863
Nobody will use it except for people that buy Apple products because they will be incentivized to do so. Just like nobody will use Walmart funny money except for the people that shop at Walmart. A Wallmart crypto is almost inevitable. Would they get into check cashing, bill pay, money orders, tax preperation, auto insurance, wire transfer, health clinics, auto repair, vision care, hair salons, butcher shop, yet when non- proprietary digital currency technology comes along?... Naw. We'll hand that over to Bitcoin since they found it first.

>>363894
Quit playing devil's advocate, I can't believe you or even Apple would miss the point of decentralization. Have fun learning it the hard way I guess.

>>363919
I doubt Apple misses the point of decentralization. They just don't care about it. They care about $$$. The whole point of decentralization was to eliminate control from large governments and banking monopolies. Decentralization is a great idea for those people that have enough distrust of the government that they hope to exclusively use cryptos over fiat. This will never happen unless:
a) governments issue their own digital currency which defeats the purpose
b) corporations issue their own digital currency,
1) corporations start paying employees with it,
2) employees agree to receive wages with it,
3) and the digital currency is universally accepted in most places for goods and services.

Even if a crypto is universally accepted, if you aren't specifically getting paid wages in digital currency you would still have to deal with fiat and open yourself to the whole centralization issue all over again. You could argue that Bitcoin could fill the roles for digital currency in points A and B above but you would be wrong. Neither governments nor large corporations would take on that amount of risk with a "currency" that is so volatile or non regulated. Decentralization is antithetic to any large organization because you open up too many unknown variables and compliance issues. They would rather start their own digital currency that they control from the outset. These currencies will almost certainly be centralized and work akin to how central banks already operate. Bitcoin had a great grass-roots movement because it was the first of its kind but it is unrealistic to think that it will be treated as anything but a high risk investment or speculative commodity. All I see is a lot of lofty goals that are not rooted in reality.

>>364009
>Decentralization is antithetic to any large organization because you open up too many unknown variables and compliance issues

>making centralization a feature

I wonder if the patent office will deny you fucks to just save you the time and effort trying to out-innovate Bitcoin. Unless iMoney is trustless I don't think anyone wants to hear about it

>>364021
Why would anyone need to out innovate Bitcoin? All you would need to do is duplicate it and then centralize it. Centralization will give the most amount of control to corporations and the average consumer will be none the wiser. It all sounds like technical jargon to them anyways.

>>364009

I've been a bit-naysayer all this time, but I'm going to have to disagree with you.

This is an unprecedented situation in human history where a functioning state sanctioned currency could be replaced by an alternative

it's only logical to expect that such a process would come about slowly over time with gradually more places accepting eventually leading to conditions where general acceptance of the currency means workers would be willing to agree to accept it for wages and companies would agree to pay in it

>>364031
Well, Bitcoin is for one not completely anonymous. That's why Bytecoin exists. Privacy is not "technical jargon" to people.

>>364036

I don't think people want their currency to be completely anonymous, in fact I think that's a flaw of bitcoin.

Most of us want our transactions to be traceable, because that we can get the money back in cases of fraud or mtgox

>>364037
I'll take Cash for 200, Alex

here's a potential bitcoin killer - the NSA recently funded quantum computers that could do powerful code-breaking. Even if this doesn't come to pass, it's rational to expect that computing power will increase exponentially in the future to make cracking even the most complex codes possible.

Wouldn't that render bitcoin obsolete, because people would be able to crack it's algorithms with more powerful computers?

Also, wouldn't more powerful computers effectively make mining a sinch making all coins mined prior to the new innovation worthless.

Would supercomputers allow some people to become bitcoin billionaires with the game (the computing power to mine) rigged in their favor

>>364032
>gradually more places accepting
I just don't see this happening. I see large corporations issuing their own digital currencies and those currencies being accepted. My guess is that Bitcoin fades into obscurity as it is replaced by other digital currencies that have more application to specific products or chains of goods (i.e. if you want to get coffee discounts you would use starBucks digital currency). Starbucks would be the only issuer of this currency and would not accept any other form of payment besides fiat. The only way Bitcoin could get any future traction is if it was like government backed currency where it becomes legal tender and all businesses are forced to accept it for goods and services. This just would never happen.

>>364040
This is a plus for Bitcoin that cash is anonymous? Why wouldnt people just use cash then instead of giving as much of their credentials to a gateway as they would to a bank?

>>364048
>>364048

well large corporations have tried limited attempts to issue their own currency, it hasn't worked very well in the past and the laws regarding that are restrictive.

Also bitcoin took a long time to build a merchant base, it would be difficult for a large corp to do the same

>>364051
I don't think anonymity is the biggest draw for bitcoin. I think the big draw is the ease of doing internet transactions and freedom from government controlled cash (set inflation rates, set printing etc.)

>>364052
>Also bitcoin took a long time to build a merchant base, it would be difficult for a large corp to do the same
It really wouldn't. Large corporations already have consumer bases a thousand times larger than Bitcoin. The Bitcoin community is miniscule compared to, lets say the Apple community.

>>364051
>>364051
>Bitcoin
>giving as much of their credentials to a gateway as they would to a bank

>this thread

>>364061
if your speculation was true, then gift cards would have become the national currency long ago

>>364056
Like I was saying earlier the only escape from government controlled cash is if Bitcoin was accepted unilaterally across every corporation and all of these corps agreed to pay employees in Bitcoin. Either that or governments all the sudden decide to make Bitcoin into legal tender and the whole countries are forced to accept it for goods and services. Neither of these are remotely plausible.

>>364064
They don't because of the same reason Bitcoin isn't. Governments will never back a currency the cant control.

>>364066
and like I said earlier, it's irrational to expect that to be a one off process, it'll be a slow transition with more and more merchants accepting bitcoin over time

>>364068
neither gift cards nor bitcoins require government backing to succeed, they just need general acceptance by the population

>>364070
>it's irrational to expect that to be a one off process, it'll be a slow transition
It won't be a one off process, a slow transition, or any transition. It just will never happen.

>neither gift cards nor bitcoins require government backing to succeed
Huh? I was saying the consumer base of Apple dwarfs the tiny community of Bitcoin. If you are talking about general acceptance, an Apple backed virtual currency with incentivization to use it will likely be accepted more than Bitcoin a thousand times over. There really is no extra incentive to use Bitcoin if other clones exist that offer more benefits.

>>363329
Walmart has an incredible dev team. They're seriously really, really good.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Walmart started accepting bitcoin.

http://www.walmartlabs.com/

>>364079
so lets say apple releases it's own bitcoin, what would microsoft do, just sit there or release it's own bitcion, and then how would IBM respond, so now you'd have various competing altcoins

now apple, IBM, and Microsoft would have to go around convincing other merchants to accept their coin - not an easy process even if you are a large corporation

now what incentive would apple or microsoft or anyone else have to make an altcoin? Would they be like current altcoins where they pre-print some? or mine some? OR restrict usage ( which would only deter people from the coin?)

It's not plausible

As to your first point about how it won't happen for bitcoin - I wouldn't be so sure, if several large businesses adopt, I think you'd starting seeing exponential increases in others willing to adopt - the more prevalant it becomes, the more utility it will have and the more people will be able to accept it

>>364090
You're not thinking about this logically. IBM, Microsoft, Apple or whoever else does not need to convince other merchants to accept their coin. They would use it exclusively for their own products. This would be enough for them to not use Bitcoin because it would be redundant and would not offer them any benefit or amount of control over the digital currency.

Also, the whole point of Bitcoin was decentralization to escape printing of money and inflation. My whole arguments is that the only way you escape fiat is if Bitcoin was used unilateraly with EVERY corporation not just several large ones with these corporations agreeing to pay wages in Bitcoin. This will never happen unless it becomes legal tender and corporations are forced to accept it. It can't be an Overstock kind of semi-acceptance where they only hold 10% of Bitcoins they get from sales. It has to be 100% and it has to be ALL corporations. It's naive to think this will ever happen.

>>364103
>naive
>thinks more currencies = better
gl fighting entropy

>>364110
I never even implied more currencies are better. Just that they are inevitable since Bitcoin is open source and decentralized.

>>364103
But an apple currency just for apple products doesn't provide any more utility than a smple gift card - that's not even a currency that's just a company scrip. Bitcoin would be more advantageous than apple-coin because you can
use bitcoin for more than just tablets and apps
Is it likely to happen in the next 5-10 years, no, but think:

If walmart accepts it, target and sams club are going to want to accept it.

IF that happens more people are going to start using it, which will mean that more companies would accept it to tap into that bitcoin revenue.

if 1 % of companies in the country accept it, their competitors are also going to want it increasing it to 2 % and their competitors.

As the user-base for bitcoins grows, (which it will if utility increases - ie. can be accepted at walmart and other major shopping centers) more and more places will want to accept it to tap into that potential bitcoin revenue.

Now I know you will say this is impossible but just for the purposes of illustration imagine a world where 80 % of the companies accept bitcoin, what would happen to the other 20 % of the companies? Woudln't they be at a comparative disadvantage in not accepting a form of currency that has widespread use amongst their competitors and consumers.)

Now even at a smaller number like 50 % or 35 % or even 10 % of the market, that pressure is still there to adopt that pressure to tap into all possible revenue streams that your competiors tap into, that pressure provide the same level of service as your customers, and that will always push bitcoin acceptance up once a few large retailers have adopted

>>364116
I apologize that wasn't typed up very well, but I think the gist comes through

>>364116
>Bitcoin would be more advantageous than apple-coin because you can use bitcoin for more than just tablets and apps
Possibly. That didn't stop Apple from banning it from their App store and filing their own patent for virtual currency though.My point is there is nothing stopping this from happening over and over with large corps. I don't think many of them at all want to hand over a part of their business to an unregulated technology they can't control.

>If walmart accepts it, target and sams club are going to want to accept it.
That is a huge IF considering that Walmart is already in the money transfer business and already has the infrastructure to roll out a crypto-like technology. My guess is that more and more corps will opt out of accepting Bitcoin and institute something of their own as Bitcoin fades into obscurity. There is just nothing proprietary about it and it is easy to clone.

>>364120
I realize there are many differences, but the closest historical analogue I see for bitcoin is paypal - here was a service easy to clone, and that was initially in a position where they were literally paying people to sign up. Then what happened, ebay decided to accept - and after that - paypal is accepted all over the internet. Did amazon or other companies try to create their own payment systems? No, because it was easier and more practical to just accept paypal. And pure market competitive forces were enough to push everyone to accept paypal, just as they were enough to get virtually every company to build a website and have an online presence. I think something similar will happen with bitcoin.

>>364124
** Slight correction, amazon doesn't actually accept paypal but I think the point still comes through

>>364124
The only reason that Ebay even accepted Paypal is because they realized they could make more money buy just buying up the competitor to their own service, and phase out Payments by Billpoint. It was a pure financial decision that made them a ton of money later on. They have absolutely no incentive to do the same with Bitcoin because there is no company to buy out and no profit to be made. If Paypal was open source and they could rip off the exact code and fork it a little I am sure they would have and saved themselves the $1.5 Billion. It was the technology they bought, they already had the userbase.

>>364131

as to what incentive that first merchant has to accept bitcoin? that part I have to concede I can't see it. But, I think this thread alludes that some are already considering it and talking about it.

I think it'll be like the internet. It grows on it's own with a few small businesses going online and it gradually becomes a business necessity as more and more people sign up.

It does need that first big company to sign up though - and I'm not sure where the pressure for that will come from - but this thread seems to suggest that some are considering it which is a positive sign.

>>364134
acutually a bit of a correction - looks like it's already come to pass

1) dish networks is accepting it
2) Tiger direct
3) Don't know dating sites so I don't know how big it is but OK cupid
4) Wordpress will soon start accepting it

looks like something that is starting to gain momentum

>>364134
>gradually becomes a business necessity as more and more people sign up
Maybe. I just see too much potential for competition and too many aspects about Bitcoin that are anti-government and corporation to see it becoming widely accepted. Another virtual currency however? Probably. I just don't think we have that yet, although it looks like large corporations have plans in the works with all these new patents springing up. Virtual currencies were around before Bitcoin and I am sure they will be around after.

>>364139
Don't forget Overstock, although it is the only one that actually accepts some of the BTC and doesn't immediately cash it out for fiat. The other ones don't really accept Bitcoin they use an intermediary like Bitpay that sells the Bitcoin for them at current prices and pays them in cash.

>>364140

>>364171
I like that picture where you imply I am grasping at straws. There are much better ways you could have responded if you really didn't have a counter-argument though. You could have used catchphrases and called me a no-coiner. You could have responded with "1/10 stop trolling". You could have told me I was a shill. You could have posted a log chart showing how Bitcoin is on an upward trend. You could have called me retarded. All of them would have been perfectly good responses that also really didn't address anything that I said.

Also let's take a look at the first large merchant that accepted Bitcoin shall we? http://www.dailypaul.com/319077/bitcoin-and-overstock-plummet-in-tandem

>>364047
Worst case quantum computing scenario:

All publicly used addresses can be emptied.

If you send to a new address, and don't spend from it, that balance can't be cracked even by quantum computers.

Bitcoin would be upgraded.

>it's rational to expect that computing power will increase exponentially in the future to make cracking even the most complex codes possible
The bitcoin mining difficulty increases too, so this is not a problem.

>>364178
>called me a no-coiner. You could have responded with "1/10 stop trolling". You could have told me I was a shill.

if the cap fits buddy.

>>363721
>don't know anything about bitcoin
>talks shit about it
Good goyim.

>>363721
>doesn't know anything about bitcoin
>talks shit about it
Good goyim.

>>363314
I don't get how it would ever become a mainstream payment option because of how volatile it is. Just doesn't seem likely at all....

Look how much it fluctuates, why would a large corporation ever accept a currency like that?

>>364282
goyims are using bitcoin you faggot, why would they not already have their hands on it.

weeaboos I fucking swear

>>364298
because they can flip it instantly for cash, or they can use derivatives to hedge against it's volatility

>>364282
>>364353
Please read up on the difference between goy/goyim.

- /pol/

>>364262
I called out your non-arguments before you even had a chance to make them. I gave you the option of responding with something original and relevant and you blew it. What is the point of posting if you can't even form complete sentences or thoughts?

>>364555
just for the purposes of clarification - that name calling, straw picture posting guy is not the same person as the person you where originally having a conversation with (see IDs)

look, I don't think overstock qualifies as a large supplier - but currently dish networks is supporting them, and Amazon and paypal are both working to implement bitcoin, give it the next 2 - 3 years for these companies to fully implement the coins, if they do, I think it'll definitely take off, if they don't -> then I think we can be ready to call the coin dead.

It's definitely not a sure thing, but I think your insistence that this coin is going nowhere is premature, and hard to swallow in light of increasing merchant acceptance

>>364591
>guy is not the same person as the person you where originally having a conversation
Yeah I know that. I actually don't mind the conversation we are having as you bring up good points. Usually people are on two extreme polar opposites when it comes to opinions about Bitcoin. The people that think it is going to die a quick death this year and the people that think its going to be worth $10,000 a coin this year. Tell me if I'm wrong but I don't think either you or I fall into those categories.

The fact that more merchants are accepting Bitcoin is good for the technology but I'm not entirely positive that alone will ensure its success or mainstream adoption. The point I was making earlier is that Overstock is the only large merchant that actually accepts Bitcoin and doesn't use an intermediary to sell off the Bitcoin for cash. Interestingly enough the stock price for Overstock has crashed since they started accepting it although it is probably due to bad business practices and not necessarily a correlation to Bitcoin acceptance.

Just to interject a few points:

Bitcoin is able to facilitate micro-transactions, (on the order of 5cents and below), which has implications for the journalism and science paper communities. Micro-payments can be used between machines, this way machines can autonomously make payments to one another. Micro-transactions are especially useful for crowd funding or donation and charity drives. Now I can send cents over the internet it makes more sense for me to actually donate what I can afford.

Bitcoin has the added benefit in that you don't need any permission or documentation to begin accepting bitcoin and transacting in it. I don't know the what rules an APPLEcoin might be subject to. Anyone, anywhere can download a wallet client and accept bitcoin as payment for a good or service. There is no appeal to authority for permission to participate in the community, this is unlike any financial system in practice today.

For those unsure of bitcoin adoption:

http://www.bitcoinpulse.com/

>>364677
Very valid points. Thanks for sharing.

>>364677
>Bitcoin is able to facilitate micro-transactions
This is great but it really isn't anything new. Pay2See, BitPass, FirstVirtual, Cybercoin, Millicent, Digicash, Internet Dollar, and lots of other technologies have developed micro-payment systems. Paypal has been able to process micro-payments for a while with a 5% fee. Now Facebook and Apple also have entered into the micropayment space with Facebook Credits and Apples song purchasing structure. I think the reason that most of the original micropayment models have failed is that your average internet user expects web content to be free. Micropayments have limited use beyond charity and crowd funding which is why Paypal at one point was considering cancelling its program. There just isn't a large demand for this service.

>>364702
Those are all closed gardens. ie. You spend $50 for 5million facebook bucks. Now you can spend each facebook buck one at a time and translates to a fraction of a penny, but these are not real currencies as they are more akin to coupons or WOW gold. Microtransactions are not new but being able to microtransact anywhere you please is.

With bitcoin I can send 5cents to a homeless man on the street if he has a qr code. There are no rules or regulations on the way I send my 5 cents.

>>364728
You and I have different definitions to what a "real currency is". I don't see much difference between WoW gold and Bitcoin. Obviously the technology is entirely different but in my opinion the concept is the same.

>>364739
"WoW Gold" is confined to WoW

Bitcoin is confined to, well the internet.

>>364878
bitcoin has all the functionality of a giftcard combined with the volatility of a penny stock. even the people i know that has made a lot of money on bitcoin see it as nothing more than a gamble, not something that has a bright future.

>>364878
It's still value created arbitrarily out of digital thin air much like real currency only not backed by any government that enforces everyone to accept it as legal tender. You might even argue WoW gold is a tiny bit more useful because you can actually buy things with it that you can't directly buy with fiat. There is no product or service that I can buy with Bitcoin that I can't pay cash for as well.

>>364728
As to your point about homeless men having Bitcoin wallets and a way to convert that BTC to real money, that is about as plausible as a homeless man having a Paypal and bank account. These are just not scenarios that fit any real world circumstance. If your argument is that one day a digital currency will become legal tender and used unilaterally for goods and services that it has ramifications and use even for someone too poor to own a computer or smart phone? I can agree with you there. That currency will not be Bitcoin though.

>>364916
It's in your best interest to actually know what you're talking about anon

>>364925
yeah, right.

>>364930
Yeah, right, that way people will actually reply to you seriously instead of not at all. Discussion is good, right?

>>364976
sure. i posted my opinions and you told me to "know what im talking about" without actually refuting any of them. so yes, i agree, come back with an actual reply and we can discuss.

>>364924
>" There is no product or service that I can buy with Bitcoin that I can't pay cash for as well. "

You can shove cash into your computer? Bitcoin is for ONLINE transactions.

>" If your argument is that one day a digital currency will become legal tender and used unilaterally for goods and services"

Doesn't have to be legal tender, and it's already being accepted.

I used homeless people as an example highlighting how little permission you need to participate in the bitcoin network.

If I was homeless and wanted to accept paypal I need a bank account and government issue ID.

Bitcoin requires nothing to facilitate micropayments.

>>365178
> Bitcoin is for ONLINE transactions
Huh? You do realize that cash can be used digitally too..... right?

>Doesn't have to be legal tender, and it's already being accepted
It does have to be legal tender in order for decentralization to actually matter. Or else you will always have to transfer fiat to Bitcoin and vice/versa.
>If I was homeless and wanted to accept paypal I need a bank account and government issue ID.
Exactly. It would be tough for you to use any form of digital currency, be it Bitcoin or bank based IOUs. To use giving homeless people Bitcoin as an example of how it is more relevant is marginal at best.
>Bitcoin requires nothing to facilitate micropayments.
If the homeless person doesn't even have access to a government issued ID or bank account it is going to be even harder for him to use Bitcoin. Most gateways require it for verification. He could use localbitcoin I guess but then he would need access to a computer or a smartphone and then have to sell the BTC to someone in person. If you are talking about microtransactions would he really go to all that trouble for a few cents or a dollar? It would seriously be prohibitive. Be a pal and please give that guy cash which is accepted everywhere.

>>365194
The homeless man can take the free bitcoin and purchase gyft cards for groceries without ever having ID

This scenario is only possible with bitcoin.

yes

>>365204
He cant purchase gift cards with cash? Or even better yet just purchase food with cash? Is it really plausible that a homeless person would even know what Bitcoin is or have access to open up a Bitcoin wallet? That's a reaaaaally far stretch lol

No business is actually going to implement bitcoin transactions and no sane person would actually spend bitcoins.

Cryptocurrencies are textbook pump and dumps.The price will only rise until the inevitable bottom crash for whatever reason.

Any coins you spend at this point essentially causes you to lose way more than the value of the groceries you bought with them.

Same thing goes for vendors. They are essentially forced to immediately cash our their bitcoins, or as fast as possible at least, for USD or they take the very real risk of losing everything on any daily bitcoin transactions.

>>365204

So the homeless man goes online where and purchases the bitcoins with what?

>>365214
Crowd sourcing on the internet.

Effectively one can be homeless and accept bitcoin; you don't need any paperwork or ID to transact. When I say cash, I mean a physical object you would need to put in the post. If you are referring to paypal like systems, then you need to have a place of residence and ID. With bitcoin people are willing to accept in person for real life goods AND online.

It's MORE useful and the path of least resistance for wealth communication in a digital age.

>>365238
All of this that you just mentioned can be accomplished with fiat and without all the extra hassle of buying and selling a speculative commodity. Bitcoin does not bring anything new to the table. Bitcoiners act like crowdfunding and micro transactions are new concepts. They aren't. In fact you don't need any paperwork or ID for pre-paid credit cards either which are accepted everywhere that Visa and Mastercard are which means eeeeverywhere. I could easily see a homeless person use a pre-paid credit card over Bitcoin every single time. What would be the purpose though? Online transactions usually require a physical address to send the goods to. Homeless people are the absolute worst test subjects for Bitcoin. They can't even hold any value in their Bitcoin wallet at all because the volatility risk would destroy them 10 times over than someone that can afford the losses.

>>365250
"Bitcoin does not bring anything new to the table"
Now that's one for the scrapbook

>>365250
With bitcoin you don't need to know the person or need to be in close proximity to them. You also don't need to ship pre-paid credit cards or need to communicate PINS or numbers. It's as simple as copy and paste, or using a QR code.

>>365259
Don't forget NFC which is the simplest.

>>365253
It really doesn't. Virtual currencies were around long before Bitcoin. Nakamoto took the concept of virtual currency then added a secure form of cryptography (at a level which government agencies have already been using for a while), made it decentralized (protip: it will never usurp government backed currency) and then allowed people to mine it (which has no real world benefit except for wasting resources).

Banks could use more impregnable types of encryption to firewall their servers if they wanted to. They don't because the banking system is secure enough that brute force attacks are incredibly rare due to prevention and detection systems. The estimated time to perform a brute force attack into a banks internal servers is 6 months. The last person who attempted it was caught and arrested. At an individual level it is as easy to access someones credit card or bank information as it is to gain access to someones Bitcoin wallet. It happens.

I don't see any real world issues that Bitcoin solves. Not micro-transaction, not crowd sourcing, not payment rails. The reason that existing payment systems charge fees (aside that they are for profit institutions) is that regulatory compliance costs money. Bitcoin is an unregulated technology and because of that you see people committing acts that normally would be against the law but with Bitcoin they can get away with. MtGox was a prime example of that. Chargebacks are also a huge issue. Without dispute resolution you open up the field for all types of scams and frauds. This is a problem. For the most part Bitcoin causes more problems than it presumably fixes.

>>365259
Ship pre-paid credit cards? Why would you do that? You can buy those at Walmart or any local liquor store.

>>365292
>doesn't even know what a blockchain is
You're ridiculous. Keep running your mouth, tool.

>>365295
Huh? When did I ever even mention Bitcoin blockchain? How is that even relevant to what I said?

>>365294
I was responding to this guy:
>>365250

who is also this guy:
>>365292

Which is now becoming boring. At first the troll was engaging now it's full retard.

8/10

>>365311
Which all 3 posts are me. Same ID. Now you both have resorted to name calling instead of refuting my points. Obviously I am a tool, a troll and retarded because I am saying something you don't like. Good to know.

>>365311
he's just Apple's paid shill for iMoney also known as iSpy

>>365319
This post is self contradictory
>>365292
>"Nakamoto ... made [bitcoin] decentralized ... then allowed people to mine it (which has no real world benefit except for wasting resources)."
-Shows you have no idea what you're talking about.

The entire second paragraph
>"Banks could use more impregnable types of encryption to firewall their servers if they wanted to. They don't because the banking system is secure enough that brute force attacks are incredibly rare due to prevention and detection systems. The estimated time to perform a brute force attack into a banks internal servers is 6 months. The last person who attempted it was caught and arrested. At an individual level it is as easy to access someones credit card or bank information as it is to gain access to someones Bitcoin wallet. It happens"
-This shows you show even less.

>"I don't see any real world issues that Bitcoin solves"
>"The reason that existing payment systems charge fees (aside that they are for profit institutions) is that regulatory compliance costs money."

nuff said. I am wasting my time.

>>365332
-This shows you *know even less.

Haha now I am a shill too. Refer to this earlier post:
>>364178
I pretty much already predicted everything that people would respond to me when they ran out of counter-arguments. You guys are good you hit 4 out of the 5 responses:
>called me a troll
>called me a shill
>posted the log chart
>called me a retard

The only thing you are missing is saying something about how I am a no-coiner. You can do that now if you wish.

>>365332
Wait... where is the counter-argument? All you are really doing is telling me I am wrong but you can't prove why. Is this an intelligent discussion or are you guys just going to concede all of my points?

>>365335
>ran out of counter-arguments
That's not it at all.

No one wants to reply to you.

Arguing against Bitcoin has a negative feedback effect.
You think you're right just because no one wants to bother with your ill-informed walls of text.

>>365342
Yes that must be it. You guys have really good points but you don't want to reply to me. Like you just did now.

>>365343
I could, but there's no real reason to. Bitcoin isn't going to go anywhere just because a few laggards can't handle foresight.

>>365347
>laggard
That's a new one! You are really good at this. Do you have a list of ad-hominems that you pull from or is this coming directly from your head? I like how we have changed the discussion from relevancy of Bitcoin to me. I'm actually a little flattered.

>>365350
You're hardly even talking about Bitcoin, you've just been trying to make sense of it within the context of economics and money transfer as we know it presently when that's absolutely insane to do.

>>365354
How else would we make sense of it except in real world applications and compare its uses to existing technologies?

>>364353

>blake plz go

>>365358
We?

>>365369
We. Meaning rational everyday citizens. That don't necessarily just jump on the bandwagon of every refurbished technology that comes out just because it is supposedly innovative. The average person that owns Bitcoins wants everyone else to use Bitcoin because a wider userbase means more demand and increased value so they can make more fiat off of it. All I care about is how it will be used and yet more importantly, why. Gimmicks that have no personal application for me don't appeal to me.

>>365381
I wouldn't have been so hostile if you had just done the slightest bit of reading to keep yourself from saying embarrassing things like "supposedly innovative" and calling it gimmicky. Go ahead, though, wait around for someone to spoonfeed you.

>>365386
Huh? You resorted to name calling way before this post lol
>embarrassing things
I am not embarrassed by anything that I posted. I get your tactic though. If you can't come up with a reasonable response to things that I post then next best thing is to just imply that what I post is wrong without actually having to refute it. I didn't throw the first blow this thread and I still haven't attacked your character. All I have posted are facts and my personal opinions. I have been called a retard, a tool, a troll and a shill (the last one is pretty funny) just by voicing insightful and well thought out arguments to why Bitcoin is flawed and not the end-all currency that people tout it to be. I really don't understand your hostility, however. I'm not kicking your dog.

>>365409
Definitely the most arrogant character I've ever encountered on /biz/. Kudos.

>>365419
>arrogant
Stop you're making me blush.

>>365419
On a scale of 1 to arrogant we need a new adjective to describe this shit

>>365423

Latent narcissism might be in order.

>>365419
>>365426
to be fair, you guys really aren't making arguments or responding to points, you're just name calling and mud slinging.

I see there might be hope for bitcoins but not really a big fan of the userbase at the moment

>>365426
Why stop now? You've already thrown every other adjective in the book at me. I mistakenly thought this was a thread about Bitcoin... I guess you guys gave up discussing that huh?

>>365432
I never wanted to discuss in the first place with someone who needs to be spoonfed. Sorry this board isn't the hugbox you hoped it would be.

>>365443
I don't need to be spoonfed. I would even venture to say that I probably know more about Bitcoin than you do... that's just a guess though! Also I don't mind all the namecalling its pretty funny. I just wish that you wouldn't substitute it for intelligent debate.

>>365445
Debates generally require preemptive research, lmao

>>365451
Then do some more? If you run out of arguments just read a little more so you can be better prepared next time.

>>365452
Can't spin the tables with that one champ

>>365457
Huh? I am not the one that ran out of counter-arguments? If you want you can go back to some of my earlier posts that I made and respond to them with real points instead of just throwing ad-hominems? Since I am guessing by your scoffs that you are an expert on Bitcoin? I would love to have a conversation with someone that is actually familiar with the technology and not just concerned with how much they can shill it. Was I wrong about you?

>>365463
Your posts are nonsense and word salad.

Master Troll/10

>>365463
Man, don't even bother. It's a lost cause.

Better yet, stoop to their level:
>BTC
>A viable currency
KEK.

>>363715
>while being more secure

>>364677

>unlike any financial system in practice today

Yes, it's different, but not for the better. Unregulated financial market is literal cancer. It's as fickle as human emotion and as unpredictables. It's worse than tulip bulbs.

>>363697

No, one screaming customer swearing they'll never shop at Wal-Mart again, and the execs will cave.

They'll offer refunds

>>364066

But you don't need all that, you just need some computer nerds doing jobs like designing websites and photoshopping stuff and getting paid in bitcoin, then turning around and spending their money on nerd crap at tiger direct or the various bitcoin shops.

Nerds have good jobs and huge purchasing power. If they all switched their discretionary purchases to bitcoin, it would be cause for concern for the banks. Already we're seeing banks boot people for making too many bitcoin transactions and paypal and ebay hate it too.

They're worried.

>>368327
Oh yeah I think there already are devs agreeing to be paid in crypto-currencies. Look at Ripple, they have like 50 employees and they pay their employees in XRP. This is great for more adoption but I don't think changes the bottom line. If Bitcoin really is some altruistic technology where people can escape the Federal reserve printing of money and inflation then it doesn't just need adoption in just select pockets, it needs to be accepted across the board for all goods and services so that people can pay phone bills, car insurance, mortgages, utilities and everything else in Bitcoin. This just will never happen unless it becomes legal tender because private companies are not forced to accept it. Which will never happen because Bitcoin will never become legal tender. Why would governments move from fiat which seems to be working quite well for them?

I think people lauding Bitcoin need to remove the whole Libertarian argument as if it is realistic or even something that will ensure success. There is no way you guys are going to be able to escape fiat on even a small scale. Bitcoin will always be pegged against real currencies.

>>368378

False Dichotomy
>"it needs to be accepted across the board for all goods and services "

It really doesn't. You are hung up on this legal tender and binary outcome. You seem to hold onto the belief that bitcoin will take over the world or die when in reality it is going to be a combination of both for a while.

If you're keen on intelligent discussion you might want to learn what a logical fallacy is and why you want to avoid using them.

>>368455
I never said that Bitcoin was going to die soon nor do I know that it will even die at all. If you know what logical fallacies are then don't use them. My point wasn't that it needs to be accepted across the board for goods and services for it to be used, but it does need to be unilaterally accepted for it to be used in place of fiat. While 99.9999% of the world receives paychecks in fiat you are still subject to governments creating more currency out of thin air and inflation. Bitcoin is not a solution to this and never will be.

>>368475

Bitcoin doesn't need to replace fiat to be successful. It's first and foremost a payment system for the INTERNET Fiat has restrictions and arbitrary regulations which make it cumbersome to use online. Bitcoin is the currency of least resistance while transacting with a computer.

Bitcoin is a solution to the infinite spend problem with digital currencies. It also solves the byzantine generals problem in computing over a distributed network and arriving at consensus without trust.

>>368487
>Fiat has restrictions and arbitrary regulations which make it cumbersome to use online
Don't worry those regulations are coming down the pipeline and will hit Bitcoin hard too. Decentralization makes it is impossible to regulate the actual protocol but lawmakers don't need to. They just need to regulate the individual companies that deal with Bitcoin. Transactions with fiat online are only cumbersome because of these regulations (which protect consumers I might add). Without these regulations you open up all types of avenues for fraud, theft, and scams. Bitcoin initially had really altruistic and Libertarian goals and now that people see they aren't feasible the technology is rushing to add features that make it more consumer and business friendly. Ironically this is making Bitcoin less resemble Bitcoin and more resemble our current finanical system.

>>368500
You've forgotten that unlike fiat, bitcoin is a global currency, there is no government that can regulate it because if any government creates an unfavorable environment for bitcoin then a competitor to that government may welcome bitcoin to capture the market. Another self regulating feature.

Fiat has arbitrary restrictions and is much more cumbersome than bitcoin because it has to be backed by a government, has to be non-counterfeit and will ultimately require ID or a bank account.

Altruistic and libertarian goals aside bitcoin is the lowest entropy state or the path of least resistance for online payments and is a perfectly feasible technology used by millions worldwide everyday.

I heard about Bitcoin early 2011 when it was still around $4-5, I made mental notes of its ups and downs ever since and in my opinion there are only two possibilities for Bitcoin long term. If major corps eventually implement and accept bitcoin on a mass scale due to consumer demand then yes, it will probably be successful for some time. That's a big IF though because for it to be accepted there needs to be a significant amount of people wanting major corps to accept it, leaving them with no choice but to do so (and I'm talking majorities here.) Maybe some will accept it anyway just in case, but you better believe they are ready to drop it as soon as they need to.

The thing is, people are stupid and the majority of people who huge corps sell and market products to are very fucking stupid. Hundreds of thousands of people still don't know how to browse the internet or read emails without fucking up their computer, yet some people believe they are going to want to use some ''online magic money'' that came from no where. No fucking way. People don't trust it and the only way they'd trust it is if large corps implemented and openly stated that they accept the currency and that it is ''safe''. Now, do you see the problem here?

Large corporations won't implement it unless a large amount people demand it... Most people won't adopt it unless they know for sure it is safe and that businesses accept it. This is not even factoring in the fact that Bitcoin already has a huge amount of ''enemies'' just because of what it means and could mean... for banks, governments etc, etc.

If, somehow, it manages to overcome all of this and by some miracle gets implemented and accepted by big companies with solid reputations that fully back the currency then sure, it could do really well, for a period of time as long as my cock. As soon as big banks start seeing noticeable losses they will start leaning on the companies accepting Bitcoin and then it is bye bye for Bitcoin anyway.

>>369666
how about ebay

>>369666

False dichotomy. Bitcoin is not binary and it's outcome is not solely dependent on adoption by huge corps. The black market like silk road, micro-transactions, crowd sourcing, payment for virtual goods or services and global remittances all help to drive bitcoin adoption.

The false dichotomy argument presented ITT follows the form:

bitcoin needs to be universally accepted as legal tender globally or it will fail.

Huge corps won't make or break bitcoin. Bitcoin is going to make or break huge corps.

>>369628
You're starting to repeat yourself and it still doesn't make any sense at all. I don't even think you really believe some of the stuff you're saying.

>Fiat has arbitrary restrictions and is much more cumbersome than bitcoin because it has to be backed by a government, has to be non-counterfeit and will ultimately require ID or a bank account.
Fiat is only restricted by regulation. That's it. The same way that any company or individual will be restricted when regulation hits Bitcoin as well. Just because it is decentralized doesn't mean it is some nebulous ethereal thing that just exists in cyberspace. Just the tax laws alone will make any company dealing with Bitcoin subject to reporting every transaction and having to deal with the IRS.
> there is no government that can regulate it because if any government creates an unfavorable environment for bitcoin then a competitor to that government may welcome bitcoin to capture the market
Wth does this even mean? This is gibberish.

>>369668
What about Ebay? Did you have a full thought here?

>>369684
>bitcoin needs to be universally accepted as legal tender globally or it will fail
I have never head anyone in any thread on any forum or in any article or anywhere say this or imply this. If Bitcoin fails it will be because of competition that is more consumer and business friendly or regulation that burdens it to death.
>Bitcoin is going to make or break huge corps.
Lmao. Absolutely not. Banks and large corporations own the media and have a major influence on governments and lawmakers. They sway public opinion. If Bitcoin succeeds it will be because they allow it to and see profit to be made off of it.

>>369823
>>369825
>>369833

>"Just the tax laws alone will make any company dealing with Bitcoin subject to reporting every transaction and having to deal with the IRS."

There are many different governments in the global economy, if one acts unfavorably towards bitcoin like trying to "burden it to death" the companies will leave and set up in a more friendly jurisdiction.

>"Wth does this even mean?"
It means bitcoin is a global currency and exists across all regulatory environments simultaneously.

>"What about Ebay?"
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101734293

>" If Bitcoin succeeds it will be because they allow it to"
It's done quite well without them so far.

>>369913
>There are many different governments in the global economy, if one acts unfavorably towards bitcoin like trying to "burden it to death" the companies will leave
I can't see any first world country (or second world country for that matter) not wanting to regulate Bitcoin. Especially when people are using it for and will use it for money laundering, tax evasion, frauds, scams, thefts, usury, black markets for drugs, weapons and all other types of illicit activities. Bitcoin is a non-entity right now in the global remittance and payment rail services markets although one of the major ploys Bitcoin fanatics do to hype it up is to remark on its potential use as a payment rail. The number of transactions through Bitcoin is only a little over one percent of that of Paypal. Even if we assume that the majority of transactions are people sending money or buying products and not just day-trading and using it as a risky "investment" (which is unlikely) then it still isn't a lot of transactions comparatively. I doubt that the people that think the value of Bitcoin is going to rise are actually spending it and not hoarding it. If Ebay does acquire Bitcoin based businesses like Bitpay the service will have the same fees as they do now with fiat and Paypal will report earnings to the IRS not unlike they already do with fiat. It will not change Paypal's current business model with the 25 real currencies it already accepts and then one pseudo-currency that isn't really a currency (Bitcoin). This would be great for governments because they could use Paypal to track each Bitcoin wallet with individual users since the blockchain is public. The more used Bitcoin becomes the more compliant it will have to be, the more fees will be added, the less private it becomes, the more burdensome to use, the more regulated, the more taxed, and ultimately less contrasting it will be from the existing financial system. And all this if it even ever sees more use.

>>370038

>"The more used Bitcoin becomes the more compliant it will have to be, the more fees will be added, the less private it becomes, the more burdensome to use, the more regulated, the more taxed, and ultimately less contrasting it will be from the existing financial system."

So everyone working on bitcoin is trying to make it even more complicated to use in the future than it already is? Or is bitcoin just going to become complicated because that's what technology does and you don't understand it?

It must be the illerminati, they will regulate and tax bitcoin so much that it will be impossible to use. Worked well for the drug war in the US, it can totally work on the internet.

>" This would be great for governments because they could use Paypal to track each Bitcoin wallet with individual users since the blockchain is public"
You don't know the first thing about bitcoin do you? You realize that any one can have as many wallets as they like, and trying to track a user using paypal through the blockchain by a the government is futile if the person has even a rudimentary knowledge of bitcoin.

>"Especially when people are using it for and will use it for money laundering, tax evasion, frauds, scams, thefts, usury, black markets for drugs, weapons and all other types of illicit activities"

You now realize the USD is the currency of choice for criminals. Just because you can use bitcoin for easier payment on the internet which as a result gives the gangsters an easier method of payment on the internet doesn't make bitcoin inherently evil or detract from its usefulness.

>"The number of transactions through Bitcoin is only a little over one percent of that of Paypal"

How much business was paypal doing when it was just 5years old? Rome wasn't built in a night and the facts are that bitcoin is growing and adoption has silently been increasing worldwide.

>>370038
grasp at straws much?

ITT butt hurt no coiner tries to convince himself bitcoin is flawed

>>370366
>Or is bitcoin just going to become complicated because that's what technology does
I understand how Bitcoin works, do you understand how the world works? I didnt say anything about it being complicated, I said it will be regulated. You don't seem to be understanding the concept of regulation. This isn't a guess, it is a fact. Congress has already had talks on this with laws coming down the pipeline. I also didn't say they would regulate it so much that it will be impossible to use, I said they would regulate it enough that it is no different from the status quo and will resemble our current financial system. Trust me you will not be able to use Bitcoin to escape using fiat even on a small scale.

>You realize that any one can have as many wallets as they like
People can have as many bank accounts as they like too but that doesn't stop banks from requiring you to use government IDs and other forms of identification so you can't launder money or commit tax frauds. Interestingly enough this is how most Bitcoin gateways operate too even though they are not forced to yet. Multiple wallets does nothing if the primary wallet that you buy or sell from is tracked. Bitcoin fanboys really need to think this through.

> Just because you can use bitcoin for easier payment on the internet which as a result gives the gangsters an easier method of payment
You think that scammers and fraudsters chose Bitcoin because it is easier to use? That's silly. They chose it because as of right now there is very little regulations or laws to stop them from taking you for a fool and escaping prosecution. MtGox showed how easy this is.

>the facts are that bitcoin is growing and adoption has silently been increasing worldwide
Actually the total volume of transactions for Bitcoin has been on the decline since last December. People are trading it less. I think people finally realized that its a bad and risky investment. Which is why the value is also half of what it used to be as well.

>>370511
Funny you are the second person to tell me I am grasping at straws without giving a counter-argument. Do you guys ever think for yourself or is this some hive mentality?

>poor american white trash take notice of bitcoin
>muh new gold, omg technology 2014 deh future is here, so 21st century, down wid duh fed!
>price of bitcoin skyrockets by x10
>profit!!!
>tfw bitcoin chamillionaire

>mfw all of these proprietary "cryptocurrencies" are just gift cards

>>364047
>Wouldn't that render bitcoin obsolete, because people would be able to crack it's algorithms with more powerful computers?
>>>/pol/
Because you clearly aren't from /g/.

>>370587
Do you know how the world works?

>" I said it will be regulated."
Can you see the future and know how this will affect the bitcoin ecosystem on a global scale? Just consider the turmoil in various political organizations world wide and now you presume to know that unanimously they will regulate bitcoin in an unfavorable manor?

>" Congress has already had talks on this with laws coming down the pipeline."
Bitcoin doesn't need government permission to operate, furthermore this hardly represents the global sentiment towards bitcoin in the future.

>"Multiple wallets does nothing if the primary wallet that you buy or sell from is tracked"

Is this simply by virtue of how easy a bank account can be monitored and tracked?

>"You think that scammers and fraudsters chose Bitcoin because it is easier to use?"

No I told you that USD is still their preferred currency. Those types of people will steal anything. Bitcoin, cash, property; but their behavior doesn't reflect upon they things they are stealing except to convey the point that they perceive enough value in the items or behavior that they will break laws to obtain them.

>"Actually the total volume of transactions for Bitcoin has been on the decline since last December. People are trading it less. I think people finally realized that its a bad and risky investment. Which is why the value is also half of what it used to be as well"

logchart.png Basically the points you keep hammering on revolve around governments and regulations which are essentially irrelevant. Thanks to huge corps relying on the internet for communications and logistics planning it's unfeasible for any government to shut off the internet or turn off email as corps will lean too heavy on representatives as they bleed money. Since the overhead on bitcoin is near zero, as with email, adoption will increase and companies will be molded by it. Apple, Ebay, Overstock and Tiger Direct are all examples of how bitcoin adoption is on the rise.

>>371967
>they will regulate bitcoin in an unfavorable manor?
Again nobody said anything about regulating Bitcoin in an unfavorable manor. In fact the regulation will be favorable to the majority of people that use it. It will bring transparency, consumer protections, fraud prevention and a slew of other good things that Bitcoin is lacking. Because of this it will also bring fees, lack of privacy, taxation, and a slew of other bad things about our existing financial system. But it will be better for it because right now Bitcoin is (for lack of a better word) shit. Even worse than what we already have.

>Bitcoin doesn't need government permission to operate
But any company, entity, corporation or individual does need permission. The fact that it is already taxable means you need permission.

>Is this simply by virtue of how easy a bank account can be monitored and tracked?
No this is simply by virtue of how many laws and regulations banks have to operate under. Do you think Bitcoin gateways will be able to escape this? If so, you're naive.

>they will break laws to obtain them
Right now there is no laws for you to break with Bitcoin. People can steal from you, fraud you, scam you and there is no enforcement. At least with fiat there are agencies designed to prosecute these individuals. With Bitcoin? SOL

> Apple, Ebay, Overstock and Tiger Direct are all examples of how bitcoin adoption is on the rise
Wrong. Overstock is the only company that actually accepts Bitcoin and doesn't immediately transfer it to fiat. Their stock price has also halved since they started accepting it and they only hold 10%. Any other company that "accepts Bitcoin" doesn't really accept Bitcoin, they accept the fiat that an intermediary like Bitpay gives to them. I thought we went over this? You're like a broken record. Also all the Bitcoin charts prove that Bitcoin adoption is not on the rise. Total volume transaction is a fraction of what it used to be when it was at the peak of its hype.

>arguing over whether or not crypto will be successful
Do people even have lives anymore

>>372001
>"Even worse than what we already have."

Bitcoin is a scam and USD is legit. Obviously government intervention is what is needed to bring bitcoin mainstream. How will people cope without Dat 1-800 number? Regulatng bitcoin will be favorable and adding consumer protection will eliminate fraud? No laws to break while using bitcoin! That's great news.

Wow I didn't realize it was all so simple. Thanks for showing me how the world works.

>>372122
Did you have a point in all of this garbled text?

>>372126
now you know how I feel

>>372258
No I don't. Half of what you posted is you projecting bad arguments on to me because you ran out of arguments of your own. If you are trying to imply any of those arguments are mine then you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Lets dissect and destroy everything you last posted since you still want to carry on with your gibberish.

>Bitcoin is a scam and USD is legit.
I never said that although there are some people that think Bitcoin is a scam because of the arbitrary amount created and Satoshi pre-mining a percentage of the coins. I personally think it is as much of a scam as the Fed arbitrarily printing more USD (which is debatable). Both are trying to create value out of nothing.

>Obviously government intervention is what is needed to bring bitcoin mainstream
Not at all. Govenment intervention will come but it won't necessarily make Bitcoin mainstream. In fact it will probably have the opposite effect.

>Regulatng bitcoin will be favorable and adding consumer protection will eliminate fraud?
Regulating Bitcoin will absolutely be favorable to stop more occurrences like MtGox and Silkroad. Some people won't like it because it will be harder to launder money anymore or scam people with it but I am one of those silly people that think crime and tax evasion is a bad thing. Also, regulation wont eliminate fraud but it will lessen it. When you add the threat of prosecution these things tend to happen.

>No laws to break while using bitcoin!
Am I wrong? I can steal someones Bitcoin without the threat of going to jail for it. As of right now there are no laws or regulations that cover Bitcoin except for a new stipulation that says you have to pay taxes on it. This will all change soon though.

>>372287

Yes, you are wrong. It is still illegal to purchase drugs or hire a hitman even if you use bitcoin, coffee beans or gold.

>"I personally think [bitcoin] is as much of a scam as the Fed arbitrarily printing more USD (which is debatable). Both are trying to create value out of nothing."

There is no value in solving the coincidence of wants problem? Do you know what "money" is and why people value it?

>"Regulating Bitcoin will absolutely be favorable to stop more occurrences like MtGox and Silkroad. Some people won't like it because it will be harder to launder money anymore or scam people with it but I am one of those silly people that think crime and tax evasion is a bad thing. Also, regulation wont eliminate fraud but it will lessen it. When you add the threat of prosecution these things tend to happen."

Heard of prohibition? You have no clue what you're talking about. You presume to claim that tax evasion is bad and the letter of the law is good. In other words you align your moral compass personally with law texts.

Taxes are absolutely immoral and I refuse to participate in the largest criminal organizations on earth. Your tax dollars fund: churchs, wars, welfare, bailouts, and are slowly providing your governments with enough power to institute police states. I should be able to humbly live my own life without being handicapped by a currency controlled by a political group.

>>372287
Why fight with them? You won. You won a dozen times! Let them invest in tulips, bro...

>>373236
>Taxes are absolutely immoral and I refuse to participate in the largest criminal organizations on earth. Your tax dollars fund: churchs, wars, welfare, bailouts, and are slowly providing your governments with enough power to institute police states. I should be able to humbly live my own life without being handicapped by a currency controlled by a political group.
hahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>373236
> It is still illegal to purchase drugs or hire a hitman even if you use bitcoin, coffee beans or gold.
I am not talking about breaking laws that have no specific relation to finance. I am talking about people scamming you by accepting your Bitcoin payment online and not sending you goods. I am talking about people that use a keylogger to access your password and transfer all of your BTC to a wallet of their choosing. I am talking about the CEO of a major Bitcoin exchange that once handled 80% of all Bitcoin transactions directly stealing (or covering up the theft of) almost a million Bitcoins from users and the exchange. None of these "crimes" are currently subject to prosecution because there is no legislation that covers it. In all of these instances the frauds were done by people who operated under full impunity.

> You presume to claim that tax evasion is bad and the letter of the law is good.
It's not a question of right and wrong. Personally I hate taxes. I wish that I could never pay taxes again for the rest of my life and I think that most taxes are unreasonable and excessive. I also know that I have to abide by tax laws, however, or face criminal prosecution (or at least have a damn good tax attorney). Anyone who wants to change the current laws/legislation should go into politics but you're probably going to end up pandering to special interest groups to remain there which defeats the point. I don't have the patience for all of that. The financial system is flawed. Nobody debates that. Bitcoin is not a solution to that, though. "Decentralization" is not some magic word that will allow you to escape paying taxes or having your privacy breached. Snap back to reality.

>>373312

Decentralization may not solve everything but it's a step in the right direction, familiar with open bazaar concept or dark wallet? Open bazaar is a decentralized market place which won't be shut down easily. Bitcoin does show us it's possible to have consensus over a distributed network where trust and value are issues.

The current financial system is flawed, and bitcoin certainly does offer an alternative to banks. In terms of having your bitcoin stolen have you heard of a brain wallet? Pretty hard to get goxxed or hacked.

>>373468
>Decentralization may not solve everything but it's a step in the right direction
I would disagree with you. Centralization brings stability needed for any currency so that your holdings don't fluctuate wildly on any given day. It may surprise you but central banks actually serve a purpose. Volatility is the very thing that makes the majority of people hoard Bitcoin and not actually use it to buy stuff with. It is a terrible store of value and the argument that the volatility will just even itself out over time is plain wrong. Bitcoin is one of the most manipulated "commodities" ever put on the open market.

>In terms of having your bitcoin stolen have you heard of a brain wallet?
I don't really worry about my fiat being stolen in any type of bank so this doesn't appeal to me. I also have consumer protections in using debit and credit cards. Bitcoin hoarders like to hype all the features of Bitcoin that are currently non-existent or not very useful to average people or that they themselves don't even use. The only reason it is hyped to this extent is that hopefully more Bitcoin adoption will increase demand and make the value go up. That's why they are so intent on somehow justifying even the most useless aspects of the technology because they think somehow it's going to make Bitcoin relevant and make them rich when they convert it back to fiat. That is also why so many others are so adamantly opposed to Bitcoin. Not because they are threatened by it but because you all sound like MLM fanatics trying to convince the world that Cutco knives are superior to any other knife because Cutco will sharpen them at any time for free. It's a broken argument yet you push the same broken argument over and over with such enthusiasm that even you begin to believe it.

>>373554
>"Centralization brings stability needed for any currency so that your holdings don't fluctuate wildly on any given day"

Centralization didn't help Zimbabwe.

>"Bitcoin is one of the most manipulated "commodities" ever put on the open market."

Proof? Source?

>"I also have consumer protections in using debit and credit cards."

You're lucky enough to have ID and a bank account, for most of the people on the planet are unbanked.
within the US it's over a third:
http://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/

Worldwide it's up to three quarters of the people on the planet do not have access to a bank account, debit card, consumer protection. Yet many are able to access the internet easier than running water.
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:23172927~pagePK:64257043~piPK:437376~theSitePK:4607,00.html

>"The only reason it is hyped to this extent is that hopefully more Bitcoin adoption will increase demand and make the value go up"

That and because I prefer using bitcoin over fiat. Why would I want some paper currency which is printed ad infinitum to the tune of $85bn/mo. because a small handful of people decided this is the best option to bail out their careers and friends.

>"That's why they are so intent on somehow justifying even the most useless aspects of the technology because they think somehow it's going to make Bitcoin relevant"

Is a frictionless global payment system without political affiliations relevant in todays digital age? You seem to think not on the basis that people in general won't adopt it because it is not a useful technology.

If it was so useless then why is the average adoption rate for merchants up %2.58 according to cointerest and over $113m has been invested into bitcoin start ups this year alone, up from $27m for the entire year of 2013.

http://www.coindesk.com/years-vc-funding-bitcoin-startups-already-beaten-last-years/
http://www.bitcoinpulse.com/

All you need to do is follow the money.

>>363314
that is the most retarded thing I have ever hear. you have literally got to be a fucking idiot to think that there is any possibility of that happening, ever.

>>374024
>Centralization didn't help Zimbabwe
There are a thousand things that caused Zimbabwe's economic trouble and collapse of its currency. Centralization is not one of them.

>You're lucky enough to have ID and a bank account, for most of the people on the planet are unbanked.
Bitcoin doesn't help these people at all. They need to be able to pay bills and the last time I checked you can't pay a mortgage, rent, utility bills or car insurance in Bitcoin. Also, most gateways (the main source to even get Bitcoins besides mining) require as much identification as a bank does. I see this becoming even more prohibitive when Bitcoin is actually regulated.

>That and because I prefer using bitcoin over fiat
But really you don't, do you? You still use fiat. If you were ever to be able to use Bitcoin exclusively over fiat it would have to be legal tender and accepted everywhere. Which means that if you are employed you pay taxes in fiat. Which means that you already helped paid for the bailouts. I guess you're not a beautiful and unique snowflake.

>If it was so useless then why is the average adoption rate for merchants up %2.58
I don't know maybe because they think it will translate into more fiat if they accept it? Very few merchants actually accept Bitcoins as Bitcoins.

>$113m has been invested into bitcoin start ups this year alone, up from $27m for the entire year of 2013
VCs like to throw money at the wall and see what sticks. They hope that the 10% of businesses that actually make profit make up for the other 90% of investments that fail. There are at least a few Bitcoin startups that have failed or are almost insolvent. Just because money was invested into something not make necessarily make it wise money.

>>374051

>"They hope that the 10% of businesses that actually make profit make up for the other 90% of investments that fail."

Presuming to know what drives $113m of investment and passively brushing it off when claiming the technology is useless even in the face of contrary evidence is a classic move. They are investing because there is an upside potential since companies that revolve around bitcoin are being created everyday at an increasing rate. Their goal is to make bitcoin better and more accessible. You're betting against some of the smartest and most motivated individuals on earth.

>"Also, most gateways (the main source to even get Bitcoins besides mining) require as much identification as a bank does"

It costs nothing to ask for bitcoin donations on the internet for content creation or pay a 5% fee for escrow services to sell goods all without having ID. If you want to use a bank account to purchase bitcoin obviously you need documentation. There are many ways in which you can use bitcoin perfectly without any appeal to authority herein lies it's usefulness online for the majority of people on the planet.

>>374209
>Their goal is to make bitcoin better and more accessible.
Wrong. Their goal is to make money. I don't think most VCs care much about the ideology behind Bitcoin but that there is money to be made on people that do care. All of these businesses that spring up are really just monetizing a protocol that is supposed to be free. Banks do the same thing with fiat. VCs are taking a gamble on the fact that Bitcoin will even be around long enough to make their investment back. $100m may seem like a lot of money but it is a fraction of a percent of the total amount of money invested through Venture Capitalist firms each year. It is a drop in the bucket.

>There are many ways in which you can use bitcoin perfectly without any appeal to authority
As of right now there are very few ways that you can purchase Bitcoin without going through a gateway. I am sure in the future this will be even more limited as lawmakers crack down on Bitcoin sales and money laundering. Government regulation has required Paypal to ask for your social security number when you go over a certain threshold so they can report your earnings to the IRS. Do you think that businesses that deal in Bitcoin will be any less regulated? Governments are just going to let this one slide, right?

>>374226

>"As of right now there are very few ways that you can purchase Bitcoin without going through a gateway"

Localbitcoins.com, craigslist or facebook are all ways you can meet in person to buy or sell bitcoin without ID.

>" Governments are just going to let this one slide, right?"

Of course not, they just don't have any choice. Bitcoin will grow with or without them. Case in point: torrents or drug trade if they choose to throw the ban hammer they just hurt themselves.

>"Wrong. Their goal is to make money."
>Their goal is to make bitcoin better and more accessible.

How do you think they make money, by just buying bitcoin? No, by making bitcoin more used and easier to use.

>>374274
>Localbitcoins.com, craigslist or facebook are all ways you can meet in person to buy or sell bitcoin without ID
Like I said "very few" ways. Meeting in person is incredibly limited for an technology that is supposed to be useful for purchases online. It seems counter intuitive to go to all of that hassle to escape using fiat when you are transferring fiat for Bitcoin anyways. If I really had no access to a bank account I would rather just buy a prepaid visa since they are accepted everywhere. I wouldn't have to worry about my pre-paid card balance possibly losing 10% of its
value by the time I get to use it.

> they just don't have any choice
Governments don't have any choice? You're serious? You can't be. Am I being trolled right now?

Government regulation isn't intended to kill business but to make sure that frauds and thefts don't happen on a great enough scale to cause issues. Obviously they can't prevent crimes from happening but laws serve as deterrents and make violations prosecutable. We are not talking about fringe criminal elements (like the drug trade), we are talking about already established companies and corporations that will have to adhere to restrictions and guidelines if they decide to use new financial technologies (Bitcoin included). The fact that tax laws for Bitcoin have not been fully established yet does not mean that everyone is just immune from following them. Regulations usually take a few years to catch up with technology. Bitcoin will never gain any acceptance at all if you remain so averse to government guidelines.

>How do you think they make money, by just buying bitcoin?
That was my point exactly. VCs aren't buying Bitcoin because it is even too risky for them (which is saying a lot). They are investing in the technologies that monetize transactions and sales with fees. Bitcoin could fall to $100 a coin and they would still make money. VCs can't ensure Bitcoins adoption, they can just wager Bitcoin won't fail entirely.

>>374321
>Governments don't have any choice?

Bitcoin has fared pretty well without them so far.

>"Government regulation isn't intended to kill business but to make sure that frauds and thefts don't happen on a great enough scale to cause issues"

Keep telling yourself that, I understand that there is next to nothing you can do to stop crime from a regulation stand point. It's a waste of time and money, there will always be criminals. If the governments regulate bitcoin it's to ensure they have the monopoly on crime.

>" They are investing in the technologies that monetize transactions and sales with fees"

Ergo more usage more fees. Does everything need to be spelled out?

>>374349
>Bitcoin has fared pretty well without them so far.
Not really. Silk Road, MtGox, and a slew of other scams and thefts already. Bitcoin companies need regulation, and even if they don't the government will regulate them anyways. Tax fraud is kind of a big deal to them.

>It's a waste of time and money
Laws are a huge deterrent to wrongdoings. Most people don't commit wrongful acts not because they have a moral obligation but because they suffer legal consequences for their actions. Otherwise no laws would exist.

>Ergo more usage more fees
Again, VCs can't ensure more Bitcoin usage or higher adoption rates. Just because you build a chinese restaurant in China doesn't mean people are necessarily going to eat there. Especially when there is 10 other restaurants with better food on that same block.

>>374363

>"Not really. Silk Road, MtGox, and a slew of other scams and thefts already. Bitcoin companies need regulation, and even if they don't the government will regulate them anyways. Tax fraud is kind of a big deal to them."

I will reiterate if someone uses bitcoin for evil it does not make bitcoin evil. Evil exists, the government will not stop this, deal with it.

>"VCs can't ensure more Bitcoin usage or higher adoption rates"

No, but the historic trend over bitcoins entire lifetime is that adoption rate is increasing, price is increasing, new companies and software being built around the protocol is increasing. To deny this is to be dishonest. There is VC interest because there is potential not because they are opening chinese restaurants or trying to stick noodles to walls.

>>374378
>I will reiterate if someone uses bitcoin for evil it does not make bitcoin evil.
Whoever said Bitcoin was evil? You are putting your bad arguments on to me again. I never even implied that.

> the government will not stop this, deal with it.
Whoever said the government will stop Bitcoin? I never implied this either. I just said they would regulate it.

>No, but the historic trend over bitcoins entire lifetime is that adoption rate is increasing, price is increasing, new companies and software being built around the protocol is increasing.
Not at all. Market price is half of what it was since December. Average number of unique Bitcoin addressees added is down. Number of transactions is down. Total trade volume is significantly down. Almost every single indicator shows that Bitcoin is losing relevance. Where the hell are you getting your statistics?

The bottom line is that overall interest in Bitcoin is waning and the only new money isn't people buying Bitcoins, it is the ones investing in monetizing other people using it by adding fees (not unlike a bank does). I am not too sure that if Bitcoin survives it will resemble Bitcoin at all. It will be very similar to how the existing financial framework already operates.

>>374396

>"Where the hell are you getting your statistics?"
http://www.bitcoinpulse.com/

You don't know what you're talking about.

>>374396
Bitcoin will be replaced by other crypto currencies.
That doesn't mean crypto currencies are necessarily dead.

>>374424
Ah. I would suggest you get your info from something a little more official that aggregates all data and not just cherrypicking from individual exchanges. Something like blockchain.info

Although, that site does confirm that price, volume, transactions and interest has tanked hard within the last 6 months.Do you know how to read data?


>>374425
I actually don't disagree with this.