What is with the bitcoin obsession?

Last edited:
Same kind of stuff could be said about egold. All kinds of stuff for sale, all kinds of services, a stock market, even a second currency built on top of egold. But it was still a HYIP currency. I make generalizations and hyperbole. Very very true generalizations and hyperbole.
 
Forget the socks. I don't even think those are still sold. We got a taxi driver, hotels, restaurants -- the trade page on the BTC wiki exceeds 33 pages!

BTC stock market, leveraged trade markets, a rapidly-developing BTC-denominated lending market (soon to be superseded by a nice site a lender's developing)!

ETA: Oh -- how'd I forget the Bitcoin Magazine which'll be sold in Barnes & Nobles?

Thanks, for the update, I do know it's "more than buying socks".

Same kind of stuff could be said about egold. All kinds of stuff for sale, all kinds of services, a stock market, even a second currency built on top of egold. But it was still a HYIP currency. I make generalizations and hyperbole. Very very true generalizations and hyperbole.

Great, we are making progress.
Now, you might want to learn why BTC is so much different than eGold:
eGold was run by a 'centralized' company which was a big, fat target for the Fed's to go after. The BTC project does not have that major weakness*

*The primary USD/BTC exchange is too dominate, but that is not a permanent situation.

BTC has survived several huge setbacks, and is still going strong; Tons of upside and potential remain.
 
Same kind of stuff could be said about egold. All kinds of stuff for sale, all kinds of services, a stock market, even a second currency built on top of egold. But it was still a HYIP currency. I make generalizations and hyperbole. Very very true generalizations and hyperbole.
There was a stock market specifically for handling businesses involved with e-gold?
 
Great, we are making progress.
Now, you might want to learn why BTC is so much different than eGold:
eGold was run by a 'centralized' company which was a big, fat target for the Fed's to go after. The BTC project does not have that major weakness*

*The primary USD/BTC exchange is too dominate, but that is not a permanent situation.

BTC has survived several huge setbacks, and is still going strong; Tons of upside and potential remain.
Indy, I actually am fairly well-informed about bitcoin. Hopefully your information will be of use to others lurking, though it has been covered many times in the thread already. I know what is different about bitcoin. Bitcoin has no gold. Bitcoin has no assets whatsoever, centralized or decentralized. So yes, having nothing to go after is one way to prevent people from going after it.

There was a stock market specifically for handling businesses involved with e-gold?
http://web.archive.org/web/20060209000743/http://www.pvcse.com/
 
One thing that is rarely discussed is bitcoin's similarity to, especially in terms of intent and effect, of Hawala - a form of money transfer, or Informal Funds Transfer (IFT). It is little known in the west, but has very old roots as a money transfer system that completely sidesteps formal financial institutions, and is still in wide global usage today.

A senior economist with the IMF wrote an article about Hawala in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. Emphasis mine:

Why hawala developed

In earlier times, IFT systems were used for trade financing. They were created because of the dangers of traveling with gold and other forms of payment on routes beset with bandits. Local systems were widely used in China and other parts of East Asia and continue to be in use there. They go under various names—Fei-Ch'ien (China), Padala (Philippines), Hundi (India), Hui Kuan (Hong Kong), and Phei Kwan (Thailand). The hawala (or hundi) system now enjoys widespread use but is historically associated with South Asia and the Middle East. At present, its primary users are members of expatriate communities who migrated to Europe, the Persian Gulf region, and North America and send remittances to their relatives on the Indian subcontinent, East Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe, and elsewhere. These emigrant workers have reinvigorated the system's role and importance. While hawala is used for the legitimate transfer of funds, its anonymity and minimal documentation have also made it vulnerable to abuse by individuals and groups transferring funds to finance illegal activities.

Economic and cultural factors explain the attractiveness of the hawala system. It is less expensive, swifter, more reliable, more convenient, and less bureaucratic than the formal financial sector. Hawaldars charge fees or sometimes use the exchange rate spread to generate income. The fees charged by hawaladars on the transfer of funds are lower than those charged by banks and other remitting companies, thanks mainly to minimal overhead expenses and the absence of regulatory costs to the hawaladars, who often operate other small businesses. To encourage foreign exchange transfers through their system, hawaladars sometimes exempt expatriates from paying fees. In contrast, they reportedly charge higher fees to those who use the system to avoid exchange, capital, or administrative controls. These higher fees often cover all the expenses of the hawaladars.

The system is swifter than formal financial transfer systems partly because of the lack of bureaucracy and the simplicity of its operating mechanism; instructions are given to correspondents by phone, facsimile, or e-mail; and funds are often delivered door to door within 24 hours by a correspondent who has quick access to villages even in remote areas. The minimal documentation and accounting requirements, the simple management, and the lack of bureaucratic procedures help reduce the time needed for transfer operations.

In addition to economic factors, kinship, ethnic ties, and personal relations between hawaladars and expatriate workers make this system convenient and easy to use. The flexible hours and proximity of hawaladars are appreciated by expatriate communities. To accommodate their clients, hawaladars may instruct their counterparts to deliver funds to beneficiaries before expatriate workers make payments. Moreover, cultural considerations encourage expatriate workers to remit funds through the hawala system, and such considerations also apply to family members in the home country. Many expatriate communities are exclusively male, because wives and other family members remain in the home country, where family traditions prevail. These traditions may require family members, especially women, to maintain minimal contacts with the outside world. A trusted hawaladar, known in the village and aware of the social codes, would be an acceptable intermediary, protecting women from having direct dealings with banks and other agents. Thus, a system based on national, ethnic, and village solidarity depends more on absolute trust between the participants than on legal documents.

On the receiving side, repressive financial policies and inefficient banking institutions, which have often lacked interest in the remittance business, have contributed to the development of IFT systems. In addition to overly restrictive economic policies, unstable political situations have offered fertile ground for the development of the hawala and other informal systems. Most IFT systems have prospered in areas characterized by unsophisticated official systems and during times of instability. They continue to develop in regions where financial development has been slow or repressed. Overall, financial development tends to check the spread of informal fund transfer systems, even though they exist in financially mature countries as well.

With hawala there are very limited records - everything more or less in the moment. With bitcoins there are full records, but complete anonymity is still possible. The hawala system itself is actually extremely reliable. I know two Chinese people myself who have used hawala to transfer funds (over the phone, no internet involved) from one province to another. Like banks, halawa relies on reputations and faith in a system, but only of individual halawanders - not institutions. Thus, like bitcoin, it is not, and cannot be, centralized or centrally controlled.

Halawa and bitcoins would seem to be a match made in Halawa heaven. I often wonder if halawanders (the actual people making the transfers) would see bitcoin technology as a useful tool, or something to be avoided given public records involved, or just plain competition.
 
Nice! :) It's spreading, although slowly right now..

Btw did you happen to see this video yet?:

 
I really don't understand what negatives you mean. It's a decentralized currency technology which provides freedom from government or any other entities control and with enough effort allows for pseudo anonymity.

So again, what negatives? That it's new?

Bit coins have no intrinsic value. End of story.

Suppose you have a totally private, free banking system. Bank A's notes are backed by gold. Bank B's notes are backed by ... nothing. I'm choosing Bank A.
 
Bit coins have no intrinsic value. End of story.

Suppose you have a totally private, free banking system. Bank A's notes are backed by gold. Bank B's notes are backed by ... nothing. I'm choosing Bank A.

You're right. Neither bitcoins nor FRN's have any intrinsic value (read=no economically valuable physical properties associated with them). As such, they are not reliable "store of value", and the technology itself is not a perfect "banking system" in that respect.

Aside from loans and other fiduciary media, the average person uses the average banking system as a convenience only - a conduit for temporary storage and transfer, or reallocation, of wealth, both of which have associated costs, as well as privacy issues.

Bitcoin technology is definitely not a substitute for what Austrians think of as a reliable "store of wealth" (i.e., the value of hard specie is derived from intrinsic physical properties, which it retains forever regardless of market value). However, Bitcoin technology is extremely useful, as it is arguably a superior global transfer mechanism on a strictly transfer-and-cash-out basis. In other words, you don't "invest" in bitcoins, and you don't "store" bitcoins, any more than you would "invest" in a PayPal account balance (which I keep ZERO at all times). Rather you use bitcoins as a free RIGHT NOW transfer and conversion medium. Because the exchange value is constantly changing, you leave nothing in the system. However, as a transfer and conversion medium only, you are unaffected by the transitory MOMENTARY value of each bitcoin, because that won't change substantially in the process of making a transfer. Which is otherwise free. That's the real value of bitcoins, and why the technology will never die.
 
You're right. Neither bitcoins nor FRN's have any intrinsic value (read=no economically valuable physical properties associated with them). As such, they are not reliable "store of value", and the technology itself is not a perfect "banking system" in that respect.

Aside from loans and other fiduciary media, the average person uses the average banking system as a convenience only - a conduit for temporary storage and transfer, or reallocation, of wealth, both of which have associated costs, as well as privacy issues.

Bitcoin technology is definitely not a substitute for what Austrians think of as a reliable "store of wealth" (i.e., the value of hard specie is derived from intrinsic physical properties, which it retains forever regardless of market value). However, Bitcoin technology is extremely useful, as it is arguably a superior global transfer mechanism on a strictly transfer-and-cash-out basis. In other words, you don't "invest" in bitcoins, and you don't "store" bitcoins, any more than you would "invest" in a PayPal account balance (which I keep ZERO at all times). Rather you use bitcoins as a free RIGHT NOW transfer and conversion medium. Because the exchange value is constantly changing, you leave nothing in the system. However, as a transfer and conversion medium only, you are unaffected by the transitory MOMENTARY value of each bitcoin, because that won't change substantially in the process of making a transfer. Which is otherwise free. That's the real value of bitcoins, and why the technology will never die.

I'm not understanding the advantage to Bit Coins. Suppose I want to buy a car. What are the steps if I want to use Bit Coins and how would it be an advantage over cash?
 
I'm not understanding the advantage to Bit Coins. Suppose I want to buy a car. What are the steps if I want to use Bit Coins and how would it be an advantage over cash?

One advantage - the police can't steal your bitcoins on your way to make the deal by claiming you were "probably" involved with drugs.
 
I'm not understanding the advantage to Bit Coins. Suppose I want to buy a car. What are the steps if I want to use Bit Coins and how would it be an advantage over cash?

When you buy the car and you pay with bitcoins you don't risk ID theft because you don't need your ID to send or receive them. You send bitcoins directly to me so you avoid fees of middlemen.

Also if you were from another country you'd avoid dealing with international transfer fees as well as conversion fees as well as save time.

On the other hand:
If I want to sell you that car, and you want to pay me online and I insist on Bitcoin I protect myself against you taking the car and then claiming you got defrauded and demanding a chargeback being done by paypal or mastercard.

Also if I sell a lot of cars I significantly cut down on fee costs and risk of fraud costs as well as eligibility compliance costs for using online money processors.


There are ample benefits in using Bitcoin. And it's Bitcoin(the system) and bitcoins (the units), not BitCoin, or Bit Coin, or bit coins or w/e.
 
Steven summed up the situation reasonably well. And as JWZguy said:

One advantage - the police can't steal your bitcoins on your way to make the deal by claiming you were "probably" involved with drugs.

However, keep in mind, that is the situation for now.

Exchangers are, as always, the weak link in this "super-strong state-proof" system. Think about it. If I still own some e-gold or, to make it a more perfect analogy, 1mdc, good on me, so I guess the police will never steal my 1mdc. If the company hadn't taken down the website, I could log in forever and gaze longingly at my balance of 1mdc. But what can I do with it?

Likewise, if the law leans on all the exchangers sufficiently (wouldn't take much) that it becomes impossible to form a link between the banking system and Bitcoin, what happens? You are no longer able to quickly and easily convert bitcoins to dollars in your bank account, or a balance on a debit card.

You can still print out your hash and have it framed and hung on the wall. Then you can just gaze at it longingly every day.
 
Last edited:
If I want to sell you that car, and you want to pay me online and I insist on Bitcoin I protect myself against you taking the car and then claiming you got defrauded and demanding a chargeback being done by paypal or mastercard.

Right.. So I send you the bitcoins, whats stops you from keeping them and not giving me the car?
What is my recourse now that you have my bitcoins?
 
My 2 questions about "Bitcoin", to those of you in the know, apply to super computers and government/corporate networks:

1)
When you read online articles about "mining" bitcoins you find references to network admins that have access to 20 or more machines who use them to mine for profit.... what happens when this concept is applied at the corporate or government level? What happens when someone with admin access to thousands of computers sets them to mining bitcoins?

2)
Bitcoin is based on cryptography, what happens when one of these petaflop super computers run by the NSA is tasked with hacking the system?

presence
 
Last edited:
Right.. So I send you the bitcoins, whats stops you from keeping them and not giving me the car?
What is my recourse now that you have my bitcoins?

Escrow services or reputation systems.

This is not rocket science. Just because the current status quo has spoiled everybody with chargeback doesn't mean there aren't alternative solutions, much friendlier to merchant costs, and also much fairer with dispute resolution services.
 
Last edited:
Steven summed up the situation reasonably well. And as JWZguy said:



However, keep in mind, that is the situation for now.

Exchangers are, as always, the weak link in this "super-strong state-proof" system. Think about it. If I still own some e-gold or, to make it a more perfect analogy, 1mdc, good on me, so I guess the police will never steal my 1mdc. If the company hadn't taken down the website, I could log in forever and gaze longingly at my balance of 1mdc. But what can I do with it?

Likewise, if the law leans on all the exchangers sufficiently (wouldn't take much) that it becomes impossible to form a link between the banking system and Bitcoin, what happens? You are no longer able to quickly and easily convert bitcoins to dollars in your bank account, or a balance on a debit card.

You can still print out your hash and have it framed and hung on the wall. Then you can just gaze at it longingly every day.

No. That's the situation forever. The more adoption we have the less reason to have exchanges at all. It only gets better from here.
 
My 2 questions about "Bitcoin", to those of you in the know, apply to super computers and government/corporate networks:

1)
When you read online articles about "mining" bitcoins you find references to network admins that have access to 20 or more machines who use them to mine for profit.... what happens when this concept is applied at the corporate or government level? What happens when someone with admin access to thousands of computers sets them to mining bitcoins?

Difficulty of mining goes up and if the price doesn't follow it drives out the weaker miners. But even if these entities gain the majority in mining, the rest of the users can still ignore their blocks they find but aren't following the original rules. In other words if those who mine want to keep making a profit by keeping everyone accepting their blocks they must avoid forking the chain which means they must follow the rules. And if they don't follow the rules, their blocks will get simply ignored by everyone else and honest miners will pick up the pieces in a new fork. Or so goes the theory. (It's an ongoing experiment..)

2)
Bitcoin is based on cryptography, what happens when one of these petaflop super computers run by the NSA is tasked with hacking the system?

presence

With todays technology it is impossible to effectively brute force strong encryptions and when that changes, Bitcoin can be upgraded with new stronger encryptions to stay ahead. Remember if anyone can start cracking encryption, they'll be able to crack most of encryptions used in finance or protecting government secrets before they'll break SHA256.
 
Back
Top