Slashdot Mirror


Major Bitcoin Exchange Ceases Operation

First time accepted submitter Sabbetus writes "On Monday the CEO of prominent Bitcoin exchange Tradehill announced that they are shutting down. Ars Technica ran a story on this stating that 'After Monday's news, the currency's value fell from $5.50 to $4.40, a decline of 20 percent.' Tradehill is returning all funds and meanwhile their competitors are fighting over who gets Tradehill's customers."

41 of 208 comments (clear)

  1. Bizarre and Confusing Summary by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Informative

    ... meanwhile their competitors are fighting over who gets Tradehill's customers.

    Not sure where that came from, didn't find it in the Ars article. At the end they mention Mt. Gox being the only other exchange ... so there's one competitor. They didn't mention anything about fighting over customers.

    Furthermore the third sentence in the Ars article was suspiciously absent from the summary:

    He has pledged to open a new site once these issues have been resolved.

    As well as the explanation of why all this happened (lack of proper money transmission licensing). I've asked this many times before but how do you track illegal purchases on BitCoin when, by definition, it claims to be an anonymous payment solution?

    Quite simply put, no BitCoin exchange -- neither Tradehill nor Mt. Gox -- is going to be able to comply with the Bank Secrecy Act.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Bizarre and Confusing Summary by alphatel · · Score: 3, Funny

      A trading firm that never actually trades, with non-existent competitors, trading a currency that doesn't exist, has gone out of business due to massive losses!

      --
      When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
    2. Re:Bizarre and Confusing Summary by Ogi_UnixNut · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sounds just like some of the financial trickery you hear about happening in the finance industry, doesn't it?

    3. Re:Bizarre and Confusing Summary by Ogi_UnixNut · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Act only applies to the US though. Many places you can host an exchange. Never heard of tradehill though, so can't tell where they were based.

      One of the nice things about bitcoin is that there are no real borders for it. You can trade on any exchange in the world, and use the currencty anywhere without restrictions (so a bit like cash, but without limits on how much you can take out the country, or currency conversion fees, etc...).

    4. Re:Bizarre and Confusing Summary by iluvcapra · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Quite simply put, no BitCoin exchange -- neither Tradehill nor Mt. Gox -- is going to be able to comply with the Bank Secrecy Act.

      I disagree. As long as an exchange keeps identity records for all of its business and for all of the address endpoints it creates, it'd probably be able to comply with US Treasury Department regulations. Bitcoin isn't anonymous. Things only start to get murky once you are moving bitcoins around off an exchange, but that's not the exchange's problem.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    5. Re:Bizarre and Confusing Summary by houstonbofh · · Score: 5, Informative

      Quite simply put, no BitCoin exchange -- neither Tradehill nor Mt. Gox -- is going to be able to comply with the Bank Secrecy Act.

      Totally not true. They have to record cash transactions for negotiable instruments. They have to report cash transactions over $10,000. Most of them did not deal in cash at all, but in credit or debit cards and paypal, all of which is easily recorded. The act makes no mention of tracking the negotiable instruments (bitcoin) after they are sold.

    6. Re:Bizarre and Confusing Summary by subreality · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Mt. Gox being the only other exchange

      MtGox is the only exchange bigger than TradeHill, but there are lots of smaller exchanges: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Category:Exchanges

      Quite simply put, no BitCoin exchange -- neither Tradehill nor Mt. Gox -- is going to be able to comply with the Bank Secrecy Act.

      First, Bitcoin is pseudonymous, not anonymous. Second, the important part: while it's very difficult to positively identify who sent you some Bitcoins, the exchanges know exactly who receives them, trades them back and forth to fiat currencies, and then sends them back out. They have names and bank account numbers, or they're using fiat payment services that have bank account numbers. Know Your Customer is not a problem for most exchanges.

    7. Re:Bizarre and Confusing Summary by zill · · Score: 2

      You seem to forgot that the US government controls the DNS system and can confiscate domain names at will.

      Also we're not talking about a Bitcoins to seashells exchange here; we're talking about a Bitcoins to USD exchange. Any such exchange must perform transactions with other banks that operate with USD. Guess where a majority of those USD-handling banks are located?

    8. Re:Bizarre and Confusing Summary by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Act only applies to the US though.

      Technically true but in practice any institution that touches dollars ends up being bound to obey US law if it wants access to the international financial system.

    9. Re:Bizarre and Confusing Summary by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      Hey landlord that owns my offices, here's my rent! What's that? No, see, it's in bitcoins which is even BETTER than...(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvJeATp31dw)

    10. Re:Bizarre and Confusing Summary by Ultra64 · · Score: 2

      Bitcoin never claimed to be an anonymous payment solution. In fact every single payment (along with sender and recipient address) ever made is visible in the very public block chain.

      People who don't understand bitcoin claimed it was an anonymous payment solution.

    11. Re:Bizarre and Confusing Summary by Sabbetus · · Score: 2

      I could have written a much longer description but I think that the Ars Technica article covers it well. The claim that Mt. Gox is the only other exchange is silly though. There are many exchanges and Tradehill was only slightly bigger than Intersango and Cryptoxchange. Both of these exchanges have started to push their marketing especially at Bitcointalk forums, after this incident: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=63941.0 & https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=63877.0

      So that everyone clearly understands, Mt. Gox is by far the biggest exchange. Even though Tradehill was the 2nd biggest exchange, it was tiny compared to Mt. Gox. Both Intersango and Cryptoxchange were almost as big as Tradehill at the time of its demise. This information is available at http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/

      I didn't pull anything out of my hat but I could have perhaps added a few more links and a slightly longer description.

    12. Re:Bizarre and Confusing Summary by NatasRevol · · Score: 2
      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    13. Re:Bizarre and Confusing Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      AHA! Proof that you actually read the article AND Jered's original post to the bitcointalk forum announcing the change. Tradehill is closing so that a new platform can be built from the developer team.

      You actually read the article and its source material. You are an embarrassment to the Slashdot community. :-)

    14. Re:Bizarre and Confusing Summary by tompaulco · · Score: 3, Funny

      And by "print money" you mean "waste electricity while participating in a pyramid scheme that was destined to fail." Right?
      Nope. Because Bitcoin is not a scheme whereby people use newcomers money to pay people who have been in the scheme longer. In fact, Bitcoin does not ask people for money at all.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    15. Re:Bizarre and Confusing Summary by gorzek · · Score: 2

      Except to use cash, you have to go out in public. You know, where there are often cameras. And most stores don't take kindly to people walking in wearing ski masks and gloves to conceal their faces and fingerprints.

    16. Re:Bizarre and Confusing Summary by LordLucless · · Score: 2

      I'm surprised they didn't get a federal bailout.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    17. Re:Bizarre and Confusing Summary by BitZtream · · Score: 2

      Really? The government controls *.co.uk? No, I didn't think they did.

      All they 'control' are the silly generic domains that are too overpopulated to be useful anymore anyway. The rest of the world could rather quickly tell the US to go fuck themselves are far as DNS is concerned.

      Other countries run root servers too.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    18. Re:Bizarre and Confusing Summary by icebraining · · Score: 2

      Are you saying there's a short supply of idiots? Because my experience says otherwise.

    19. Re:Bizarre and Confusing Summary by justforgetme · · Score: 2

      TOR is an http packet router The Onion Router) and therefore is unrelated to DNS. You could argue that DNS is irrelevant bu then you would be forced to remember 50.17.218.130 instead of example.co.bs and imagine how fun that would be.

      Also an only IP solution would still be scrutinized by the IANA (and regional entities) since IP isn't decentralized.

      One more thing: if DNS would go down hosting costs for your blog would go up (as in sky high) because you would need a dedicated IP for it instead of a shared one because there simply isn't an implemented way to send a host request together with an ip request from a browser's location bar. and even if it were implemented visitors would have to enter the ip as well as the hostname of your blog, now what fun that would be ( exmplebl.og@100.2.3.4:80/~Id1ot )

      </rant>

      --
      -- no sig today
    20. Re:Bizarre and Confusing Summary by sexconker · · Score: 2

      You can trace mined coins to specific IP addresses if you are careful with how you listen to the packets and try to find out which computer gave you the packet first. If you had several computers tracking this information, it would be possible to identify down to a small number of users who actually mined some Bitcoins, and from that if any Bitcoins were co-mingled with those mined coins to be able to further identify what other addresses might be used by that person who also is mining coins.

      Still, attempting to do that is a real technical challenge and you would need the resources of something like the U.S. federal government to pull that off, plus a whole bunch of data mining and active participation in the Bitcoin network... and it still gives wiggle room for plausible deniability on the surface. If there was a particular set of transactions that such data mining was looking for, you can still be tracked.

      On the other hand, if you were very paranoid about such things you could set up manual connections for routing Bitcoin data to only trusted nodes (by your own definition... not some random list in other words), and hopefully even they are being just as paranoid about random connections "to the outside world".

      IF you control all nodes, AND you KNOW you control all the nodes, then you can track the transaction to the IP ADDRESS of the MINER or TRANSACTION INITIATOR.
      You cannot track the transaction to an individual person. An IP address is not a person. A Bitcoin address is not a person.

      Furthermore, it's laughable to think that anyone can control all of the nodes to make this possible.
      And if that scenario ever did occur, you could just avoid routing directly to those nodes (as you mentioned).

      If the government wanted to track a Bitcoin user down, they'd just shakedown ISPs as usual.
      The only "weakpoint" in Bitcoin's anonymity is the "bad guys control ALL the nodes" scenario.
      Beyond that, it's as anonymous as users want it to be. Most people mine in a shared pool, and thus associate their IP, a User ID, and 1 or more receiving addresses, and tell it to a 3rd party. People participating in currency exchanges do the same thing and worse, as shit then ends up tied to a bank account or similar.

      If you want to send x bitcoins to a person, you can exchange addresses however you wish, and then the network handles the rest. You could do both transactions from the same IP address so to anyone snooping it looks like someone was just moving money between their own wallets.

    21. Re:Bizarre and Confusing Summary by Grygus · · Score: 2

      Bailouts are not free; you must invest in lobbyists to see a return.

    22. Re:Bizarre and Confusing Summary by tolkienfan · · Score: 2

      By your definition, idiots can successfully use bitcoin as a currency, but only because they don't realize how "silly" it is.
      When you think about it, that's a *really* odd thing to state.
      If you mean that bitcoins have no intrinsic value, then you'd be right. But that's true of currencies in general these days. No one uses gold coins as currency any more.
      If you actually have a specific criticism if bitcoin other than "silly", I'd be interested to hear it.

  2. Bitcoin's still around? by SleazyRidr · · Score: 4, Funny

    I thought that Bitcoin must have ceased operating when there stopped being a slashdot story about them every day.

    1. Re:Bitcoin's still around? by Bieeanda · · Score: 2

      Dude, there are nerds who are still convinced that the Amiga could make a comeback. Irrational fixations transcend population boundaries.

    2. Re:Bitcoin's still around? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 4, Funny

      You think that Taco left because of a lack of bitcoin articles?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  3. Re:Oh! The huge manatee! by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Funny

    On Monday the CEO of prominent Bitcoin exchange Tradehill announced that they are shutting down.

    And not a single fuck was given that day.

    If everyone actually stopped fucking for a day, that would be huge news. (To everyone other than you)

  4. Major? by sexconker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Tradehill was never a major Bitcoin exchange.
    MtGox is the only one anyone ever used. Tradehill was started by some guy who got mad that MtGox was raking in the cash. He started throwing out accusations about security holes, the owner (of MtGox) not actually having all of the BitCoins backing his market, etc. Then he threw up Tradehill and it was shit.

    All Bitcoin exchanges are shit. They're for speculators. Bitcoin as a currency is fine, and it will be fine if every exchange dies off.

    1. Re:Major? by subreality · · Score: 2

      "and it will be fine if every exchange dies off."

      Except for the fact that there will be no way to acquire bitcoins?

      By that logic there would be no way of acquiring US dollars either.

      Without exchanges, you acquire Bitcoins in exchange for goods and services. It's money. Earn it.

  5. But the protocols are still intact by adjustable_pliers · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The loss of Tradehill and the security breaches of other exchanges disrupted the confidence in using Bitcoin, but the protocols remained intact. I see this as a testament to the design of the system, even though a fundamental quality for any currency is the confidence of its users.

    As a Bitcoin lurker (I've never owned anything more than 2 BTC), I've been intensely fascinated in the potential of this "currency." Without belaboring the great qualities of a decentralized currency, it has attracted a speculative class of users that have rushed into centralized exchanges using nervous money transmission providers. The irony is not lost on me.

    Tradehill's departure and what I believe will be an eventual international agreement hobbling Bitcoin's biggest exchange Mt. Gox in Japan (a la UBS in Switzerland), due to tax evasion, ought to serve as a cautionary note to Bitcoin users. Money transmission is a confiscatorially regulated practice. Bitcoin's best hope ought to be transactions as decentralized as the protocol it uses.

    Lurkers such as I can only hope of an ecosystem or application so widespread, so diversified, secure enough, and easy to use before Bitcoin can be considered useful to most internet users. I dream of a decentralized Facebook knock-off (e.g. diaspora*, etc.) with a Bitcoin client built in, making currency transmission as simple as tossing a dollar to a friend to buy a cup of coffee. Perhaps even at a coffee shop with patrons casually swapping US$ and BTC as they play chess or read.

  6. Why money has value by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Money is not fiction, it is a mechanism that governments and banks can use. Dollars not valuable simply because people believe they are valuable, they are valuable because the US government requires a large group of people to use dollars (i.e. to pay taxes and other debts). People believe dollars are valuable because all the tax-paying and otherwise indebted citizens around them demand dollars as payment, because they need those dollars if they do not want the government to take their property or freedom. As long as people agree to be governed by the US government, currency issued by the government will have value.

    Nobody is required to use Bitcoin, which is why it is so volatile (its value is based entirely on speculation) and will ultimately fail (as people demand dollars and other currencies more than they demand Bitcoin).

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  7. Tradehill were the good guys by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative

    Tradehill was probably the best-run Bitcoin exchange. They didn't steal customer funds, like some of the other defunct Bitcoin services. They didn't go down much. They didn't have a monthly crisis like Mt. Gox. (formerly Magic, the Gathering Online Exchange. Really.) If Tradehill does in fact return all customer funds, at least they shut down honestly.

    A basic problem with Bitcoin is that the ability to irrevocably transfer funds to anonymous parties is the scammer's dream. Bitcoin is thus a scammer magnet. Just about every known financial scam was replicated in the tiny Bitcoin world, from fake banks to fake stock exchanges to Ponzi schemes.

  8. Re:Not money! by gox · · Score: 2

    Weed? Give me a break, the biggest political attack on Bitcoin so far is because you *can* buy weed with it.

    Buying most of these online might not work for you, but for what it's worth, one of my friends buys beer online with the coins he mines. Belgian Flavours shop accepts Bitcoin AFAIK. You can buy PCs and all kinds of electronics for sure. Not sure how competitive the prices are though, at the worst case you can buy vouchers for more popular sites. Smokes, yes, there are a multitude of shops for tobacco products, including e-cigarettes. Prices for these sort of products are really competitive.

  9. But there are exchanges by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Many of them. The US dollar is traded on all international currency markets and for a small scale, any bank will convert them. If it weren't, it wouldn't be very useful. If I pay someone in Europe in US dollars they are ok with that because they can convert them to Euros, which is what they need to do their business. If they couldn't, if US dollars were non-convertible, they'd be non-useful.

    Also you have the problem that next to nobody accepts and deals in bitcoins directly. It isn't a functional currency. The US Dollar, the Euro, the Yen, these are all functional currencies because a lot of people will accept them as such. You can buy goods with them, pay taxes with them, etc. I cannot name a single thing I'd want to buy, a single place I shop at, that takes bitcoins. As such if they aren't convertible, they are worthless.

  10. Why Bitcoin is doomed by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Insightful
    We go through this discussion every single time a Bitcoin article appears on Slashdot. Bitcoin is guaranteed to fail in the long run:
    1. It is a digital cash system in which the tokens cannot be refreshed; this is known in crypto research community to imply that the tokens must grow linearly in the number of transactions. Bitcoin attempts to hide this fact in its architecture, but if Bitcoin is secure then the computation resources needed to continue using Bitcoin will grow over time. Worse, as more people use Bitcoin, the growth rate will accelerate because of the increased number of transactions. If Bitcoin was used at anything close to the number of dollar transactions that happen every day, the technical limitations of Bitcoin would kill it off within a week's time.

      Useful digital cash systems involve a central issuing authority like a bank or government, that can accept old tokens and produce "fresh" tokens of equal value. Having such a central authority is not a bad thing:
    2. The demand for Bitcoin will never exceed the demand for national currencies. Using the USA as an example, people who live in America must pay taxes -- taxes on income, taxes on property, sometimes taxes on purchases they make, and so forth. The government only accepts tax payments that are made in dollars, and yes, you have to pay taxes on transactions that do not involve dollars, such as barter or having a Bitcoin salary. Every year, hundreds of millions of Americans must pay their taxes, and if they were all using Bitcoin for everything, they would all simultaneously try to trade their Bitcoins for dollars to cover their tax debt. While this frequently happens with other currencies -- people paid in pounds sterling will try to make a similar trade -- all national currencies are demanded by some nation's citizens for a similar purpose, unlike Bitcoin, which nobody is legally obligated to use.

      It is a good thing that nobody is obligated to use BItcoin to pay their debts, because:
    3. Bitcoin is a deflationary currency -- there is a fixed maximum number of Bitcoins that can exist. If you had a long-term debt to repay in Bitcoins, it would be harder to make payments as time went on, because Bitcoins would become harder to find (assuming that the Bitcoin economy continues to grow, which I already noted is an unlikely event). You would be a fool to ever incur a Bitcoin debt for this very reason. Unfortunately for Bitcoin, credit is a necessary component of any economy; this has been a fact of life for so long that it not only predates paper currency, but paper itself.

    So there you have it.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:Why Bitcoin is doomed by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Insightful

      they have already begun by taking the mining out of the default client

      This makes the scalability problem even worse, since it forces you to reuse older tokens, which have already grown because of their use in previous transactions. This is not a problem that you can just hack your way around, it is a fundamental limitation of digital cash systems. Note that on the very page you linked to, they attempt to sidestep this problem by claiming that hard drive sizes will grow to accommodate their needs, which I seriously doubt unless Bitcoin remains an obscure payment system.

      The black market already holds its own to the deman for national currency and the black market is growing with time - it is very likely that within the next decade or two it may outpace the regulated one. With half the world's population already employed in the black market it is not much of a stretch to think that you don't need a government to back a currency, if the incentives are right for the market to protect it itself.

      It is very much a stretch to think that money can exist without government backing. If the black market stopped using national currencies, they would be forced to switch to a currency backed by some other large, powerful organization to enforce payments, and that organization would be a de facto government. Money is only valuable within some enforcement structure, which is the role that a government plays; even when banks issue currency, they rely on governments to enforce debt payments.

      And you could say by the same metric that trade in physical goods, whether coins or paper bills have been a 'necessary' component ...until the digital banking started to take over in the 80's or so. Just because something has always been part of the economy does not mean that it is necessary. That is a correlation vs. causation error in thinking.

      Except that we still trade in physical goods (and even if all currency were digital cash, you would still trade in physical goods -- you need food, clothing, etc.), and we have had paper transactions managed by banks for centuries (which have simply moved computers, which are more efficient record keeping systems).

      At a basic level, credit is necessary in any economy because people with the skills needed to complete a task do not always have the resources needed for that task. A farmer might not have enough money to buy the fertilizer he needs for a particular growing season, a cook might not have the resources needed to start a restaurant, etc. At an even more fundamental level, you might need to work before you are able to pay the soldiers that protect you from a hostile enemy, but those soldiers need to be paid while they are busy protecting you; taxes themselves are a form of debt, and governments cannot function without tax revenue.

      The unfortunate thing about Bitcoin is that people have come to associate Bitcoin with digital cash. There are plenty of other digital cash systems that have all of Bitcoin's advantages without the serious disadvantages; those systems use a bank or other token issuing authority to renew tokens that have long transaction chains (thus avoiding the scalability problem) and are easy to back with a national currency, or perhaps to use as a national currency. Anarchists may not like the idea of a bank having power over currency, but that is just how currencies work: some central authority must back the currency. I am personally a big fan of digital cash, since it would solve a lot of the security problems that we see with debit and credit cards, but because of the various crypto battles and patents in the 90s digital cash never did take off.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    2. Re:Why Bitcoin is doomed by subreality · · Score: 3, Informative

      which have already grown because of their use in previous transactions

      This isn't actually true. Coins don't keep getting split into smaller and smaller portions forever. Every time you spend it takes several old coins and combines them into (usually) two new ones: 1, the payment you make, and 2, your "change" (which goes back in your wallet). The previous inputs are permanently combined and no longer needed going forward. The current software does not yet actually implement it, but obsolete coins CAN be "pruned" entirely, facilitated by the Merkle tree.

      The blockchain will still undergo a lot of growth if more people begin using Bitcoin (since the currency base will be divided between more wallets, and there will be greater numbers of recent transactions that are not yet pruned), but it doesn't geometrically expand forever. When Bitcoin stabilizes at a certain level of market saturation the blockchain will also stabilize in size.

      Whether that will be a reasonable and manageable size is still an open question.

      all of Bitcoin's advantages without the serious disadvantages; those systems use a bank or other token issuing authority

      I want to know that the central bank won't just start issuing more currency and devalue mine.

      I want to send money to Wikileaks, but all the banks are forbidding it.

      I want to pay someone over the internet without Mastercard or Paypal or whoever taking a 2% cut.

      There is no other currency that currently has ALL of those advantages of Bitcoin. Some of the advantages are inherently incompatible with centralized, bank-operated currencies. It also has a long and substantial list of disadvantages too - no argument there. But on the whole it simply has a different set of tradeoffs than any other currency, and so it (or one of it's descendants; I don't expect Bitcoin is going to be the last word in decentralized e-currency) will be relevant for some time.

  11. Re:Bitcoin was never going to work by TheCarp · · Score: 2

    Actually, I used to really like bitcoin and never thought most of the arguments against it held much water, since they mostly ignore that all the fiction in bitcoin is the same fiction in other currency. All currency is fake, because its all an abstraction. Nothing wrong with that.

    However, the more I learned about it and dove into it...the more convinced I came of this simple fact... a currency wants deflation because currency isn't intended to be a savings instrument. People hoard gold. People hoarded bitcoins. Hell, I gave in to that temptation, even as I started to see the reall folly in it.

    Inflation serves a purpose though...I am very much with the bitcoiners still in not trusting governments to be the arbiters. Worst though, allowing a few private hands to do it. I don't trust the fed as far as I can afford to pay someone to throw them

    I still ove bitcoin for trying. It was a good attempt, just like some of the good attempts before it...I hope there will be more...and the community will keep trying until something wins out.

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  12. Re:wtf? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Bitcoin is a decentralised computer currency designed by self-righteous Ayn Rand-reading nerds who despise looters and parasites like, er, you. It is used to purchase Internet services, illegal drugs and pictures of naked women holding video cards.

    Bitcoin works by an emergent synergy of cryptography, peer-to-peer, anonymity, anarchism, libertarianism, wasting stupendous quantities of electricity, the marketing department at NVidia, the enduring exchange value of tulip bulbs and doing all of this instead of Folding@Home.

    Bitcoin successfully harnesses a hitherto-unexploited Internet resource: the vast reserves of unexamined privilege amongst computer programmers. Coins are “mined” by stealing them from people who are able to comprehend this level of computer science but still keep their Bitcoin wallet in plain text on a Windows machine.

    The Bitcoin system is robustly designed to continue past the inevitable collapse of the US dollar and the world economy, as the Internet, fast computers and reliable electricity are all expected to be readily available when barbarian hordes are wandering the burnt-out post-apocalyptic remnants of civilisation.

    It is completely incorrect to describe Bitcoin as a “pyramid scheme.” Technically, it’s a “pump-and-dump.”

    Many common products are still inexplicably not purchasable with Bitcoins. “It’s like they don’t understand the revolutionary wonder of Bitcoin,” says Debian developer Hiram Nerdboy, 17. “I can’t get chicks with Bitcoins either. Even with my slickest Pick-Up Artist techniques! It’s as if my knowledge of economics, game theory and Bayesian epistemology didn’t substitute for understanding anything about people. But that’s impossible, of course. They’re probably just theists. Hold on, I just gotta post to Slashdot about this.”

    Bitcoin was invented by Internet libertarians, in the spirit of freely-chosen individual interpersonal interactions that will bring about the utter collapse of the oppressive taint of the dead hand of government, in order to make money at your expense.

    from http://newstechnica.com/2011/06/18/bitcoin-to-revolutionise-the-economy/

  13. Re:Speculation is all the Bitcoin has by subreality · · Score: 4, Informative

    How can I short this currency?

    Right over here: https://bitcoinica.com/

    Be careful. Volatility cuts both ways.

  14. Re:Speculation is all the Bitcoin has by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2

    There's no reason it can't exist as a niche currency

    OK, I'll grant that -- Bitcoin might live on as an obscure, niche currency with extremely limited utility. Not even the black market users will stick with it in that case, and perhaps people will realize that there are more effective digital cash systems out there that could be deployed in a way that benefits society (not just the black market).

    --
    Palm trees and 8