Google Says It Has "No Current Plans Regarding Bitcoin"

Why do nerds like the Boorgle? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-23 15:12 · Score: 1, Insightful

Google collects vast quantities of information about everything everyone does on the internet. And they do it by offering stuff to you for free. Isn't there a catch? Can we honestly believe that the only reason they give you Gmail is to push ads to you and the only reason Analytics is to hope that you'll buy the upgrade? Really?

And even if you trust Google 100%, hasn't it occurred to you that data storage is cheap and management is transient. Add those together, and it means that everything you do on the net is stored by Google, and some future management team can do whatever the heck they want with it.

Re:Why do nerds like the Boorgle? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-23 16:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

It's possible to dislike Google and Microsoft. I refuse to use either one.

Bitcoin? by Zaldarr · 2014-01-23 15:14 · Score: 4, Funny

We all know dogecoin is the future.

--
I write professional videogame reviews! http://www.digitallydownloaded.net/

It's called Gcoin now. by RevWaldo · 2014-01-23 15:17 · Score: 5, Funny

Try to keep up.

.

--
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!

Re:It's called Gcoin now. by QilessQi · 2014-01-23 15:38 · Score: 5, Interesting

You know, if a company like Amazon or Google -- with their immense server farms for mining -- did come up with its own cryptocoin, it could tilt the masses towards accepting the idea of cryptocurrencies, while simultaneously taking a huge bite out of Bitcoin's future potential.
Imagine an Amazoncoin, AZC, providing everything that BTC provides plus...
- convenient support for payment to Amazon.com or transactions throughout the web
- theft-insurance-backed online wallets for people who are unwilling to manage wallets on their own
- nice incentives for mining companies willing to partner with them to support AZC transactions in the early days.

--
Koans and fables for the software engineer
Re:It's called Gcoin now. by rtb61 · 2014-01-23 18:22 · Score: 1

The idea is just so stupidly silly. Any major corporation that creates is own psuedo currency, simply provides a means by which credit can be earned from them and they provide services in return, this because they have real capital assets backing.
For example a major banking corporation instead of paying interest can offer services as a tax free percentage of that interest. Things like providing free tax returns (they have loads of lawyers and accounts and fully know the tax law, so it would make sense to offer that service in lieu of paying taxable interest, it keeps the money in it's electronic vaults), also the various forms of insurance can be offered.
For non-banking corporations like say Google and MSN, there is the options of adding banking features to their repertoire and credit say something like MSN credits in lieu of interest or other earned income and provide a whole range of services in exchange or even cashing out your earned credits (not the original capital which remains regular local currency and can be withdrawn at any time). Really the idea of specialist financial institutions is really just psychopathic capitalism, worthless parasitic middle men.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re:It's called Gcoin now. by mlk · 2014-01-23 20:05 · Score: 1

What does this give Amazon?

--
Wow, I should not post when knackered.
Re:It's called Gcoin now. by Patch86 · 2014-01-23 20:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

Loads of companies (perhaps even a majority of retailers) already do issue "their own currency"- in the form of in-store credit vouchers. In principal there's no reason why you couldn't go down to your local convenience store and pay for a loaf of bread and bottle of milk with iTunes vouchers- a currency which is "backed" by "real goods" (i.e., the currency can be redeemed at any time at the "central bank" in exchange for useful goods (music and whatnot), in the manner of a gold-backed currency).
The fact that nobody does this tells you a lot about the majority of the population's attitude towards corporate controlled private currencies. To most people, they seem like a completely unnecessary way of abstracting on top of an already perfectly valid currency system. There's no reason to assume people would feel any differently towards "Amazon Coins" than they do towards Amazon gift vouchers, regardless of the techy details behind it.
I still remain deeply sceptical that BitCoin is anything other than an enthusiast's curiosity and/or "get rich quick" scheme, and can't imagine it going the distance. I've been wrong plenty of times before, but...well, I'm not changing my mind on that one yet.
Re:It's called Gcoin now. by QilessQi · 2014-01-24 00:53 · Score: 1

For non-banking corporations like say Google and MSN, there is the options of adding banking features to their repertoire and credit say something like MSN credits in lieu of interest or other earned income and provide a whole range of services in exchange or even cashing out your earned credits (not the original capital which remains regular local currency and can be withdrawn at any time).
That's exactly what I'm talking about... something like "Amazon Gift Cards", but with an extended range of services so that you can use them for buying Amazon products (perhaps initially at a discount), pool or transfer portions of them electronically through Amazon's website, etc. Earn credits (i.e., interest) towards other Amazon purchases, etc. Perhaps even connect buyers and sellers as per EBay.
All with Amazon certifying the lion's share of the transactions, and hosting the biggest exchange, the wallet software, and backing everything with insurance such that transactions are reversed if goods are not delivered.
People always talk about one of the benefits of Bitcoin being the lack of the usual 2-3% transaction fees associated with credit cards. Marketplaces like Amazon have had to build those fees into their pricing structure. But if there were a way for them to securely transfer funds without such fees, they could keep their prices the same and keep the additional profits (less the costs of running the cryptocoin/wallet/etc. infrastructure).
In short: Amazon now has their own in-store "credit card", like many major department stores -- except it's a cryptocurrency, backing one of the largest department stores on the planet.
Eh... just a fun thought experiment. :-)

--
Koans and fables for the software engineer
Re:It's called Gcoin now. by cmorriss · 2014-01-24 02:59 · Score: 1

Wow, where to begin.
First of all, in-store credit vouchers are not "their own currency" at all. They're just U.S. dollars with restrictions on where they can be spent. They'll always be worth the same amount in dollars because they're not a separate currency at all. other currencies values are tracked separately from each other. Yes, a particular currency can be tied to another currency, but at any point, that tie can be severed. A voucher's tie to the U.S. dollar can NEVER be severed because it IS U.S. dollars.
All cryptocurrencies that follow the same architecture of bitcoin by their nature are controlled by 51% of the owners of the currency. Just because a company creates a new currency and blesses it by accepting it at all their terminals doesn't mean it's controlled by them, as long as it follows the bitcoin architecture.
I was VERY skeptical of bitcoin until I read this article by Marc Andreesen: http://techland.time.com/2014/...
Yes, he has a lot invested in bitcoin companies which gives him a bias and some of his arguments are in my opinion flat out wrong, the majority of what he says does sound very interesting and gave me a new perspective on the currency.

--
10 minutes working on a sig. What a waste.
Re:It's called Gcoin now. by rtb61 · 2014-01-24 13:17 · Score: 1

You make the same mistake again, Amazon does not required encrypted fake currency, it has capital assets to back it own creditor system not a fake currency, it backs it credit provision by capital assets as well as the real world currencies of it's investors. No crazy ass bitcoins required, it has the capital assets to deal in real world currencies, get it.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re:It's called Gcoin now. by Patch86 · 2014-01-25 18:18 · Score: 1

First of all, in-store credit vouchers are not "their own currency" at all. They're just U.S. dollars with restrictions on where they can be spent. They'll always be worth the same amount in dollars because they're not a separate currency at all. other currencies values are tracked separately from each other. Yes, a particular currency can be tied to another currency, but at any point, that tie can be severed. A voucher's tie to the U.S. dollar can NEVER be severed because it IS U.S. dollars.
That would make it a currency with an exchange rate pegged to the US dollar- it does not negate the fact that it is a separate currency. It is no different to any other currency which is pegged to the dollar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
The fact that it seems weird to call it a "separate currency" doesn't make it not so. The only potential difference between an Amazon gift voucher and an "Amazon Coin" would be the rules around it's issuance and exchange- the fundamentals would be the same.

Still. by rmdingler · 2014-01-23 15:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

Here lately, more mainstream companies are coming out in favor of accepting it.

Casinos in Vegas was the last one I recall... maybe this thing has legs.

Can it be that our fiat monetary systems are so flawed that this is a reasonable alternative for some folks?

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

Ernest Hemingway

Re:Still. by TubeSteak · 2014-01-23 17:14 · Score: 1, Informative

Can it be that our fiat monetary systems are so flawed that this is a reasonable alternative for some folks?
Going back to a deflationary/metallic currency is not possible, plausible, or remotely rational.
We've been there and abandoned that.
For all the flaws of "fiat" currency, no one has really proposed a viable deflationary alternative that compensates for problems we've already fixed.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:Still. by bkmoore · 2014-01-23 17:48 · Score: 1, Insightful

....Can it be that our fiat monetary systems are so flawed that this is a reasonable alternative for some folks?
Even if it has to be "mined", Bitcoin is a fiat currency that is backed by absolutely nothing other than itself.
Re:Still. by Threni · 2014-01-23 20:48 · Score: 1

Bitcoins aren't really money; they're more like those tokens you buy in theme parks where you can spend them once you've converted them, but only on a the rides in that park, and you can't convert them back. Bitcoin is always going to be a secondary currency, and big companies are going to be wary of it because there's nothing to prevent a government banning it (specifically, banning companies from converting it back into real money), meaning you'll be stuck in the theme park with a lot of useless tokens, and they'll have wasted a lot of money supporting it. It'll always be one high-profile assassination away from being banned.
Re:Still. by DiamondGeezer · 2014-01-23 22:57 · Score: 1

Digital tulips

--
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
Re: Still. by LF11 · 2014-01-23 23:45 · Score: 1

The reason we've abandoned deflationary currencies is because government can't steal our wealth by inflating them.
Time for a return to a currency that benefits the little people.
Re: Still. by dbIII · 2014-01-24 00:58 · Score: 1

Actually it's because the places with deflationary currencies went into decline because it made more economic sense to sit on piles on money keeping the plebs from getting it instead of actually doing anything. Places where the the plebs could get wealth resulted in modern society.

That's why people laugh at gold standard advocates. You are nothing but useful idiots for old money.
Re: Still. by LF11 · 2014-01-24 02:27 · Score: 1

> Places where the the plebs could get wealth resulted in modern society.

So, you are saying that it was the specific change to inflationary, centralized currencies that led to modern society, right?

<a href="http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2012/03/28/the-sixth-great-extinction-a-silent-extermination/">This is the price of your inflation-led modern society.</a>

I am not impressed.

I happen to believe firmly that we will never return to the ages of feudalism, even as we will inevitably return to a deflationary currency. However, I am quite certain you will like the reason for that belief even less than what you have already read. In a nutshell, feudalism is impossible when the populace is armed.
Re: Still. by dbIII · 2014-01-24 04:13 · Score: 1

How the fuck did this turn into gun nut bullshit?
BTW, I was shooting a .22 rifle at the age of eight so you can fuck off with anti-gun strawmen as well.
Re: Still. by LF11 · 2014-01-24 07:13 · Score: 1

My apologies. The atmosphere on this forum tends to be viciously anti-liberty on this point, and ignorance about the history of money seems to correlate well with ethical blindness about self-defense.

Match Plan by SuperKendall · 2014-01-23 15:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

there's no change to our position: we have no current plans regarding Bitcoin

In a strage coincidence, I have no interest in Google Wallet - so I guess that works out for everyone.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:Match Plan by c0lo · 2014-01-23 15:29 · Score: 1

there's no change to our position: we have no current plans regarding Bitcoin
In a strage coincidence, I have no interest in Google Wallet - so I guess that works out for everyone.
It would be a first, I guess, that someone does something without planning.

--
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.

That's all they can say! by brxndxn · 2014-01-23 15:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

Just because they say 'we have no current plans for Bitcoin' does not mean they don't have people working on exploring the technical aspects, the legal aspects, the social, and financial aspects. It would be a huge decision for a company like Google to say anything definitive about Bitcoin at this point - considering anything positive from Google would most likely double the Bitcoin price. And, doubling the Bitcoin price would do that much more to solidify its place in the financial world.

In other words, it will happen with or without Google - starting with much smaller companies first. Two years ago, the Bitcoin community was excited to see a $1million/year revenue company announce they are taking Bitcoin. Now, Overstock.com and Tigerdirect both take Bitcoin. Don't expect anything from Google for a while..

--
--- We need more Ron Paul!

Re:That's all they can say! by DocSavage64109 · 2014-01-24 07:42 · Score: 1

Do a google search for how much money the creator of bitcoin has made in bitcoins and notice it's over $100 million worth. If this isn't a scam, then maybe we should all make up virtual currencies for a $100,000,000 profit each.

I would be so disappointed... by westlake · 2014-01-23 15:32 · Score: 2, Funny

.... if a day passed without another Bitcoin story.

Even if Google plans to accept Bitcoin ... by Taco+Cowboy · 2014-01-23 15:33 · Score: 1, Insightful

... it can't say it out loud before everything is in place.

Just because Google's PR piece gave that "No Current Plan Regarding Bitcoin" doesn't mean Google isn't weighting the possibility (or even planning to accept) that virtual currency.

Company as large as Google must weight the pros and cons before it venture into something controversial (I am not saying that Bitcoin is in itself controversial, what I am saying is virtual currency, which Bitcoin is part of, is still being treated as something very alien by the establishment), or risk seeing its stock price tank all the way down to the earth's core.

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !

Re:Even if Google plans to accept Bitcoin ... by hummassa · 2014-01-24 00:11 · Score: 1

Anyway, TNW's article reveals some read comprehension error (on everyone's part?); according to Ramaswamy's email, “We are working in the payments team to figure out how to incorporate bitcoin into our plans” but TNW interprets this as "it would suggest Google was getting ready to support the virtual currency". NO. It suggests that Google is thinking about how it could possibly do that.

--
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048

Who would sign on? by SuperKendall · 2014-01-23 15:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

if a company like Amazon or Google -- with their immense server farms for mining -- did come up with its own crypto coin

Approximately none of the users of Bitcoin today would switch for (rightful) fear of being tracked out the wazoo. The cash-like nature of Bitcoin would undoubtedly being severely undermined if coming from a company like Google...

It's a lot harder to prop up a currency that a significant number of people will accept than most people think.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:Who would sign on? by QilessQi · 2014-01-23 16:25 · Score: 3, Interesting

Because the current users of Bitcoin are generally computer-savvy and security-minded -- except for the ones who insist on using wallets hosted in the cloud, but we can assume that they're a minority.
As for the Great Unwashed, though, they're still using passwords like "123456" and shrugging their shoulders at Snapchat's gaping security holes while they sext with friends. Because convenience.
I can't speak for Google -- its business model is a little different -- but Amazon has the customer base, market penetration, and mindshare to prop up a currency. Imagine if they just started by basing Amazon Gift Certificates off the technology. Suddenly next Christmas, several hundred million teens and twenty-somethings would have wallets and be spending Amazoncoins. Amazon trumpets the numbers, using them as proof that Amazoncoins are popular, thus setting the stage for further acceptance by people who know nothing about Bitcoin but sure as hell know Amazon.

--
Koans and fables for the software engineer
Re:Who would sign on? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-23 17:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

> users of Bitcoin
> fear of being tracked
ahahahahahahahaha
it's almost like the entire world doesn't know exactly which wallet contains which bitcoins at all times
Re:Who would sign on? by dbIII · 2014-01-23 19:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

computer-savvy and security-minded
That's what they LIKE to think about themselves, but unless they are early adopter perpetrators of this scam they are just deluded suckers instead.

I wonder if we can use the "security" window dressing in bitcoin to track down the ransomware virus people? That may finally be a good use for bitcoin.
Re:Who would sign on? by VortexCortex · 2014-01-23 22:20 · Score: 3, Interesting

hey are early adopter perpetrators of this scam they are just deluded suckers instead.
So, I want to pay someone in the UK for helping with some development work, and I transfer them some Dollars by way of Bitcoin and they get it in their bank account as Pounds... Then how am I being a scammed deluded sucker instead of benefiting from Bitcoin's cheap (currently free) decentralized electronic global transaction system?
Re:Who would sign on? by drinkypoo · 2014-01-24 00:09 · Score: 1

Approximately none of the users of Bitcoin today would switch for (rightful) fear of being tracked out the wazoo.
Your use of the word "rightful" does not make it so. Bitcoin is already highly trackable. You have to assume that governments are already tracking it. Therefore, there is no merit whatsoever to this attitude. Bitcoin is highly tracked no matter who is in charge. Bitcoin is immensely more traceable than USD because all exchanges have to go through an exchange. You're talking nonsense.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Who would sign on? by The_Noid · 2014-01-24 00:38 · Score: 1

Your partner would first have to find someone in the UK that changes BTC to GBP for an acceptable price.
And you'd have to hope that the value doesn't change too much while in transfer.
Re:Who would sign on? by dbIII · 2014-01-24 00:53 · Score: 2

Free? Look at a real transaction instead of an imaginary one.
Re:Who would sign on? by Vitriol+Angst · 2014-01-24 01:02 · Score: 1

This is the main threat of non-governmental currencies -- this transaction you describe is very much like the "tax and hassle free" inner economies of many multinationals.
IBM used to have a good import export business in Eastern Europe for food items for a while -- because they were offsetting investments and earnings. Basically, any company in many nations can transfer profits with internal distributions of goods (kind of the bit-coin model), then when there is an imbalance, they can overpay for a widget created internally by the source of goods. Or they can reap profits in a tax-free haven by overpaying for some internal accounting, financial instrument, or widget in the location with the lowest taxes.
The threat of virtual currencies is that they can shift OFF the burden that large companies shifted onto the public; paying for stuff. Exchange and Point of Sale and Payroll taxes have always been the "least forbidden" taxes in the US because they are popular with the Robber barons.
I once knew a Billionaire who had a Debit Card out of the Caymans. He never had to pay sales taxes or realize luxury taxes because he never actually bought ANYTHING -- it was a bank transaction that offset the balance of an unmarked account in an offshore bank which was a financial instrument based upon some over-paid widget coming out of Sweden. Nobody actually owned his nice car -- he just drove it.
Now I can think of a few ways to improve bit coins -- such as making a stock component that translates to real value, among other things,.. but I'm amazed that alarm bells from Robber Barons haven't gone off. If they can't sponsor some Pirates to pillage bitcoin -- look for a lot of anonymous "astro turf" complaints from groups like ALEC or Citizen's United to complain it's used to buy kids on the black market.
We can't have average people doing what the multinationals have been doing to us for decades. /s

--
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
Re:Who would sign on? by Dagger2 · 2014-01-24 01:25 · Score: 1

You can usually get away with free for the Bitcoin transaction itself, but you're right that exchanging at either ends generally isn't free.
Still, I don't think that's quite enough to justify calling the people who do it scammed deluded suckers.
Re:Who would sign on? by Salgat · 2014-01-24 02:14 · Score: 1

A likely scenario would be a compromise in that a lot of the investor types would shift over BTC to Amazoncoin while others would always have a small amount in Amazoncoin when they want to make purchases. Furthermore, there would be a huge exchange market for this since people would be constantly selling off small BTC amounts to make Amazon purchases.
Re:Who would sign on? by Bramlet+Abercrombie · 2014-01-24 02:16 · Score: 1

Only early adopters? Would somebody that bought bitcoins in 2016 be considered an early adopter in 2026?
Re:Who would sign on? by dale.furno · 2014-01-24 03:09 · Score: 1

"I once knew a Billionaire who had a Debit Card out of the Caymans. He never had to pay sales taxes or realize luxury taxes because he never actually bought ANYTHING -- it was a bank transaction that offset the balance of an unmarked account in an offshore bank which was a financial instrument based upon some over-paid widget coming out of Sweden. Nobody actually owned his nice car -- he just drove it."
Citation desperately needed
Re:Who would sign on? by dbIII · 2014-01-24 04:15 · Score: 1

Maybe they can pass that hot potato on without getting burnt, but ultimately it's a scam with a very steep pyramid and someone's got to feed the scammers.
Re:Who would sign on? by dbIII · 2014-01-24 04:16 · Score: 1

Dream on.
Re:Who would sign on? by Bramlet+Abercrombie · 2014-01-24 04:30 · Score: 1

What are we so skeptical about? Do you honestly think investors and bagholders will stop trading bitcoins for US dollars at some point in the future and all this will go away? You are the one who needs to dream on. Buy in now or cry in 10 years. You were all here. You could have all bought in for under 1k a bitcoin. Or you can all continue to believe it's a just a scam for suckers. Life is all about choices.
Re:Who would sign on? by Dagger2 · 2014-01-24 04:44 · Score: 1

How is it a scam if I can do my transaction without getting burnt?
Re:Who would sign on? by dbIII · 2014-01-24 06:14 · Score: 1

Look kid (or act your age), it's a pyramid scheme that just happens to be at a mostly stable stage this month. It will be seen as either a joke or tragedy in 10 years. It IS a scam for suckers. Why don't you ask the founder for information if you can track them down? You can't? Nobody seems to know who they are? Bit of a clue there isn't it?
Re:Who would sign on? by dbIII · 2014-01-24 06:18 · Score: 1

And Russian Roulette is perfectly safe?
See how stupid your "didn't get burnt this time" line is?

The money has to come from somewhere with those big changes in value so somebody is getting burnt even if it's not you this time.
Re:Who would sign on? by Bramlet+Abercrombie · 2014-01-24 06:50 · Score: 1

Bitcoin doesn't need founders anymore. Yeah, the guy that has the genisis block under his control is going to be super rich. This is all the more reason to get some of the bitcoins under your control while they are still under 1k. Unless you like being a slave? Cryptocurrency has infinite upside risk. Image a future where bitcoin is the only currency accepted, one coin cost a million dollars and you don't have any because you thought it was a scam for suckers. Who is the sucker if it plays out like this?
Re:Who would sign on? by Dagger2 · 2014-01-24 08:20 · Score: 1

Russian Roulette isn't a scam. And I'm asking why Bitcoin is.
Your problem with Bitcoin is that you think it's a way to make money. It's not. It's a payment network. You use it for payments. You don't keep bitcoin; you give it to other people. The only people who lose out when the exchange rate changes are the people trying to make money from holding it (i.e. investors/"stock market players").
Now, as it happens, depending on how you do it, you do sometimes end up having to hold bitcoin for short periods of time as part of using it to pay somebody, so you have a small chance of being affected yourself. But guess what? That doesn't make it a scam. Having a small chance at needing to pay $1 extra on your transaction doesn't make you a deluded sucker.
So... what's your basis for saying that?
Re:Who would sign on? by dbIII · 2014-01-24 13:08 · Score: 1

Unless you like being a slave
It appears you have a personal stake in this pyramid and are willing to demean yourself a great deal to tempt suckers, so that you gain more than you lose. Who is the slave now?
Re:Who would sign on? by dbIII · 2014-01-24 13:13 · Score: 1

That million doesn't appear by magic. It is extracted from suckers.

Dogecoin is performance art by SuperKendall · 2014-01-23 15:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

And not even particularly good performance art.

How long can a joke possibly go on before it grows stale? Dogecoin seeks to find the answer.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:Dogecoin is performance art by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2014-01-23 19:17 · Score: 1

"Dogecoin fans raise funds to send Jamaican bobsled team to Olympics" headline feels surreal, but the fact it's not a joke, but a fact, makes this world it happened in feel surreal.
Wait until they retire immediately afterward and start hawking alcoholic beverages.

--
#DeleteChrome
Re:Dogecoin is performance art by Salgat · 2014-01-24 02:12 · Score: 2

Dogecoin has a huge community driving it. On reddit it /r/dogecoin has 40,000 subscribers versus /r/litecoin's 17,000 subscribers (/r/bitcoin has 98,000 subscribers). On top of that, they tip and donate like crazy. As of now hype and popularity are *everything* to the price and adoption of a cryptocoin. You'd be foolish not to recognize that Dogecoin is, at the very least, successful thus far.
Re:Dogecoin is performance art by dirtaddshp · 2014-01-24 03:09 · Score: 1

it may have hype and popularity, but no features that make it a unique or powerful cryptocurrency.

Here is how to get Google to support Bitcoin by SuperKendall · 2014-01-23 15:49 · Score: 3, Funny

1) Buy 100 USB sticks.

2) Put a wallet on each with .01 Bitcoin, and the password in a text file.

3) Leave laying about Google campus.

Now all sorts of Google engineers have a vested interest in Bitcoin rising in value...

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:Here is how to get Google to support Bitcoin by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-23 17:22 · Score: 2, Informative

1) Buy 100 USB sticks.
2) Put a wallet on each with .01 Bitcoin, and the password in a text file.
3) Leave laying about Google campus.
Now all sorts of Google engineers have a vested interest in Bitcoin rising in value...
If you left $1000 USD worth of Canadian Dollars in Google's parking lot, they'd just take it to a bank and exchange it for $1000 USD.
Why would bitcoin be different, because they can spend it directly online? Then why wouldn't they do that?
I don't get it...
If I recommended investing in penny stocks, that would be a bad idea.
If I recommended stockpiling an unstable foreign currency, that would be a bad idea
Using any of the above to buy local goods, bad idea.
But bitcoin is cool because bitcoin.
Re:Here is how to get Google to support Bitcoin by Trepidity · 2014-01-23 21:01 · Score: 1

Considering the salaries Google employees get, you might have to put more than 0.01 BTC (at current exchange rates, $9.25) on a USB stick before they get too excited about it.

--
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Re:Here is how to get Google to support Bitcoin by thue · 2014-01-24 01:49 · Score: 1

Dropping USB keys in parking lots is a known way to infect a network. Any Google employee competent enough to use bitcoin should hopefully also know that picking up random USB keys is a bad idea.
https://www.schneier.com/blog/...

of course by drunk_punk · 2014-01-23 15:58 · Score: 2

... Because where's the money in bitcoin anymore? They're more concerned with Gcoin. You heard it here first.

Jedi Mind Trick? by multimediavt · 2014-01-23 16:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

These aren't the Bitcoin miners you're looking for. First thing in my head when I read the title of the post.

Re:Jedi Mind Trick? by multimediavt · 2014-01-23 23:52 · Score: 1

Move along, move along.

Transaction system not a monetary system by perpenso · 2014-01-23 16:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

Here lately, more mainstream companies are coming out in favor of accepting it. Casinos in Vegas was the last one I recall... maybe this thing has legs. Can it be that our fiat monetary systems are so flawed that this is a reasonable alternative for some folks?

The casino and various other companies are accepting bitcoins as payment but they do not hold any bitcoins. For the casino your bill is computed in $US, they compute the current bitcoin equivalent when you are ready to pay, accept payment and immediately have the bitcoins converted to $US. The casino avoids the bank/credit card transaction fees and surcharges. The bitcoin payment processor used has no transaction fees, just a flat monthly fee.

It seems that bitcoins are more of a replacement for credit cards, in other words a transaction system rather than a replacement monetary system.

Translating Googlespeak by TheloniousToady · 2014-01-23 16:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

As we continue to work on Google Wallet...we have no current plans regarding Bitcoin.

Translation: "We're ignoring the new monetary system that no one controls so we can push onto you the new monetary system that we control."

Re:Translating Googlespeak by martin-boundary · 2014-01-23 21:49 · Score: 1

Translation: "We're ignoring the new monetary system that no one controls so we can push onto you the new monetary system that and the NSA we control."

Never forget that US companies are in bed with the NSA. They have to be if asked under terrorism related laws, both public and secret.

Google cancelled Wallet for 3rd parties by DogDude · 2014-01-23 16:59 · Score: 4, Informative

Google just folded up their Google Wallet service for merchants a few weeks ago. I think they've just finished up their venture into online payments to anybody other than themselves. I would think that anybody who actually had any real information about the current state of online payment stuff would know that,

Besides, the article is on Reddit, a website that currently has, as it's top story, "This actually happened on MSNBC today (youtube.com)"

This was a horribly uninformed Slashdot article, all around.

--
I don't respond to AC's.

Re:Google cancelled Wallet for 3rd parties by QuasiSteve · 2014-01-24 01:17 · Score: 1

Besides, the article is on Reddit, a website that currently has, as it's top story, "This actually happened on MSNBC today (youtube.com)"
'Upworthy title' (google it) aside, you shouldn't judge a book by its cover. That story is actually about how a major news outlet interrupted an actually interesting segment on privacy and monitoring in the U.S., during an interview with a congresscritter, because Justin Bieber got booked for a DUI. That's exactly the sort of slap-in-the-face that people deserve to realize and think about a lot more - before they conclude that, yep, they do indeed care a lot more when glamour-du-jour farts than they do about things that, you know, actually matter. It wouldn't make a very good top story on Slashdot, of course, but it does deserve to be on the front page of Reddit and deserves to be upvoted.
That side, fine comment. Google did indeed fail in their pursuit of an online payment system to rival PayPal - which is unfortunate, as PayPal and credit cards are now just about the only way to pay for things online outside of nation-specific solutions (e.g. the Dutch iDeal system, or the odd store in the U.S. accepting bank cheques). Bitcoin could change that, but I'm not seeing the adoption rate have quite enough momentum for that to happen just yet.

Google explicitly prohibits it engineers from by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-23 17:17 · Score: 1

Google explicitly prohibits it engineers from working on Bitcoin related software. Make of it what you will.

Posting as AC for obvious reasons.

Please keep all this under the bitcoin topic by dbIII · 2014-01-23 19:46 · Score: 2

Could someone please pull Samzenpus into line and make sure that his daily bitcoin advertising story is blockable by topic instead of creeping into other topics.

Re:Bitcoin comes from the same place as Google by bickerdyke · 2014-01-23 20:28 · Score: 1

[citation needed]

--
bickerdyke

Re:Bitcoin comes from the same place as Google by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-23 20:37 · Score: 1

Also, Google caused the WTC towers to fall by loading the planes with Bitcoin. The extra weight damaged the thermal balance of the support beams to spontaneously go super critical, something that would have been impossible without the US government's support.Satoshi Nakamoto did 9/11.

Argh by Alioth · 2014-01-23 20:41 · Score: 1

No, they didn't "reach out to" Google, they contacted Google. It's not some emo teenager "reaching out to" their ex-girlfriend for love and support. Additionally, "contacted" is only one word instead of three and sounds better.

--
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows

Re:Argh by owen_b2 · 2014-01-24 05:26 · Score: 1

Its another corporate-America wank word. I'm in the UK, but its creeping into usage over here and I cringe every time I hear it. Its most usually used by the same people that like to 'touch base' with each other to discuss their 'synergies.'
I'd agree that 'to contact' is the underlying meaning, but try telling my old boss that.

GAE Coin by swb · 2014-01-23 23:47 · Score: 1

What happens when Google, EBay and Amazon decide to start offering a pseudo currency of their own? Forget the bitcoin mining aspects of it, the three of them decide to offer people "GAE" coin that's good for buying anything sold by either of those three companies.

The currency is backed by the size and scale of these companies and provides a deep utility considering there's not much you can't buy from any of these three vendors. If you sold something or were looking for a credit from Amazon and they offered you cash or their currency at a 25% premium it might be tempting for a lot of people to take the credit.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if at some point some consortium of companies did decide to collaborate on a cross-company store credit of some kind, especially as national currencies become bloated by fiat monetary policies.

...and then they get shutdown by DrYak · 2014-01-24 00:32 · Score: 1

Imagine if they just started by basing Amazon Gift Certificates off the technology. Suddenly next Christmas, several hundred million teens and twenty-somethings would have wallets and be spending Amazoncoins. Amazon trumpets the numbers, using them as proof that Amazoncoins are popular, thus setting the stage for further acceptance by people who know nothing about Bitcoin but sure as hell know Amazon.

...and a few months later, the whole operation will get shut down on various grounds.
(Accusation of tax evasion or money laundering or whatever, or simply because they are not legally authorised to create their own money)

That's one of the main strong points of bitcoin: its distributed nature. You can't "shutdown bitcoin", because there's no single entity to go to in order to shut it down.
Whereas, in case of Amazon, obviously you just shut down AZC by going at Amazon and asking them.

--
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]

Re:...and then they get shutdown by QilessQi · 2014-01-24 03:40 · Score: 1

Well, it depends on what "create your own money" means. Certainly we have department stores issuing their own credit cards and gift certificates right now, and airlines allowing you to earn "points" when you fly. In all cases, your balance -- positive or negative -- is just a number in a register somewhere. If you allow people to transfer a portion of that number between themselves via gift certificates, or exchange a portion for goods or services, then it seems to me that you have the beginnings of a currency.
As long as Amazon pays the necessary taxes, fees, bri--, er, "campaign contributions", etc. to keep the Feds off their back, and more dollars are flowing into the US than out of it, I'm not seeing a great incentive to shut the operation down.
As for not being unable to shut down Bitcoin because of its distributed nature -- I'm sorry, I just don't buy that in the long term. Do you really believe that it will never be within the power of governments to monitor the Internet traffic of its citizens and sniff out BTC-related packets or access to BTC-related websites?

--
Koans and fables for the software engineer

Some of the attraction of Bitcoin by DrYak · 2014-01-24 00:43 · Score: 2

The fact that nobody does this tells you a lot about the majority of the population's attitude towards corporate controlled private currencies.

Bitcoin is attractive in that it's not a corporate private currency. It's not even controlled by anybody (which has some advantage in the eyes of some anarchist or people living with corrupt government, but which also means that currently BTC exchange rates are prone to much more fluctuation).

I still remain deeply sceptical that BitCoin is anything other than an enthusiast's curiosity and/or "get rich quick" scheme, and can't imagine it going the distance.

Well it has a value (at least the bitcoin protocol, not the BTCs themselves) as a system to send money abroad.
More or less the advantages that SEPA has brought to easily push money between european banks, bitcoin brings the same advantage to push around money between any 2 individuals on the internet:
- you're not bound a a peculiar bank (in case of SEPA) or to a peculier service (in case of bitcoin). Whereas if a merchant uses Paypal, the customer are forced to use Paypal too.
- no chargeback fraud
- no need to leave leakable/exploitable data at the merchant, you just have an account number/public key.
etc.

The value fluctuation of BTC is only problematic for people holding BTC to speculate on them.

Merchants aren't affected if they use a payment processor to convert BTC back into the currency they work with.
Same for customers (and they don't need to use the same service to convert currency into BTC, as mentionned above).

--
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]

A Non-Story by weilawei · 2014-01-24 00:56 · Score: 2

Literally.

Pipedream by dale.furno · 2014-01-24 03:06 · Score: 1

"Suddenly next Christmas, several hundred million teens and twenty-somethings would have wallets and be spending Amazoncoins."

this is a fabrication from your mind

this will not happen

wake up

The old saying... by evilviper · 2014-01-24 03:46 · Score: 1

"No news is... Slashdot News."

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant

Re:The old saying... by evilviper · 2014-01-26 06:23 · Score: 1

Yeah, I miss not having two global warming stories every single day... Or a mundane story about Apple daily... Google may have partially taken their place.
I wonder when they'll get back around to that whole hard science and technology thing. Stuff that matters.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant

Profanity require to rub it in by dbIII · 2014-01-24 04:22 · Score: 1

feudalism is impossible when the populace is armed.

Af-fucking-ganistan where everyone has an AK-fucking-47 is just about the closest thing to feudalism currently on the planet. How in hell did you not notice that?

Re: Profanity require to rub it in by LF11 · 2014-01-24 07:09 · Score: 1

You are proving my point. With a gun ownership rate rather lower than 5%, Afghanis hardly qualify as an "armed populace."

To the contrary by SuperKendall · 2014-01-24 07:10 · Score: 1

Being Google engineers they would assume they were too smart to get viruses from the USB sticks.

They smarter they are, the more immune they feel...

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Googs vs. Zoins by CanEHdian · 2014-01-24 07:44 · Score: 1

It's just too bad I can't use Zoins in the Play Store, and can't use Googs to buy stuff on Amazon.

--
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.

Look behind the "shiny" by dbIII · 2014-01-24 13:07 · Score: 1

It IS a way for the founders to make money. Go to wikipedia and look up ponzi scheme FFS. Compare it to bitcoin stripped bare of window dressing.

Re:Look behind the "shiny" by Dagger2 · 2014-01-24 14:50 · Score: 1

Are you trying to say that Bitcoin is a scam because you think it's a Ponzi scheme?
Bitcoin makes no guarantee of profits, so it's not a Ponzi scheme. Early adopters took a bigger risk dealing with it, and ended up with a bigger payoff for that, and I'm certainly jealous of them for doing so, but that doesn't make it a Ponzi scheme either. And I see no reason to deny myself the useful aspects of it just because some other people took a gamble that paid off.
(This is covered in the FAQ.)
Re:Look behind the "shiny" by dbIII · 2014-01-24 18:40 · Score: 1

Give up on convincing me to be a victim. It's disgusting.
Re:Look behind the "shiny" by Dagger2 · 2014-01-25 09:56 · Score: 1

All we've been trying to do is get you to explain why you called it a scam -- and the answer appears to be because you misunderstood it.
Re:Look behind the "shiny" by dbIII · 2014-01-25 16:25 · Score: 1

Look up that ponzi entry on wikipedia and then consider bitcoin. Why should I explain it when it has been done so much better that way?
Re:Look behind the "shiny" by Dagger2 · 2014-01-26 00:42 · Score: 1

Because just pointing at the Wikipedia entry for Ponzi schemes doesn't make Bitcoin a Ponzi scheme, and I've already explained why Bitcoin isn't a Ponzi scheme in one of my above posts. It's now on you to explain why I (and the Bitcoin FAQ) are wrong.
Just to reiterate: Bitcoin isn't a Ponzi scheme because it makes no guarantee of profits. Also, in a Ponzi scheme, only early investors can benefit (at the expense of later investors). With Bitcoin, everybody benefits from the existence of a peer-to-peer payment network.
(Here is the FAQ entry if you want it explained in slightly different words.)
If you believe Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme, that means you must believe it makes a guarantee of profits, and you must also think that a system for making payments to people isn't useful. So, where does Bitcoin make that guarantee? And how do you justify claiming that being able to pay people money isn't useful?
Re:Look behind the "shiny" by dbIII · 2014-01-26 04:48 · Score: 1

You still here? A self serving link from the perpetrators page isn't exactly independent you know.
I'm sick of the hair splitting - OK so it's a "ponzi-type" scheme instead of an actual ponzi because the name of the token is different, but it's still a blatant scam baited for geek.
Once again, I'd advise people who are interested in bitcoin to take a close look at that wikipedia page on ponzi schemes and compare it to what they can find out about bitcoin from an INDEPENDENT source before getting involved.
It's obviously too late for the above poster who has clearly been ensnared and is trolling for marks to help inflate the exchange value of the tokens they have.
Re:Look behind the "shiny" by Dagger2 · 2014-01-26 05:34 · Score: 1

Yet you still haven't answered my question. How is it a scam? Don't just point to Wikipedia and say "it's a blatant scam". If it really is so blatant, you'd be able to actually explain why yourself.
Re:Look behind the "shiny" by dbIII · 2014-01-26 17:45 · Score: 1

How is it a scam
Blatant pyramid with massive hardwired potential gains to the unknown founder. It should be obvious. Your education has failed you if it hasn't prepared you for things like that - but of course you know all this and just want to prey on others don't you?
Re:Look behind the "shiny" by Dagger2 · 2014-01-27 09:25 · Score: 1

Blatant pyramid
I asked you to explain it, not just declare it blatant again...

with massive hardwired potential gains to the unknown founder
Okay, I'll take this as the explanation. This, by itself, is not enough to make something a scam. For example: every time you pay your monthly electricity bill, your electricity company gets richer. Does that mean you're being scammed? No, of course not.
If Bitcoin really was a scam, I think you would've been able to articulate why by now.
Re:Look behind the "shiny" by dbIII · 2014-01-27 15:34 · Score: 1

Why should I bother to spell it out over and over again when so many other have already done so ? Here's a good post on the topic for example:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4719055&cid=46084415
Re:Look behind the "shiny" by Dagger2 · 2014-01-28 09:17 · Score: 1

Because you haven't even managed to spell it out once yet, and at the moment it looks like you can't.
That post only covers Bitcoin exchanges, not Bitcoin itself. Yes, I know it's possible to pull scams involving Bitcoin, but that should hardly be surprising (you can pull scams involving dollars, or whatever takes your fancy) and it doesn't make Bitcoin a scam.
So... do you have anything to back up your claim, or should I take your inability to come up with anything relevant as an indicator that it isn't a scam?

Not proving your point at all by dbIII · 2014-01-24 13:12 · Score: 1

Replace "has" with "had" then to get Taliban Afganistan and close to 100% gun ownership if you are going to play silly games where you pretend to misunderstand.

Re: Not proving your point at all by LF11 · 2014-01-24 13:34 · Score: 1

The Taliban is and was an aggressive minority who prey on the unarmed populace.

You think those women being publicly raped and beaten are armed? Ha! The Taliban could never exist were the general population armed.
Re: Not proving your point at all by dbIII · 2014-01-24 14:03 · Score: 1

The place was armed to the teeth. Pretending otherwise is lying.

Re:Just fucking stop it by Hal_Porter · 2014-01-25 02:26 · Score: 1

Such fashion

Hipster Approved

Fair Trade Vegan Offal

Hot Doge

Within Reach

--
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;

Information asymmetry by NewYork · 2014-01-25 19:03 · Score: 1

Bitcoin protocol lacks https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

--
Casteism

Caveat Emptor by dbIII · 2014-01-28 13:25 · Score: 1

Look weasel - it's up to scammers like you to convince the marks of the scam to increase your gains and it's up to people like me to say "buyer beware" instead of helping you to steal from them. Looking for refutation number 101 is not required after I've provided a link to number 100.

Re:Caveat Emptor by Dagger2 · 2014-01-29 03:18 · Score: 1

I'm not attempting to "convince a mark" here, I just want an explanation of why Bitcoin is a scam. I've asked you repeatedly to explain that, and you haven't. Is there a reason for that? It's almost as if Bitcoin isn't a scam, and the reason you can't answer me is because there is no answer to give.
Like I said, the link you provided talks about Bitcoin exchanges, not Bitcoin. It doesn't explain why Bitcoin is a scam. It's a bit like showing me your email inbox and saying "Look, there's a Nigerian 419 scam email in here. Therefore, e-mail is a scam." (which, of course, makes no sense). Do you actually have an explanation? I'd like to hear it.

Slashdot Mirror

Google Says It Has "No Current Plans Regarding Bitcoin"

105 of 157 comments (clear)