Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: Do You Still Trust Bitcoin?

Nerval's Lobster writes "It hasn't been a great week for Bitcoin. Cruise the Web, and you'll find stories from people who lost thousands (even millions, in some cases) of paper value when the Mt.Gox exchange went offline for still-mysterious reasons. (Rumors have circulated for days about the shutdown, ranging from an epic heist of the Bitcoins under its stewardship, to financial improprieties leading the exchange to the edge of bankruptcy.) But as one Slashdotter pointed out in a previous posting, Mt.Gox isn't Bitcoin (and vice versa), and it's likely that other exchanges will take up the burden of helping manage the currency. Even so, all currencies depend on a certain amount of stability and trust in order to survive, and Bitcoin faces something of a confidence crisis in the wake of this event. So here's the question: do you still trust Bitcoin?"

631 comments

  1. As Frontalot says by geekoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "You can't hide secrets from the future with math."

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:As Frontalot says by Qwertie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The mathematics of bitcoin are sound enough. The issue I have with it is the possibility of hacks.

      We all know that most computer systems are insecure. In the past, cracking a computer could only yield things like names, addresses, passwords (hashed and salted, one hopes), confidential files... in short, information. But with Bitcoin, crackers now enjoy the tantalizing possibility of stealing money! That makes Bitcoin exchanges (and, if bitcoin becomes popular, all ordinary PCs with bitcoin wallets) highly attractive hacking targets. So how can we be sure that an exchange won't be hacked? How can we be sure that our PCs won't be hacked? This issue--my inability to know that my coins are secure--has made me reluctant to buy them in the past.

      Also, what regulations exist to ensure exchanges are secure? What incentives exist to encourage exchanges to be bulletproof against against hacks (or scams / social engineering)? And finally, how can we know that the exchange itself is entirely legitimate?

      And by the way, I'm sure conventional large banks and financial institutions occasionally have hacks too, which reminds me of another difference between bitcoin and traditional money management. The difference is that you can mostly trust traditional institutions to compensate customers for any funds stolen from customer accounts (as long as it wasn't blatantly the customer's fault). To what extent is this assurance available in the bitcoin world?

    2. Re:As Frontalot says by dan+the+person · · Score: 5, Interesting

      how can we be sure that an exchange won't be hacked?

      Exactly. We can be sure traditional banks won't be hacked because they are regulated by the government appointed banking regulator.

      And if they had loose security that somehow the regulators missed and loose billions in wire-fraud? In most countries the government guarantees your funds to a certain extent. So the question becomes, do you trust your government? (or the government in charge of the foreign currency you are storing).

      This is the trouble with bit-coin. All currencies are based on faith. Faith that they will hold value (that the government wont print money), faith that they will be accepted for exchange (again, government mandated for most currencies). With bit-coin, to whom do you place your faith?

    3. Re:As Frontalot says by joaommp · · Score: 1

      You can never be sure than an exchange will not get hacked or that there won't be any type of access to their network (physically) that allows stealing your cryptos. The most secure way to do so is still to use cold storage. Either use paper wallets or gadgets like Trezor or (my two cents, self-pub warning) the Pitbull Wallet to help you manage them.

    4. Re:As Frontalot says by msauve · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There will always be malfeasance when there's value involved on a large scale. The dollar didn't crash because of Bernie Madoff (or Charles Ponzi, or Lincoln Savings and Loan), did it?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    5. Re: As Frontalot says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The strength of govt currencies lies in their ability to create money, to expand the money supply. That's how the US got out of this latest market crisis.

      Lincoln created over $400 million greenbacks to raise money without borrowing or increasing taxes. Poor farmers who wanted to avoid deflation formed the Greenback Party to continue that policy in the 1870s.

    6. Re:As Frontalot says by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      We can be sure traditional banks won't be hacked because they are regulated by the government appointed banking regulator.

      I'm pretty sure the housing bubble of the 2000s, which turned into the bank bust-out of 2008 and the subsequent taxpayer bailout could very accurately be described as "hacking the banks".

      It was a process that started in the late 1990's, with Sen Graham's crusade to repeal Glass-Steagal. Even before the bailouts, it was the largest redistribution of wealth upward in all of human history. As a hack, it is one of the most audacious and effective. A pure example of social engineering. And its legacy is nothing short of the creation of a two-tier economy, in which there is one monetary system, one economy for the very elite, and another for the rest of us.

      Oh yes, our "traditional banks" were hacked, but good.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re:As Frontalot says by VikingNation · · Score: 0

      "Strong cryptography is very powerful when it is done right, but it is not a panacea. Focusing on the cryptographic algorithms while ignoring other aspects of security is like defending your house not by building a fence around it, but by putting an immense stake into the ground and hoping that the adversary runs right into it. Smart attackers will just go around the algorithms." "Security Pitfalls in Cryptography", Bruce Schneier, https://www.schneier.com/essay...

    8. Re:As Frontalot says by kelemvor4 · · Score: 2

      In most countries the government guarantees your funds to a certain extent. So the question becomes, do you trust your government? (or the government in charge of the foreign currency you are storing).

      I think there's more to it than that. I trust the bank and the government not to both pull a mtgox at the same time. I wouldn't trust the government alone, nor would I trust the bank alone.

    9. Re: As Frontalot says by VTBlue · · Score: 1

      Just to correct you, Quantitative Easing is NOT printing money. It is a balance sheet transaction that has nearly zero effect on the money supply. QE is nothing more than a balance sheet transaction.

    10. Re:As Frontalot says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      forget hacking: what's to stop an exchange from just closing and keeping all the BTC?

      Oh, right

      Nothing

    11. Re:As Frontalot says by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      *We can be sure traditional banks won't be hacked because they are regulated by the government appointed banking regulator.* ..actually we can't be sure about that.

      do I trust bitcoin? yes(to be what it is).
      do I trust exchanges? no.

      (and guarantees by government are usually only up to 30-50 000 dollars worth anyways)

      but would I trust even the shoddy fly by night exchanges more than say the government of venezuela ? heck yea...

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    12. Re:As Frontalot says by peragrin · · Score: 1, Interesting

      by all reports that is what happened. Mt god had a fatal flaw in their version of the bit coin processing software. A flaw which could be used to duplicate and then steal bit coins.

      The fact is mt gox just shut down with over seven hundred thousand bit coins that may or may not ever be able to be retrieved.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    13. Re:As Frontalot says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is the biggest problem facing Bitcoin, IMHO. I'm a professional developer who considers himself (with some justification) to be an expert-level Windows user, or as close to such a thing as any user of a closed-source OS can be. Yet that didn't stop somebody from ganking my wallet.dat file and the 5 BTC associated with it.

      I don't give a crap about the money, having intentionally refrained from putting more cash into Bitcoin than I could afford to throw away, but I would pay the thief an equal amount, voluntarily, to learn how they did it.

    14. Re:As Frontalot says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very true. Perhaps those who visit this site have faith in programmers' but I doubt the general public does.

    15. Re: As Frontalot says by dan+the+person · · Score: 2

      Definition of 'Quantitative Easing'

      An unconventional monetary policy in which a central bank purchases government securities or other securities from the market in order to lower interest rates and increase the money supply. Quantitative easing increases the money supply by flooding financial institutions with capital in an effort to promote increased lending and liquidity.

      http://www.investopedia.com/terms/q/quantitative-easing.asp

    16. Re:As Frontalot says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my case, my mud hut is my collateral. Sure hope it doesn't rain at all this year in Portland, Oregon!

    17. Re:As Frontalot says by Zorpheus · · Score: 1

      What could you gain if you hacked a bank? Whatever changes you make, if they find out they will just undo them.
      That is not possible with bitcoins.

    18. Re: As Frontalot says by VTBlue · · Score: 1

      That definition is not academically precise. Money that a bank holds on reserved is not considered part of the money supply unless it actually enters into the economy. You have to understand that retails banks are just extensions of the public monetary system. Money supply increase if and only if these banks with increased reserved actually end up issuing more loans.

      In practice this has not happened because QE policy assumes the Loanable Funds Framework which is not an accurate representation of how banks are run today. Today retail banks "create" money via demand deposits with the Fed. Banks are not constrained by the amounts of Reserve they have to issue a loan, contrary to what is shown in the movie, "It's a wonderful life."

      Here is a very good video that very clearly explains it if you're a macroeconomic buff:
      http://youtu.be/Kw3uXAQ4DwE

    19. Re:As Frontalot says by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Informative

      And we're all living in mud huts now as a result, right?

      Well, not exactly, but many of us are renting the huts we live in which in 2005, we owned. Plus, the people who managed to hang on to their houses lost a significant portion of their savings in the form of equity when the prices crashed.

      Further, six years of near-zero interest rates and $80 billion/month of free money going to banks has eroded our savings. If real inflation (not the adjusted numbers from the government) are near 8%, as many economists estimate, and your savings have netted 0%, you have lost a considerable amount of wealth and the value of your labor.

      All this while the economic elite have seen enormous gains in their incomes.

      You could continue and look at the social costs of this increasing disparity, which are substantial and include everything from disease rates to depression and family breakdown, but even without taking these externalities into account, the hacking of the banking system (which continues, by the way), has been enormously costly you to and me and the people who matter to you.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    20. Re:As Frontalot says by greg_barton · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And believing in bitcoin would make this better?

    21. Re:As Frontalot says by countach · · Score: 3, Informative

      Of course there is. The law. Of course, that may not always save your skin, but it doesn't mean there is nothing at all.

    22. Re: As Frontalot says by AudioEfex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly. I'm sorry, I'm not Mr. I Love and Completely Trust The Government, but reading what some of these folks say is just astounding. The level of fear and suspect is simply irrational. Now, when I say that, they will say I am a sheep or naive or what have you - but as you said, the dollar survived the last crisis, it survived previous issues, and even though it's not as absolutely strong as it once was, it's still the most a secure currency in the civilized world.

      I don't know what makes these folks so scared, and the only defense they can give about BitCoin when confronted with it's obvious flaws as a "currency", pointing out the ways in which it is simply an investment scheme, is to try to say "yeah but the dollar is just as bad!" when clearly, it is not. Or they quote you Iceland or Cypress and ignore that the USD is far different than the currency in those places. Desperate attempts at deflection are the only "ammo" they have to retort with because, frankly,I do nt think most of them actually understand it for what it is - a pyramid scheme with a novel twist. While nothing is 100% certain, I know I would feel a hell of a lot more secure with $100,000 in cash in a fireproof safe, or even at a bank, than I would with the same amount in BitCoins sitting in an exchange or even in "cold storage" that's based on untested (and obviously flawed) protocols and trust in a completely unregulated private company in another country (or even our own). It's not even comparable. The value of BitCoin is really based in what someone is willing to pay you in legal tender in exchange for it, otherwise it's worthless. That's the pyramid part - it depends on new folks coming in and willing to buy your existing stock with legal tender which can then be used for goods and services. Without people actively buying into it with real currency, it's utterly useless and has no value.

      BitCoin is the result of a lot of supposedly educated folks who are disillusioned with the government and, dare I say, mostly seem to be in their 20's and products of upper income homes who grew up in the 90's during all the "you deserve it!" entitlement trend in child rearing. I'm a product of the 80's, when we were all told we were "special" - but we were also told that we had to work for it and not to expect a free ride. The popularity of BitCoin among these folks is due to the "get rich quick" aspect that they always felt they deserved and believed they had finally found their golden ticket.

      Ugh, you know you are getting older when you start to so clearly see the generational differences - every generation has it's quirks, and BitCoin is the manifestation of young smart folks with too much disposable income who think they are smarter than they actually are, and those that haven't taken their winnings and run yet are in for a very, very rude awakening when this all completely collapses and their money is gone.

    23. Re:As Frontalot says by klui · · Score: 1

      Exactly this. It's just like PKI is sound but the security of a system comes down to its implementation. Unless these Bitcoin exchanges are audited or have best practices put in place one could never know who the next victim of these hacks would be and therefore a person's wallet would always be in jeopardy. If I were to have a Bitcoin wallet, I would have used Mt. Gox since they're the biggest, oldest, and original founding member of the Bitcoin Foundation. Little did everyone know they could come down so soon.

      I'm not against Bitcoin but it's much too soon to start relying on it as a stable currency.

    24. Re:As Frontalot says by klui · · Score: 1

      Ask that to people who have lost homes.

    25. Re:As Frontalot says by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh, you misunderstand me. I think Bitcoin is a neo-libertarian utopian fantasy, based on the same thing all neo-libertarian philosophy relies, the "If only..."

      "If only we had perfect information. If only we had perfect competition. If only we could have a free market that existed outside of government."

      The problem is, markets are a function of government. There are no markets in nature. They only exist when there is someone to enforce contracts and guard transactions.

      The entire philosophy is a scam perpetrated by the economic elite to draw off the energy of talented young people and make it easier to steal from them, while appealing to their egos. And the easiest people to manipulate via ego are talented young people, and those who see themselves that way.

      Bitcoin is an undergrad economics project, writ large, and co-opted by criminals and the elite. I knew it would be co-opted eventually, just didn't think it would happen this quickly. Bitcoins will exist, in some form, until the willingness of those talented young people to part with their wealth is exhausted, which won't take long.

      Do you have any idea how many Bitcoins were purchased between $1000 and $800? Wait until the people who bought them there realize that a 50% gain after a 50% loss puts you in the hole.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    26. Re:As Frontalot says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's just plain naive. Banks don't care about security the way you think they do. When things go south the feds simply print more. Sounds daft and all sorts of things but...

      In fact when I consulted banks they were the most clueless about anything but banking. That they mostly knew.

      Have you ever wondered why more security have not been put in place on plastic? Yeah there are regulations all right but not the kind you expect.

    27. Re:As Frontalot says by greg_barton · · Score: 1

      What does that have to do with anything?

    28. Re:As Frontalot says by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 0

      ^^ I hate it when this kind of horseshit gets upmodded here. Except when I have the upmodded horseshit, then it is FINE!

      --
      Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
    29. Re: As Frontalot says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guarentee on bank deposits is $250K per person per institution.

      -Matt

    30. Re: As Frontalot says by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 0

      ^^^ Bingo. Please mod this up.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    31. Re:As Frontalot says by E-Rock · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Gox had an implementation flaw in their transaction reconcilement and a clear lack of auditing. Of course, the only source of this information is Gox. So, that's their version of what happened.

      Long before this happened there were complaints about Gox being difficult about withdrawing funds, and speculation that they had been running as a fractional reserve and the run up in price was driving them to insolvency.

      Without an independent investigation it's impossible to say what actually happened. That said, both versions point to a problem with one exchange, not with Bitcoin itself, and so far not a problem with any other exchanges.

    32. Re:As Frontalot says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      did you use a brainwallet with a weak passphrase? if so someone could spend your coins without ever accessing your machine.

    33. Re:As Frontalot says by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      It was a process that started in the late 1990's, with Sen Graham's crusade to repeal Glass-Steagal.

      This is probably a red herring, Glass-Steagal wouldn't have stopped the crisis. This is reflected in the fact that Canada doesn't have the equivalent of a Glass-Steagal, but they didn't suffer nearly the collapse that the US did.

      I don't mind banks collapsing from doing something stupid, that is part of capitalism. I do mind being forced to pay for it. Paul Volcker had a plan to restructure the banking system to help prevent that, but Obama was already listening to Geithner for some reason. Oh well.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    34. Re:As Frontalot says by Spazmania · · Score: 1
      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    35. Re: As Frontalot says by arisvega · · Score: 1

      Or they quote you Iceland or Cypress

      It is called Cyprus

      And I believe that 'they' are quoting it only in your head: Iceland and Cyprus handled their economic perils in entirely different ways.

      --
      The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
    36. Re: As Frontalot says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you are an idiot aren't you. Thus showing stupidity has no 'age' boundary, since if as you claim you are 'older' and thus are able to see 'generational differences' than you'd also think you'd have experience enough to recognize what a currency is. It's a store of value only in what someone else will exchange for it, period. I can get Bitcoin without paying a single 'hard currency dollar', I can trade a coat, a pair of shoes, or my labor for Bitcoin, just like any other currency. The high value of Bitcoin in USD says more about the lack of confidence in USD than it does in the value of Bitcoin.

      If you have so much experience and are obviously a genius perhaps you can explain these flaws in the 'obvious flawed protocols'.

    37. Re:As Frontalot says by shentino · · Score: 1

      If anything this will only put more pressure on governments to cockblock bitcoins.

      Sometimes I wonder if it's a conspiracy to get bitcoin banned and shoved into the black market.

    38. Re:As Frontalot says by Bender0x7D1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But that's the problem - Bitcoin isn't "real" money. If it were, there would be a huge number of regulations to follow, sinking it as an anonymous currency. However, if it isn't "real" currency, thefts and/or fraud will not be investigated by law enforcement agencies. So, pick what you want: An anonymous currency with no support of law enforcement, or a "real" currency where regulations such as requiring a photo ID to open an account apply.

      --
      Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
    39. Re: As Frontalot says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very very few people would accept you magical Internet money as a payment. What good is a currency if you have to exchange it for another currency each time you want to use it?

    40. Re:As Frontalot says by indeterminator · · Score: 2

      forget hacking: what's to stop an exchange from just closing and keeping all the BTC?

      Income from tx fees that they will lose when they're out of business? I'd say running an exchange seems quite profitable even without a scam.

      And without the exchange you used to run (esp. when you're the last one), you'll have a hard time converting your stolen BTC into something you can use.

    41. Re:As Frontalot says by unwesen · · Score: 1

      The mathematics are sound enough, but that doesn't make BitCoin sound.

      After the MtGox situation, I tried to understand what exactly the transaction malleability problem they're blaming is. The best (?) starting point I've found is https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Tra..., but while that gives you a high level overview, it also raises more questions. Why are there three distinct issues with BitCoin that share the same name? Why did the BitCoin designers ever think it's a good idea to take a signature over part of a message as verifying the entire message?

      Mostly, though, I asked myself what it was they were signing and for what purpose, before going on to the previously stated questions. Several hours later, and I concluded that BitCoin is the single worst documented software system I've seen in a 15 year software engineering career.

      Yes, I managed to get the information I wanted. No, it wasn't straightforward. Documentation is distributed amongst this wiki, forum posts (which are then badly copy & pasted into the wiki) and source code. Oh, and external sites like reddit or stackexchange. The wiki is very badly cross-linked, and the terrible naming choices (see above) mean it's not easy to search. Some vital information is effectively hidden from sight in image files, which wikis currently don't tend to index at all. And that's just about the stuff I was interested in at the time.

      You should never trust a crypto system whose authors can't explain it cohesively and concisely.

      If nothing else, it makes a security audit a nightmare.

      That said, of course the BitCoin devs aren't stupid, and they plugged the holes documented in the transaction malleability page as best they could. The wiki still states they exist, incidentally, and since it's the de-facto documentation on BitCoin, it's IMHO fair enough to conclude that the BitCoin specifications are still broken even if the reference implementation is fixed.

      None of which should mean that BitCoin itself did worse that MtGox - the latter certainly screwed up royally, and their screwup doesn't mean BitCoin is doomed.

      But nothing I've seen of BitCoin so far goes to convince me it's trustworthy.

    42. Re:As Frontalot says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. It's like how the police won't investigate the theft of valuable things except for cash. Like when someone steals your car, the police say that your car is not "real currency" so it doesn't have any value and they won't investigate its theft.

      You're an idiot. Bitcoin may not officially be 'currency', but that doesn't mean that it can't be treated as a valuable commodity (the theft of which is illegal and investigable).

    43. Re:As Frontalot says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why I can steal a shop full of TVs without being investigated by law. Because TVs isn't real money either.

    44. Re: As Frontalot says by Icarium · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the truest test of whether Bitcoin can be regarded as a currency is: Would you be willing to be paid in it?

      I don't speak for everyone, but my answer to that is a resounding no. When I get paid in the old fashioned currency of my land, I have a reasonable expectation that my purchasing power isn't going to vary widly from day to day. What I can buy with my salary today, I will still be able to buy with my salary in a day, or a month, roughly speaking.

      The same can't be said of Bitcoin, at least not any time soon. Until then, I won't regard it as a currency.

    45. Re: As Frontalot says by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      "The guarentee on bank deposits is $250K per person per institution."

      hmm go to cypros and tell people that. I was vague with the number because I wasn't being specific about any government.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    46. Re:As Frontalot says by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      You owned??? how exactly did the housing bubble make you a renter unless you were either a part of the problem or the bank actually owned your house? the problem wasn't just the banks, it was the morons willing to take out insane loans with little or no deposit or security backing on the promise that things would only go up. The banks were leeches to do it but those taking out the loans acting like victims were actually just as much part of the problem.

    47. Re:As Frontalot says by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      These are problems, but they aren't insurmountable problems. One of the things which changed my mind about bitcoin a bit was seeing all the damn clever stuff they've come up with - paper wallets, offline transaction signing, etc. Yeah, if my machine gets hacked, I may lose what's in my desktop wallet.. but presently, that is so little that it's an acceptable price to pay to find out I've been hacked ;)

      About exchanges, you know what Bismarck said ... Those who know how laws and sausages are made, do not like either. There's a lot of shoddy security in our conventional banking system, too. Think about credit cards, about how rotten security they actually have if you look objectively on it. With bitcoin, I at least know there's some really smart cryptographic design at the core of it.

      You can't be sure. You can never be sure. The question is what risks you're willing to take. Right now you (and me, and everyone else) trust a lot in "too big to fail", or "too many to fail" - that we're in the same boat as enough people, or enough powerful people, that if something gets messed up too bad the powers that be (government and non-government) will set it right. To avoid food riots if nothing else.

      Wouldn't it be nice with a little more decentralization, a little more democracy, a little more trusting in math than trusting in the self-interest of a powerful few? Bitcoin is at heart an experiment in distributed consensus-mechanisms. It's an interesting experiment.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    48. Re:As Frontalot says by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      So the question becomes, do you trust your government?

      Well, do I have any choice? Not a meaningful one that I can see. Since I already have to trust government in umpteen areas of my life already, trusting it one more (money) doesn't make much difference. But it's worth thinking about how we can decentralize all that trust. Right now, no one is asking more interesting questions around that than the bitcoin folks.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    49. Re:As Frontalot says by Vintermann · · Score: 2

      Not this again.

      There are a number of things that are valuable, even if you personally think there's no reason they should be valuable. Old Magic the Gathering cards, most of the stuff on exhibit in MoMA, pieces of paper with numbers on them from foreign lands, etc. If you steal these things, you're still a thief in the law's eyes.

      For that matter, if you steal something which has no market value, but only value to the owner, you're still a thief. Don't go stealing people's family albums.

      In some jurisdictions, even the stuff people throw into the trash is illegal to take.

      Bitcoin does not have to be a currency to be recognized as valuable. Since it provably has a market value, the state would have to preemptively declare it worthless, or claims about it unenforcable, for it to lack protection. If you steal bitcoin and get caught, you're going to jail.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    50. Re:As Frontalot says by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      Don't put your ignorance on display. The bug in bitcoin was that something you would think could be used as a transaction ID, wasn't in fact usable as such. Making it possible to trick people to resend money they had in fact already sent. No money was duplicated, and by itself, the bug did not allow theft (it only enabled some form of social engineering attacks).

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    51. Re:As Frontalot says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The issue I have with it is the possibility of hacks.

      s/hacks/bugs/

      I haven't followed the story online, but read about it in a financial journal (dead tree ).
      If it is true, as they said there, that a bug at Mt. Gox allowed receivers to fake not receiving their bitcoins, that would mean it's exactly the kind of problem I have feared about bitcoin from day one, and the main reason I never jumped onto the bandwagon.
      I never had any bitcoins, and probably never will.

      BTW, if it's also true that the Mt. Gox bug existed and was abused for a long time before it was discovered (ellipsis here...)

    52. Re:As Frontalot says by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      However, if it isn't "real" currency, thefts and/or fraud will not be investigated by law enforcement agencies.

      It will not be covered by the same, harsh, laws as "real" money is covered by, but I see no reason for why it should not covered by ordinary fraud laws. If I pay Blizzard for a years worth of WoW access, and they stop supplying it after 3 months, will the courts not help me? They don't owe me money, but they have still broken a contract. Why is a Bitcoin exchange any different?

    53. Re: As Frontalot says by michelcolman · · Score: 2

      based on untested (and obviously flawed) protocols and trust in a completely unregulated private company in another country (or even our own).

      The whole point of BitCoin is that you don't have to trust some private company. Sure, the exchanges are companies, and when you wire money to an exchange to buy bitcoins, you need to trust that exchange and may lose money if that exchange happened to be Mt. Gox, but once you take the bitcoins out of the exchange, you are not dependent on any company. The system is run by miners all over the world, and no single miner can control the network. You need at least half the mining power of the entire network to even have a shot at fooling the system.

      Of course you can't, at this time, compare the solidity of bicoin to that of the euro or dollar, but I would certainly prefer it over the currency of certain countries in South America or Africa. There too, the value of the currency is determined by how much people are willing to accept it for. If trust in the country is lost, the currency goes down the drain and people have to pay for bread with wheelbarrows full of banknotes. There's really no fundamental difference.

      Personally I only invested an amount I can afford to lose, and consider it a very risky investment with a potentially huge reward. Obviously at this stage it would be utterly stupid to put your life's savings into it. If BitCoin fails, it will indeed have been a pyramid scheme duping people into losing money. If it succeeds, it will be obvious that this was no pyramid scheme and people who missed out will kick themselves for not seeing the obvious potential. Hindsight will tell which it will be.

    54. Re:As Frontalot says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Banana peels are not real money, but I'm reasonably certain that if I had an agreement with anotheri party to trade 5K worth of banana peels and they shut down and ran away with the money (or the peels) the authorities would still consider it Theft, and investigate accordingly.

      Folks could argue over how overvalued the peels were, but the same argument applies to any other materiel.

    55. Re:As Frontalot says by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      how can we be sure that an exchange won't be hacked?

      Exactly. We can be sure traditional banks won't be hacked because they are regulated by the government appointed banking regulator.

      And if they had loose security that somehow the regulators missed and loose billions in wire-fraud? In most countries the government guarantees your funds to a certain extent. So the question becomes, do you trust your government? (or the government in charge of the foreign currency you are storing).

      This is the trouble with bit-coin. All currencies are based on faith. Faith that they will hold value (that the government wont print money), faith that they will be accepted for exchange (again, government mandated for most currencies). With bit-coin, to whom do you place your faith?

      Interestingly enough one of the most widely held currencies, the US Dollar, while legal tender in the US there is no legal requirement for anyone to accept it as payment. As you rightly point out it is faith in a currency as a store of value and thus that is widely accepted as payment that makes it a viable medium of exchange.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    56. Re:As Frontalot says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But that's the problem - Bitcoin isn't "real" money. If it were, there would be a huge number of regulations to follow, sinking it as an anonymous currency. However, if it isn't "real" currency, thefts and/or fraud will not be investigated by law enforcement agencies. So, pick what you want: An anonymous currency with no support of law enforcement, or a "real" currency where regulations such as requiring a photo ID to open an account apply.

      Except government agencies are investigating MtGox and the earlier Pirate ponzi scheme. How does that fit with your attempt at creating circular logic?

    57. Re:As Frontalot says by pantaril · · Score: 1

      However, if it isn't "real" currency, thefts and/or fraud will not be investigated by law enforcement agencies.

      Why not? In your country, law enforcments only investigates currency theft? If i steal diamonds from you i'll be ok?

    58. Re:As Frontalot says by pantaril · · Score: 2

      by all reports that is what happened. Mt god had a fatal flaw in their version of the bit coin processing software. A flaw which could be used to duplicate and then steal bit coins.

      No bitcoins were duplicated. The flaw was that customer withdrew bitcoins, then contacted mt.gox support and claimed that the transaction didn't go through and mt.gox sent him another bitcoins because their transaction tracking was flawed.

    59. Re:As Frontalot says by multimediavt · · Score: 1

      (and guarantees by government are usually only up to 30-50 000 dollars worth anyways)

      but would I trust even the shoddy fly by night exchanges more than say the government of venezuela ? heck yea...

      In the U.S. accounts are insured up to $100,000.00. Banks usually will setup new accounts for folks when their accounts reach $100,000.00 and are about to go over. So, if you have $500,000.00 in a U.S. bank it's usually spread over multiple accounts so the entire amount is insured. So, yes, I would very much rather the bank held my money than my mattress or some dubious "exchange".

    60. Re:As Frontalot says by dintech · · Score: 3, Informative

      There are no markets in nature

      Well, almost no markets in nature. Chimps exchange sex for meat

    61. Re: As Frontalot says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might want to find out how this mysterious Cyprus place is spelled and which Ceuroncy they are using before further making a fool of yourself.

    62. Re:As Frontalot says by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      Yeah they transferred around $32 trillion offshore and oddly the IRS won't touch it.

      http://www.democraticundergrou...

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    63. Re:As Frontalot says by smallfries · · Score: 1

      Not exactly. Speed is of the essence.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    64. Re:As Frontalot says by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Oh, you misunderstand me. I think Bitcoin is a neo-libertarian utopian fantasy, based on the same thing all neo-libertarian philosophy relies, the "If only..."

      "If only we had perfect information. If only we had perfect competition. If only we could have a free market that existed outside of government."

      The problem is, markets are a function of government. There are no markets in nature. They only exist when there is someone to enforce contracts and guard transactions.

      The entire philosophy is a scam perpetrated by the economic elite to draw off the energy of talented young people and make it easier to steal from them, while appealing to their egos. And the easiest people to manipulate via ego are talented young people, and those who see themselves that way.

      Bitcoin is an undergrad economics project, writ large, and co-opted by criminals and the elite. I knew it would be co-opted eventually, just didn't think it would happen this quickly. Bitcoins will exist, in some form, until the willingness of those talented young people to part with their wealth is exhausted, which won't take long.

      Do you have any idea how many Bitcoins were purchased between $1000 and $800? Wait until the people who bought them there realize that a 50% gain after a 50% loss puts you in the hole.

      The other side of the coin is that the people (typically geek cyrptocurrency early adopters, NOT rich people) that sold those bitcoins that people bought between $1000 and $800 made a profit. You can't look only at the negative side of things.

      There is risk around bitcoins yes, but if you buy smart and sell smart you can make a high rate of return that can justify the risk. The rate doesn't tumble for no reason at all. As with any stock or currency (etc) price varies with good and bad news reports and every bitcoin rate change that has happened so far has been precipitated by either good or bad news.

      The big losers at this point are people who left their bitcoins in an exchange that then disappeared - lesson learned from this would be to not keep your bitcoins in an exchange or to spread them out across multiple storage locations (including paper and offline wallets).

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    65. Re: As Frontalot says by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      Yeah, at this point the US dollar has "some" protection, but it is being eroded by money printing at the rate
      of $65 billion a month, another poster mentioned the old $85 billion a month figure.

      The inflation rate is gauged differently by different ppl, if you cherry pick what you use you can get a low
      rate like the government does, but if you use all things, its a fair bit higher then what the govt's figures list.

      Warren Buffett read a book after the crash called when money dies, I recommend it as he felt it was worth his
      time and based on his income his time is worth alot.

      It details the Wiemar Hyperinflation event, and good odds that is where we are heading because much of
      what is being done resembles that situation.

      Where Germany was bankrupted by WW1 debts, The US is bankrupted by the Military industrial complex
      spending as much as the next 25 nations combined, and the welfare state is the 2nd one.

      Alot of these costs are inflated a great deal due to middle men taking their cut and basically skimming.

      So while the current listed national debt is just shy of $20 trillion, the projected debt in the not too distant
      future based on what will be required to be paid out is much beyond that.

      The thing is some ppl have some evidence this event is planned, and one man wrote a book about it
      and talks about it online, John Perkins - Confessions of an Economic Hitman.

      He says we did this to several nations around the world as a method to loot them, and now the US
      is in line as the next target. His former boss basically admitted what he said is correct, then recanted
      after he was likely threatened.

      The youtube clip is here:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    66. Re:As Frontalot says by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      Yeah the FBI is on it:

      http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    67. Re:As Frontalot says by rev0lt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wait until the people who bought them there realize that a 50% gain after a 50% loss puts you in the hole.

      There is also another point *against* Bitcoin. Because it is deflationary by nature, it promotes hoarding of the currency (eg. if Bitcoin is low now, and if you believe in it, just hang on to it until hopefully will gain more value). Current capitalist systems are inflationary, so if you sit on your pile of cash it will decrease value over time, not increase. This gives a huge incentive to invest that money - like deposit in a bank, buy some stock or bonds, do riskier high-return investments, etc. Thats how you increase your capital - you just don't sit on it, you make things happen that will generate profit. And this keeps the world turning, regardless of personal preferences of who's in charge of it. With deflationary currencies, eg. companies don't need to invest to have profit (eg. you would not have Internet, because why spend 300 billion on undersea cables when you can just sit on that money until it increases in value?). And with unregulated currencies, the loan system cannot work reliably - and this is essential to make the world as we know work.
      My opinion is, Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme. Even if it gets adopted officially. (Yeah I know, fiat currency isn't that far from a ponzi scheme, either)

    68. Re:As Frontalot says by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Like when someone steals your car, the police say that your car is not "real currency" so it doesn't have any value and they won't investigate its theft.

      Bitcoin is made of bits, ownership of a bitcoin is really based on a distributed network of people agreeing that the bitcoin belongs to you. As you should well know there is a fundamental difference between "bits" and "cars". The police understand cars. However, it's yet to be shown that the police understand bitcoin and have the ability (or interest) to do anything about a "theft" of bitcoins. I quoted theft because it's actually the network now saying that the bitcoins no longer belong to you. It's unclear if they can do anything about your loss other than press charges againt the person you claim stole your of the bitcoins, if they can even figure out who that person is (and think they can prove that link in a court of law).

      Bitcoin may not officially be 'currency', but that doesn't mean that it can't be treated as a valuable commodity (the theft of which is illegal and investigable).

      It could be treated as a valuable commodity, but the system is designed to make such investigation difficult, and makes restitution practically impossible unless the perpetrator admits to the crime and agrees to make restitution. For some reason, I doubt the police are going to spend many resources investigating unauthorized transferrals of ownership in the bitcoin network in the forseeable future.

      Of course, fraud is more likely to get investigated, as long as you can identify the person(s) whom you were engaged in the transaction with. The police understand "I paid them and they didn't give me my stuff" quite well.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    69. Re: As Frontalot says by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I agree with everything you've said, but I still see the USD as going downhill in the immediate future. That doesn't mean Bitcoin will be a viable alternative. It just means I wouldn't want to have a lot of USD sitting around. I'd want to have spent them on something with real value. Not just one big piece of property, either; land grabs are a bitch. You need a distributed portfolio even if your total investment is not that big. Losing everything is losing everything whether it's a thousand dollars or a thousand thousand dollars.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    70. Re: As Frontalot says by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      It's always amazing how blind people are to the US being anything but perfect.

      1) The US dollar is, by far, not the most secure currency in the world.
      http://content.time.com/time/b... (a bit dated but the reasoning is sound and is backed up by the next two links)
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

      2) The US is bankrupt with debt as a ridiculous amount and the situation is only getting worse as our politicians continue to spend what we just plain don't have to spend. There has been discussion of a US dollar default which, were it to happen, would completely devastate the value of the US dollar. That discussion will restart today which will most likely result in bitcoin (and other currencies) going up in relative value against the US dollar which will also drive it up in value against other currencies.
      http://www.usdebtclock.org/
      http://www.reuters.com/article...

      I'm not saying bitcoin is safe. It's not - it's very risk compared to government backed currencies. But don't make the mistake of thinking the US dollar is as safe as you seem to think it is either. Default seems inevitable at some point in time as the US just keeps spending and spending and spending with no end in sight.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    71. Re:As Frontalot says by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      But that's the problem - Bitcoin isn't "real" money. If it were, there would be a huge number of regulations to follow, sinking it as an anonymous currency. However, if it isn't "real" currency, thefts and/or fraud will not be investigated by law enforcement agencies. So, pick what you want: An anonymous currency with no support of law enforcement, or a "real" currency where regulations such as requiring a photo ID to open an account apply.

      Fraud is not limited only to currencies. Currently regulatory agencies are complaining about having to deal with bitcoin but at the end of the day if someone broke the law (i.e. closing the exchange and taking all the bitcoins) it would still be treated as theft, if nothing else, and those responsible would still have to face criminal charges.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    72. Re:As Frontalot says by Zorpheus · · Score: 1

      Ok, but if a bank operates with bitcoins it might not just loose a few millions, but everything it possesses in a hack.

    73. Re:As Frontalot says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I'm pretty sure the housing bubble of the 2000s, which turned into the bank bust-out of 2008 and the subsequent taxpayer bailout could very accurately be described as "hacking the banks".

      No. The housing bubble was an inside job where the bank executives were the ones making fraudulent loans to juice the revenue/profit numbers which in turn would juice the executives' bonuses. There was no outsider (unless you count the borrower who got a loan he should never have been granted had the bank properly underwrote the loan) who caused the banks to lose their shirts.

    74. Re:As Frontalot says by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      The mathematics of bitcoin are sound enough. The issue I have with it is the possibility of hacks.

      We all know that most computer systems are insecure. In the past, cracking a computer could only yield things like names, addresses, passwords (hashed and salted, one hopes), confidential files... in short, information. But with Bitcoin, crackers now enjoy the tantalizing possibility of stealing money! That makes Bitcoin exchanges (and, if bitcoin becomes popular, all ordinary PCs with bitcoin wallets) highly attractive hacking targets. So how can we be sure that an exchange won't be hacked? How can we be sure that our PCs won't be hacked? This issue--my inability to know that my coins are secure--has made me reluctant to buy them in the past.

      Not sure if... Tolling, or posting from 3 years ago.

      The prospect of stealing money is at the heart of most small time cracks, after all a complete identity, or even a banking password or two is as good as cash. Bitcoin already enjoys steady attacks on exchanges, as well as malware designed both to steal existing wallets and to steal CPU cycles in hopes of turning them in to BTC. Keeping a bitcoin wallet secure has never been any different than keeping a real wallet secure, though. If you made a copy of all the stuff in your wallet and put it on your PC (short of cash) then a thief can steal everything of value in your wallet. If you keep a copy of your bitcoin wallet on your PC the same is possible, and just like a real wallet you can easily move your bitcoins to a portable media, erase any trace from your PC, and keep the entire thing in your pocket.

    75. Re: As Frontalot says by Kogun · · Score: 1

      The value of BitCoin is really based in what someone is willing to pay you in legal tender in exchange for it, otherwise it's worthless. That's the pyramid part - it depends on new folks coming in and willing to buy your existing stock with legal tender which can then be used for goods and services. Without people actively buying into it with real currency, it's utterly useless and has no value.

      Wrong. BC can act very effectively as digital currency without any legal tender being introduced into the system. There are plenty of non-tangible information and services that are available that can be exchanged through a commonly agreed upon crytpo-currency. That anyone should decide to also exchange a digital currency for government backed currency is hardly a necessity and does not make it a pyramid scheme. Your argument applies just as effectively to the stock market as it does to BC. i.e, it doesn't apply.

      ...seem to be in their 20's and products of upper income homes who grew up in the 90's during all the "you deserve it!" entitlement trend in child rearing. I'm a product of the 80's, when we were all told we were "special" - but we were also told that we had to work for it and not to expect a free ride. The popularity of BitCoin among these folks is due to the "get rich quick" aspect that they always felt they deserved and believed they had finally found their golden ticket.

      Your personally smug generational bias only diminishes any points you have hoped to make.

    76. Re:As Frontalot says by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      The other side of the coin is that the people (typically geek cyrptocurrency early adopters, NOT rich people) that sold those bitcoins that people bought between $1000 and $800 made a profit.

      And some people that buy lottery tickets win.

      There is risk around bitcoins yes, but if you buy smart and sell smart you can make a high rate of return that can justify the risk.

      The same lie by which most individuals trading on the stock market in the last couple of decades have lost money. Certainly now, when the banks have machines that are making profitable trades so quick, the speed of fibre-optic network links are the limiting factor, and insider trading is so widespread,
      the individual is so disadvantaged, they can't hope to win, except by holding on to stocks an being lucky with them.

      Bitcoins, with their disappearing and hacked wallets and exchanges are an even worse idea. They are destined to be yet another way by which the gullible are fleeced. And that's started already.

    77. Re: As Frontalot says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Personally I only invested an amount I can afford to lose, and consider it a very risky investment with a potentially huge reward.

      Every Bitcoin true believer says that they invest in Bitcoin. Let's all use the proper terminology for what's going on, shall we? We are *speculating* in Bitcoin. It is not even a business and, as such, there is nothing productive being done by people who hold Bitcoins that creates value.

    78. Re:As Frontalot says by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Bitcoin is made of bits, ownership of a bitcoin is really based on a distributed network of people agreeing that the bitcoin belongs to you. As you should well know there is a fundamental difference between "bits" and "cars".

      FWIW, there is plenty of history in terms of law enforcement entities enforcing breaches of law in the electronic realm, both using traditional pre-digital laws such as fraud and wire fraud, copyright infringement, obscenity, etc, and post-digital digital-specific laws such as those against "computer misuse".

      In MtGox's case:

      - There is objective evidence (that is, this is what MtGox is claiming themselves) that post digital crimes such as those aimed at hackers are relevent.
      - There is at least some evidence that fraud is involved, both in terms of what Mt Gox is saying, and the possibility that Mt Gox are lying.

      In addition to the above, it's also quite possible that individual users can make civil cases against Mt Gox on the basis of breach of contract, and Mt Gox, in turn, can possibly have civil cases against the users they claim defrauded them on the same basis.

      These do open the gates for a full-on government law enforcement investigation. I'm guessing the Japanese authorities have jurisdiction.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    79. Re:As Frontalot says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You can't hide secrets from the future with maths." Since fools are not good in Maths, a fool and his money are soon parted. If you don't trust the banks and governments. Gave all your money to the hackers. When you don't have any money, you don't have to worry about losing it.

    80. Re:As Frontalot says by digsbo · · Score: 1
      Deflation isn't a problem. Only in your head, and the heads of the Keynesians. Investment becomes attractive in a deflationary environment when a risk-assessed 5% loan returns more than a 2% "sit on cash".

      In case you haven't noticed, in your central-bank engineered inflationary system we're in right now, banks are sitting on over $2trillion in excess reserves and the Fed is paying them interest NOT TO INVEST THE MONEY. Please google "FRB excess reserves", they publish that data openly.

    81. Re: As Frontalot says by tmosley · · Score: 2

      People never seem to remember what comes after the period of easy money.

      In the case of Lincoln's money printing, it was The Long Depression.

    82. Re:As Frontalot says by mrjimorg · · Score: 1

      Inflation is theft of value. Deflation is creation of wealth. If you like inflation so much I'd love for you to buy into my new "Coolcoins". They're backed up by gold, but I'll increase the number of coins per gold oz every day. You'll love all that inflation.

    83. Re: As Frontalot says by mrjimorg · · Score: 1

      Hmmm.... I wouldn't be willing to be paid in Mexican Pesos either, but they're a currency. Your test is bad. If/when bitcoins become more stable then I would consider getting paid in bitcoins. They're a bit more stable than I thought - I figured this MtGox thing would have reduced them to near worthless, but they only lost 50% of their value. Imagine if it were discovered that the Fed was hacked and 100 Trillion USD were dumped on the market. That would have caused huge issues in the value of dollars.

    84. Re:As Frontalot says by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Central bankers can't interfere in the marketplace when you have a limited currency like gold or bitcoin. This lessens the boom-bust cycle significantly. You get periods of rising and falling prices, but prices trend down over time, driven by proper capital investment. Central bankers print money and cause capital to be misallocated, for example into housing, causing prices to rise steadily over time, then fall all at once.

      Central banks don't stabilize prices, they just concentrate the natural inflation and deflation inherent in capital markets into certain time periods, resulting in long periods of prosperity, followed by collapse. The more they intervene, the worse the eventual collapse is. This is called "kicking the can down the road", though really it's more like a snowball being pushed up a hill, only to come down larger each time, making it harder to move back up the hill, until one day its so big nothing can stop it and you have Snowzilla rampaging through your cities rolling up first companies, then industries, then cities, then countries, then entire continents, as we are seeing now.

    85. Re:As Frontalot says by tmosley · · Score: 1

      "There are no markets in nature"

      GG, is that what you really think? The entire world is a market. Bees trade reproductive services for nectar with flowering plants. Ants farm lichen and smaller insects. Animals and plants trade gasses. Buzzards short dying animal flesh.

      And not just in nature. Ever hear of "black markets"? Yes, markets can and do exist without and even in spite of government interference.

      Sorry to shatter the pedestal you had your masters on.

    86. Re: As Frontalot says by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Would you be willing to be paid in pounds? Renmenbi? Kroner?

      No?

      Well, someone better call all the other countries in the world and tell them they need to start using some REAL MURIKAN CURRENCY.

      No, the test for whether something is a currency or not is whether people are willing to exchange goods and services with it. Bitcoin passes that test just fine.

    87. Re:As Frontalot says by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Too bad the banking system is owned by the Federal Reserve (or your local central bank), which also owns the government (ie they pay their bills with their printed money).

      Trusting that two members of a highly interdependent system is problematic. It's really just one big institution, and thus fully liable to systemic failure, as we saw in Cyrus.

    88. Re: As Frontalot says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the reasons you don't see dollars vary day to day is the same reason the future children of this country are slaves to a 17 trillion dollar dept with an additional 100-200 trillion in unfunded liabilities as soon as they are born. You cannot remove risk - you can only move it around. We've been sweeping risk under the carpet for far too long and are reaching the mathematical conclusion to that strategy (as did many empires before us). Competing currency (Bitcoin) is a check against out of control governments. Monopolistic monetary control is the power well on which governments feed. How popular would the war in Iraq have been is George W had said "Oh and we're going to pay for this one so each man, woman and child will get a bill for $100,000."

    89. Re:As Frontalot says by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Of COURSE you have a choice. When citizens of smaller governments didn't trust theirs, they held "hard" currencies, like Marks, Swiss Francs, or Dollars. As an American worried about their government, we have to go even harder than that, which is to buy and hold gold, which is the ultimate hard currency.

      When your government robs your people by inflation, purchasing power shifts to those who hold the hard currency. This has happened 100% of the time in the past. People in the US have forgotten the function of gold over the last 100 years. Their lack of understanding will lead to their poverty.

      I can say with 95% certainty that you will respond negatively to the idea of owning gold. The pro-Dollar propaganda of these last few generations has been very successful

    90. Re: As Frontalot says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes just as the car industry around the world came to crash when air planes were invented.

      Crypto currency is just one of the solutions to securing wealth on a scale able world basis. And mathematics and computer science teamed up and said fuck the government fuck politics we right the rules now, nerds win.

      Sorry you don't trust science.

      Why the fuck would would you want 100,000 in cash in a safe...... you can't fucking do shit with it. By the time you get it out and try to carry it around the canadian dollar will be trippple the US

    91. Re: As Frontalot says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would totally be paid in bitcoins. Whats does it matter?

      What if I worked for a cheese company and they paid me in pounds of cheese. I just take the cheese to the market and exchange it for the same value in cash.

      Bitcoin is the great invention of actually teaching people what the fuck money is.

    92. Re:As Frontalot says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are no markets in nature. They only exist when there is someone to enforce contracts and guard transactions.

      If that were true, then criminals couldn't trade. Nor could people in competing economies. Markets are natural. They may be messy and brutal and possible unfair in an unregulated environment, but they are absolutely natural.

      Ask the mob if they need Uncle Sam to enforce their contracts.

    93. Re: As Frontalot says by jxander · · Score: 0

      That's barter. The items being traded are both temporary and quickly exhausted.

      A market requires some fiat currency that has no value on its own. Only what we place on it. Trading goods and services is a lot different from trading slips of paper (linen) with some pictures drawn on them.

      --
      This signature is false.
    94. Re:As Frontalot says by rev0lt · · Score: 1

      Inflation is theft of value.

      If you want to go literal, maybe. Other way of looking at it is decreasing of percepted value. While high inflation is bad, some inflation is necessary for the economy to work. The internet is riddled with articles about this, but check eg. http://business.time.com/2011/...

      Deflation is creation of wealth

      Well, its not. Is the increase of perception of value caused (usually) by scarcity or hoarding of resources/currency. Eg. diamonds, while having no intrinsic value by themselves, are expensive because the diamond market works based on scarcity (google "diamond market fake scarcity" for a ton of articles about it, and other markets that work as that).
      Now imagine your day-to-day life based on scarcity - you are going to buy bread, and it costs X in absolute value, but tomorrow will be 10% more expensive. Now imagine you were borrowing from your bread provider - you pick the bread today, but will pay next week. Next week the real bread value will be much higher, and what you borrowed with absolute value X may have doubled in absolute value. No wealth there - in fact, you'll probably be paying twice as much in absolute value, plus the profit the bread provider expects to allow you to borrow.

    95. Re:As Frontalot says by rev0lt · · Score: 1

      Deflation isn't a problem. Only in your head, and the heads of the Keynesians.

      Deflation isn't always a problem. As inflation isn't a problem, then balance exists. And there is a whole world in my head.

      Investment becomes attractive in a deflationary environment when a risk-assessed 5% loan returns more than a 2% "sit on cash".

      So, no more buying houses on credit, then. And no more long-term renting on developing areas (because the rent will increase in real value according to the increase in real value of the property).

      In case you haven't noticed, in your central-bank engineered inflationary system we're in right now

      Not really, no. I'm a EU citizen, and I actually lived the effects of deflation the last couple of years. I've also lived the effects of some periods of excess inflation, so its not only ideology.

      banks are sitting on over $2trillion in excess reserves and the Fed is paying them interest NOT TO INVEST THE MONEY.

      As I said, I'm a EU citizen, and I don't follow up internal US economics (aside from the usual major announcements). I would say there are probably good reasons to do that (specially considering the country increase in debt the last years and the money emissions made), but I would also point out that - while US is a central pillar in the world economy, the US is not the world.

    96. Re:As Frontalot says by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Ask the mob if they need Uncle Sam to enforce their contracts.

      Ah, but they can enforce their own transactions.

      Can you?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    97. Re:As Frontalot says by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The other side of the coin is that the people (typically geek cyrptocurrency early adopters, NOT rich people) that sold those bitcoins that people bought between $1000 and $800 made a profit.

      Unless the bitcoins they bought were among the 750,000 that were stolen from Mt Gox.

      The big losers at this point are people who left their bitcoins in an exchange that then disappeared

      Yes, that would be a problem. So basically, keep your bitcoins in your mattress? I thought... well, never mind.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    98. Re:As Frontalot says by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      This is probably a red herring, Glass-Steagal wouldn't have stopped the crisis.

      No perhaps not, but it would have stopped the bleeding at a much more manageable level, like maybe before it had caused a global economic meltdown.

      But there's a very good chance that Glass-Steagal would have stopped the crisis from infecting commercial banks.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    99. Re:As Frontalot says by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I do mind being forced to pay for it. Paul Volcker had a plan to restructure the banking system to help prevent that, but Obama was already listening to Geithner for some reason. Oh well.

      The first and largest bank bailout occurred well before President Obama took office. The die was cast by then.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    100. Re:As Frontalot says by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      You owned??? how exactly did the housing bubble make you a renter unless you were either a part of the problem or the bank actually owned your house?

      OK, pay attention:

      You're living in a house that you can well afford, and are making your monthly mortgage payments. Now the housing market collapses and the value of your house drops by 60%, causing your debt/equity ratio to exceed the limits allowed by your lending institution. They call in your note. You don't have $100,000 laying around and no banks are willing to refinance your house because you are under water. You lose your home.

      The bank packages up a bunch of these (because the same thing happened to most of your neighbors) and sells them all to an investor, who now rents out your house

      You're not a leech, you're an innocent bystander. You can drive through entire subdivisions that were owner-occupied 7 years ago and are almost entirely rental properties today.

      This is one of the ways wealth was re-distributed upward to the 1% in the financial crisis. There are at least a half-dozen more.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    101. Re:As Frontalot says by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Ever hear of "black markets"?

      Black markets are even more highly regulated than the current government-regulated marketplace. Just try to cheat someone on the black market. On the other hand, many customers are cheated on the black market and have no legal recourse.

      The entire world is a market. Bees trade reproductive services for nectar with flowering plants. Ants farm lichen and smaller insects. Animals and plants trade gasses. Buzzards short dying animal flesh.

      You really don't know what a market is, do you? Not even a clue. Shame on you for using a term that you don't even remotely understand.

      I tried to find a definition of "market" that you were likely to understand. I had to drop down to about.com to find something sufficiently simple:

      Definition: A market is any place where the sellers of a particular good or service can meet with the buyers of that goods and service where there is a potential for a transaction to take place. The buyers must have something they can offer in exchange for there to be a potential transaction.

      "Market" is a very specific term in economics. A term of art, in fact.

      Sorry to shatter your undergrad notions.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    102. Re: As Frontalot says by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Well, they do push up the price of bitcoins so that miners can reap bigger rewards (same amount of bitcoins worth more money). This attracts more miners and makes the network more robust. Right? Who would buy a mining machine if it cost more than what it would yield?

    103. Re:As Frontalot says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The blindingly obvious answer is that banks will eventually support bitcoin. As long as they don't yet, we'll have to trust the less trustworthy to do the job of the trustworthy-but-glacial. Geez, it's just finances, not rocket science.

    104. Re: As Frontalot says by datavirtue · · Score: 0

      Yes it does contribute to the money supply. Pick up a fucking banking book you douche. It didn't directly increase M1, thank god. But it did increase the money supply. Loans can indeed be issued on the increased supply from quantitative easing. We got lucky in that it did not happen. There is a latent fear of inflation unless that supply is reduced. It is difficult to put the jeanie back in the bottle when you are printing money to buy from the market--which is what happened here.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    105. Re:As Frontalot says by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      The problem is, markets are a function of government. There are no markets in nature. They only exist when there is someone to enforce contracts and guard transactions.

      Complete bullshit. Markets are raw economics in action and economics is another word for nature. You should really consider having some books delivered to your mom's basement. What do people want? What are they willing to do to get it? ---economics

      Big dog standing over meat and bones that every other dog wants. Other dogs see big dog and make a decision to go for the meat or not based on the costs and benefits. The economics part lies in the decisions of the dogs who do not posses the meat they need.

      We as humans trade for the meat....that is a market.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    106. Re: As Frontalot says by VTBlue · · Score: 1

      Not sure what I said to be called a name. *geez*

      If you'll actually hear me out, I offer an explanation for why your statement is a contradiction.

      The QE that the Fed did during the crisis involved the purchase of mortgage-backed securities. If you look at the the policy of QE from an operational view i.e. the balance sheet, what you will see that is that the Fed and the bank are simply doing an ASSET-SWAP. In return for selling the Fed the MBS, the bank increases their Reserves. For there to be an increase in the money supply, the money has to enter the hands of the public, i.e. USD, money in a checking account.

      "Loans can indeed be issued on the increased supply from quantitative easing. We got lucky in that it did not happen."

      Loans CAN be issued, yes, and therefore money supply would increase, I agree, but as you rightfully stated, "it did not happen." Therefore, QE did not affect the money supply. You have to understand QE policy from a double-entry accounting concept to recognize that QE policy of purchasing MBS is not the same as printing money. Real "money printing" would be the government selling bonds to the primary market, the Fed's purchasing those bonds to issue reserves, and then taking those reserves and crediting household checking accounts with money. Even if they did that, that still is not sufficient to cause inflation much less hyper-inflation. Additionally, QE policy is not required today to facilitate retail bank loan issuances because the US banks do not operate on a fractional reserve currency system. This ended decades ago. Banks operate under the concept of "demand deposits." Loans create the deposits. Today a bank does not check to see how much "reserve" they have before they go out and issue a loan, its a demand deposit direct from the Fed.

      Watch the video link from 7:20 onwards until you get bored. If you have a remote interest in monetary policy and economics, you should know this. It's basic monetary operations that happens at every money desk an American bank.

      So all this said, QE is not "money-printing" in any economic sense.

    107. Re:As Frontalot says by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The first and largest bank bailout occurred well before President Obama took office. The die was cast by then.

      Obama pushed legislation that will encourage more bank bailouts by institutionalizing "too big to fail." That is the opposite of progress.

      I don't blame Obama for bailing out banks, I blame him for not pushing obvious fixes, and for listening to the wrong people once he got into office.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    108. Re: As Frontalot says by AudioEfex · · Score: 1

      By your definition, comic books are currency.

      Thus you have proven my point.

    109. Re: As Frontalot says by AudioEfex · · Score: 1

      No, both have been repeatedly used as examples of why we should trust BitCoin as a currency because "look what happened there!" I'm sure you are correct, completely different, which is precisely my point.

    110. Re:As Frontalot says by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Complete bullshit. Markets are raw economics in action and economics is another word for nature. You should really consider having some books delivered to your mom's basement. What do people want? What are they willing to do to get it? ---economics

      Big dog standing over meat and bones that every other dog wants. Other dogs see big dog and make a decision to go for the meat or not based on the costs and benefits. The economics part lies in the decisions of the dogs who do not posses the meat they need.

      We as humans trade for the meat....that is a market.

      I wish I could get everyone here on Slashdot to read this. It's important for them to get a good look at what passes for economic thought in some dim corners of the tech community.

      A couple of things can be determined with 99% confidence from your little ode to the "natural marketplace": You are white. You are young. And you have come from a privileged background. Maybe not rich, but I'm guessing you had a car by the time you finished your freshman year of college. And you believed you earned it.

      You believe that it's all "dog eat dog" because up until now, you have had an easy time of it. You believe your imagined superior intellect gives you such an edge that you are invulnerable.

      And you're wrong. If a day ever came where the kind of "natural market" you describe every really can about, you would have one very bad - and very short - day.

      When I say neo-libertarians are undergrad intellects with pulp fiction philosophies, it's because I've seen the likes of you march through my classrooms for nearly 25 years.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    111. Re: As Frontalot says by Icarium · · Score: 1

      You're missing my point. While a truly catastrophic event such as you describe would probably rapidly erode the value of the US dollar, such valatility is common to Bitcoin even lacking catastrophic events.

      If your company started paying you in Pesos (fixed at todays exchange rate), and then continued paying you in Pesos going forward you'd still be subjected to far less volatility than what you'd currently be exposed to with Bitcoin.

      Your main issue with being paid is Pesos is because they'd be a pain to exchange for goods and services in a country where they're not legal tender, not beause of any inherent instability in Pesos as a currency. Even most Mexicans would, at this point in time, refuse to have thier wages and salaries paid in Bitcoins.

    112. Re: As Frontalot says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your criticisms are valid for the moment but in my opinion premature. This is the first time that anyone in our generation has witnessed the birth of a new asset class of this kind.

      It takes time to build the kinda infrastructure that creates the assurances you're talking about, and progress towards that end has looked pretty steady to me since btc's inception.

      As this currency commodity hybrid becomes more well adopted, the resources will be made available to fill the demand that gets created for easy and secure storage of crypto.

      The fact that we're not there yet implies that there's still money to be made from this thing in speculation.

    113. Re:As Frontalot says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And believing in bitcoin would make this better?

      Did he even mention BitCoin? I mean, what does believing in BitCoin *hurt*, specifically if *I* believe in it and lose all my money, what is your loss? You appear to be motivated solely by ill intentions.

    114. Re:As Frontalot says by greg_barton · · Score: 1

      So a bunch of people believing they could get massive loans for overpriced houses didn't affect the wider economy back in 2008? They were just risking their own money, after all.

    115. Re:As Frontalot says by nomadic · · Score: 1

      I have never heard of any residential mortgage agreement having an acceleration clause tied to a change in debt/equity ratio. Do you have any citations for this? By the way, even if such a clause existed, it was something you contracted for, so it's not like it was completely out of the blue.

    116. Re: As Frontalot says by nomadic · · Score: 1

      "While nothing is 100% certain, I know I would feel a hell of a lot more secure with $100,000 in cash in a fireproof safe, or even at a bank, than I would with the same amount in BitCoins sitting in an exchange or even in "cold storage" that's based on untested (and obviously flawed) protocols and trust in a completely unregulated private company in another country (or even our own)."

      The vast majority of bitcoin conspiracy theorists feel the same, they just won't admit it.

    117. Re:As Frontalot says by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Try reporting the theft of one of your MMORPG characters' best sword and see how much attention the police pay you.

    118. Re:As Frontalot says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, bitcoin was published 2009, when the global financial crisis was a fact. Clearly whatever we had before did not work very well!

      MtGox failing is more like a bank robbery or a inside fraud job.
      A market exists whenever anyone wants to exchange anything for anything else. Contracts are not necessary, however some kind of ownership is.

      What this risks destroying is people's trust in centralized storage/trade for bitcoins. However whatever we had before bitcoin did not work well enough either.

    119. Re: As Frontalot says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if some people insist on having, say 10 or 25% of their payment in bitcoins, clearly their value will increase.

    120. Re:As Frontalot says by tmosley · · Score: 1

      I see, so none of the exchanges I discussed count as exchanges because, why exactly? Does it hurt your feelings?

      And no, black markets aren't highly regulated. They aren't regulated at all (by definition), save by market forces.

      Sorry, I know more about economics than you ever will.

    121. Re:As Frontalot says by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I see, so none of the exchanges I discussed count as exchanges because, why exactly?

      Because they are not exchanges. There is no agency.

      Do you believe the young sheep has a choice in the "exchange" of his meat for the lion's meal? Not every transaction is a market. Not all economies are markets.

      As I said, a "market" is a term of art. It has a specific meaning. Clearly, my use of about.com to try to clarify the meaning was too much for you, so maybe start with a dictionary.

      Sorry, I know more about economics than you ever will.

      Son, if you can't understand the most basic terms, how can you say you know anything at all? You have used the terms "economies", "markets", and "exchanges" interchangeably. Look back at your posts to see what I mean. They don't mean the same thing at all.

      I said, "there are no markets in nature" and you came back with, "That's bullshit," and went on to describe an economy. I explained that those terms are not the same, and you came back with "but exchanges...!"

      When you are able to understand the differences, then you can go on to learn something about economics. You are not there yet.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    122. Re:As Frontalot says by ale2011 · · Score: 1

      Oh, you misunderstand me. I think Bitcoin is a neo-libertarian utopian fantasy, based on the same thing all neo-libertarian philosophy relies, the "If only..."

      What Bitcoin managed to make clear is the need for "miners". They don't mine useful stuff (assuming gold is useful by itself) but do a completely useless activity, which is only needed as a proof of work to authorize the ownership of an abstract good. While that corresponds to what banks and other institutions do, the uselessness of their activity was never stated so clearly before.

      Getting food is useful, so long as it will eventually be eaten, whether the chimp who caught it ate it himself or exchanged it for sex. Bitcoin has the merit to illustrate how come that the largest slices are owned by the supervisors for doing nothing, and it does so down to the level of detail the implementation requires. Is that enough to understand the nature of money?

      Bitcoin is an undergrad economics project, writ large, and co-opted by criminals and the elite.

      Yes, that's what it has become in practice.

    123. Re:As Frontalot says by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      The other side of the coin is that the people (typically geek cyrptocurrency early adopters, NOT rich people) that sold those bitcoins that people bought between $1000 and $800 made a profit.

      And some people that buy lottery tickets win.

      There is risk around bitcoins yes, but if you buy smart and sell smart you can make a high rate of return that can justify the risk.

      The same lie by which most individuals trading on the stock market in the last couple of decades have lost money. Certainly now, when the banks have machines that are making profitable trades so quick, the speed of fibre-optic network links are the limiting factor, and insider trading is so widespread,
      the individual is so disadvantaged, they can't hope to win, except by holding on to stocks an being lucky with them.

      Bitcoins, with their disappearing and hacked wallets and exchanges are an even worse idea. They are destined to be yet another way by which the gullible are fleeced. And that's started already.

      Comparing the lottery and trading currency or stock is invalid. For every dollar (or whatever) of loss for one person there is a dollar (or whatever) of gain for someone else. The lottery everyone loses but the state. Not the same.

      Your outlook is way too negative. I trade about 10 bitcoins and I'm making good money by buying on bad news and selling on good. It doesn't take anything other than that.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    124. Re:As Frontalot says by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      The other side of the coin is that the people (typically geek cyrptocurrency early adopters, NOT rich people) that sold those bitcoins that people bought between $1000 and $800 made a profit.

      Unless the bitcoins they bought were among the 750,000 that were stolen from Mt Gox.

      The big losers at this point are people who left their bitcoins in an exchange that then disappeared

      Yes, that would be a problem. So basically, keep your bitcoins in your mattress? I thought... well, never mind.

      Sure - it's part of the risk of playing with a currency that is completely unregulated. Possibilities of huge profits vs. the risk of losing everything (assuming one wasn't smart enough or was too lazy to distribute the risk between multiple wallets/accounts/exchanges.

      I keep my bitcoins distributed between online and offline wallets, with a bit in the exchange I use. I transfer when I want to sell and then I transfer after I buy.

      The beauty of bitcoin is that while you have to trust no one, you can trust no one, minimize your risk and still have complete flexibility.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    125. Re:As Frontalot says by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      For every dollar (or whatever) of loss for one person there is a dollar (or whatever) of gain for someone else. The lottery everyone loses but the state. Not the same.

      The State is also part of the zero-sum game. And you're assuming that Bitcoin is tax free. There's still some uncertainty about which taxes Bitcoin qualifies for. But if Bitcoin ever became a significant currency, you can be sure it would be taxed just as much as the native currency.

      Tax evasion might be easer with Bitcoin, but then that's just saving money by being a criminal.

      I trade about 10 bitcoins and I'm making good money by buying on bad news and selling on good. It doesn't take anything other than that.

      Which is exactly the thing people were saying in every rising stock market. It takes experiencing a crash or two before they realise it's a mirage.

    126. Re:As Frontalot says by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      For every dollar (or whatever) of loss for one person there is a dollar (or whatever) of gain for someone else. The lottery everyone loses but the state. Not the same.

      The State is also part of the zero-sum game. And you're assuming that Bitcoin is tax free. There's still some uncertainty about which taxes Bitcoin qualifies for. But if Bitcoin ever became a significant currency, you can be sure it would be taxed just as much as the native currency.

      Tax evasion might be easer with Bitcoin, but then that's just saving money by being a criminal.

      I trade about 10 bitcoins and I'm making good money by buying on bad news and selling on good. It doesn't take anything other than that.

      Which is exactly the thing people were saying in every rising stock market. It takes experiencing a crash or two before they realise it's a mirage.

      I am not assuming it's tax free. Nothing is tax free. Even if it's not a currency and is considered an asset there would be capital gains....or a capital loss - again you have to look at both sides of this.

      Now, with regard to legality, criminality and tax avoidance I ask you to consider if the average taxpayer who fails to report the odd bit of income is more or less immoral than the corporations who shift billions in revenue to tax havens to avoid paying anything. Completely legal, but arguably just as wrong.

      I've come through the bitcoin crashes to date and I'm still saying it. Everything since the gold standard went away is a mirage. That dollar (or whatever) in your pocket is a mirage. Value is relative based on perception and bitcoin is as valuable as people think it is, the same as with anything else.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    127. Re:As Frontalot says by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Now, with regard to legality, criminality and tax avoidance I ask you to consider if the average taxpayer who fails to report the odd bit of income is more or less immoral than the corporations who shift billions in revenue to tax havens to avoid paying anything. Completely legal, but arguably just as wrong.

      I agree. I'm just saying we should discuss bitcoin based on it's legal pros and cons. Because there are no hard facts when it comes to criminality.

      I've come through the bitcoin crashes to date and I'm still saying it.

      And you will keep saying it until you come to a point of revelation, that you've been playing in the market for years and you've ended up not making any money. Bitcoin is still very young. 5 years since it fist started being used by a few enthusiasts. Maybe a year since it got any significant interest.

      Everything since the gold standard went away is a mirage.

      The gold standard gives you nothing. If you look at the price of gold, it's more volatile than the major fiat currencies.

      That dollar (or whatever) in your pocket is a mirage.

      The US Dollar is older than the consitution. Virtually as old as US independence. My currency, the Pound Sterling has been in use for about 1600 years. They are a lot more solid than you imagine.

      Value is relative based on perception and bitcoin is as valuable as people think it is, the same as with anything else.

      Most people think bitcoin is worthless. Apparently only a few hundred people own 50% of all bitcoins. It's dream kept aloft through the hopes of a few libertarians.

      And it's dangerous for anyone that doesn't understand it. Anyone who doesn't understand the need for extreme security measures is likely to lose their money at any time. A loss that is irreversible. And given that it's too complicated for most normal people to ever understand, it's never going to catch on as a general currency. Heck, it appears that even the banking and trading equivalents such as Mt Gox don't understand the need for extreme security.

      I honestly hope you manage to get out before you lose what you have. And I do hope you never have the majority of your savings in it.

    128. Re:As Frontalot says by shentino · · Score: 1

      Right, the same law that gets exchanges shut down and their assets seized for money laundering.

  2. Kinda implies by Enry · · Score: 5, Insightful

    that I ever trusted Bitcoin in the first place. I didn't.

    1. Re:Kinda implies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same here.

    2. Re:Kinda implies by alexhs · · Score: 2

      Kinda implies that I ever trusted Bitcoin in the first place. I didn't.

      Exactly, that's why the answer to the question is mu.

      --
      I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
    3. Re:Kinda implies by lgw · · Score: 1

      I trust Bitcoin to hold some value as much as I trust Magic the Gathering cards to (poor MtGoX). Which is to say: more than 0. As long as people are interested, they'll have value, and neither was a passing fad. But I do expect the value to drop a bunch, to where mining may no longer be practical only for new bitcoins. How will bitcoin do when transaction fees become a real thing (if still small)?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:Kinda implies by goombah99 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What I dislike about bitcoin is that if someone steals your money, you can't get it back even if you catch them. They have the password. Magic The Gathering Online eXchange, was a stupid place to entrust your passwords.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    5. Re:Kinda implies by Enry · · Score: 0

      The Magic part should have been a tell to most people.

    6. Re:Kinda implies by x0ra · · Score: 1

      I've got her consent when I do.

    7. Re:Kinda implies by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 0

      You can't get your money back from a person who steals your money and buries it at an undisclosed location either. Maybe you can get your money back in some other way (like through liquidation of assets, or wage garnishment), but then you could do that with bitcoin as well.

      I much prefer a system where others can't take my money without my approval, over one where I am somewhat protected if a give my money to a crook by mistake.

      It's not that I wouldn't like to be able to get my money back. It's that when you have this mechanism, you open the door to abuse. Governments can freeze the money in your bank account. They can take your car or house away if it was used to sell drugs (which are illegal but not immoral).

      Every way to store/transact money carries risks. I accept the risk that people may break promises if I give them money. I prefer this risk to allowing the government authority to take my money through cooperation of my bank if they feel justified. If the government were a better arbiter of fairness, I might be convinced, but there are just as many crooks in the government as out on the streets.

    8. Re:Kinda implies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      they can't spend the money if they bury it so it's effectively lost to them. But someone who has take your bit coins can still spend them even from inside a prison.

    9. Re:Kinda implies by VikingNation · · Score: 0

      Regardless of how you feel about drugs the law is very clear on the ramifications for those who participate in illegal drug trade. The government cannot take your money, house, etc. without going through legal channels. If the government tries to seize your assets unlawfully you have a venue through the legal system to protest. A bank can't seize your assets "just because they feel like it." If a hacker 1) gets on your computer, 2) installs a key logger, and 3) steals your Bitcoins you have no legal recourse.

    10. Re:Kinda implies by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      A least you can use Magic the Gathering cards to wipe your bottom. Bitcoins can't even be used for that man.

    11. Re:Kinda implies by cheesybagel · · Score: 1, Informative
    12. Re: Kinda implies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Weimar Republic bank notes have value! Check ebay...

    13. Re:Kinda implies by Zomalaja · · Score: 1

      precisely.

    14. Re:Kinda implies by kenwd0elq · · Score: 1

      "You can't get your money back from a person who steals your money and buries it at an undisclosed location either."

      SURE you can. It just takes 109 years.....

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

    15. Re: Kinda implies by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      But Notgeld are much more interesting to collect. Many German cities issued it.

    16. Re:Kinda implies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Next hard hitting question on Slashdot, do you still trust Nixon?

    17. Re:Kinda implies by giorgist · · Score: 1

      So the question does not apply to you. If somebody asked you, do you still trust medicine "a" over medicine "b" for a particular condition. If you are not a doctor, please don't answer.

    18. Re:Kinda implies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      print it to paper & use it...there, yes it a 'bitcoin' can be used to wipe your ass...good luck with that.

    19. Re:Kinda implies by pantaril · · Score: 1

      that I ever trusted Bitcoin in the first place. I didn't.

      I wonder what's there to trust? Bitcoin is not religion, it's open protocol with open-source implementation. It's like asking if i trust math.

    20. Re:Kinda implies by Enry · · Score: 1

      How about asking doctors if they still trust Vioxx? Some of them knew there were problems before its release.

    21. Re:Kinda implies by Enry · · Score: 1

      It is religion (or at least faith). People believe without proof that it has value.

      Is Bitcoin open? Sure. That doesn't automatically mean it has intrinsic value. I can't trade the source code for the Linux kernel to a Microsoft developer - it has no value to them.

    22. Re: Kinda implies by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      LOL, its funny they have gone up in value as a souvenir.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    23. Re:Kinda implies by Daetrin · · Score: 1

      Slashdot would also like to know if you've stopped beating your wife.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    24. Re: Kinda implies by lgw · · Score: 1

      Nice - Notgeld is pretty cool. I guess most were actually printed for collectors, and so were made to be interesting.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    25. Re:Kinda implies by Enry · · Score: 1

      Only if she uses the safeword.

    26. Re:Kinda implies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I dislike about bitcoin is that if someone steals your money, you can't get it back even if you catch them. They have the password. Magic The Gathering Online eXchange, was a stupid place to entrust your passwords.

      The fact that this is labeled insightful is quite clear proof that virtually everyone on slashdot, even the famed and often applauded low digit crowd, is completely and utterly talking out of their colon. I'm not even going to try explaining anymore. After some 8 years of AC posting, and 7 more of AC annoyance, I'm outta here.

      On a more personal note, Goombah and everyone who backed this, you're all trolls-by-stupidity, which is the only thing more despicable than a troll or a tard. You don't actually have to like something to at least have a little fcking grasp of how the things you are discussing work.

    27. Re:Kinda implies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, i haven't seen that cartoon 1000 fucking times

  3. Interesting by The+Cat · · Score: 1

    How Bitcoin starts gaining a bit of traction and then goes straight to hell in a week.

    1. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You believe Lucifer was involved as well? I'm glad I'm not alone in thinking this.

    2. Re:Interesting by un1nsp1red · · Score: 2

      How did it go to hell? It looks like the market price barely had a blip. And that's *despite* Forbes and others declaring it dead.

    3. Re:Interesting by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 2

      Bitcoin has been gaining traction for a long time. Did you notice the run from $5 to $1200?

    4. Re:Interesting by geekmux · · Score: 1

      You believe Lucifer was involved as well? I'm glad I'm not alone in thinking this.

      Of course. How else do you think he got down 666 layers in the Abyss?

      He's got one hell of a mining machine.

    5. Re:Interesting by Mitchell314 · · Score: 1

      Or a diamond pickaxe.

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    6. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you mean, "How did it have any traction?"

    7. Re:Interesting by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      I would rather save my earnings in the form of tulip bulbs.

    8. Re:Interesting by Dagger2 · · Score: 1

      I'd rather save my earnings in dollars.

      When I'm spending it though, I'll use whatever's convenient to get the money to the person I'm paying. That's where Bitcoin can come in handy.

    9. Re:Interesting by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      I'd rather save my earnings in dollars.

      When I'm spending it though, I'll use whatever's convenient to get the money to the person I'm paying. That's where Bitcoin can come in handy.

      That is the funniest thing I've read all week.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    10. Re:Interesting by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      Sometimes the media reports what it "wants ppl to think"

      I think "operation mockingbird" or a derivative of it is still in effect.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    11. Re:Interesting by Dagger2 · · Score: 1

      What, you'd rather use a worse method? That makes no sense to me.

    12. Re:Interesting by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      What, you'd rather use a worse method?

      No, I'd rather use something that is actually... well, you know, convenient.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    13. Re:Interesting by Dagger2 · · Score: 1

      As would we all. And as I say, that can be Bitcoin.

      At the very least, it may be the most convenient option available, even if you wouldn't describe it as convenient.

  4. Never Did Trust it by icebike · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Its a passtime, and a toy. I never did have any trust in it. It seemed ripe for running afoul of governments sooner or later.

    The idea of wasting perfectly good electricity creating something of value out of nothing at all never head any of my interest, even when I did manage to buy a book with bitcoin once. (I earned the bitcoin by selling a piece of software that I wrote, so easy come, easy go).

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    1. Re:Never Did Trust it by roc97007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > The idea of wasting perfectly good electricity creating something of value out of nothing at all [...]

      Don't let De Beers hear you talking like that.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    2. Re:Never Did Trust it by ewibble · · Score: 3, Insightful

      sort of like the government printing "real" money. except you are also wasting paper, and ink.

    3. Re:Never Did Trust it by zieroh · · Score: 1

      The idea of wasting perfectly good electricity creating something of value out of nothing at all never head any of my interest

      Most products you consume -- things of value that were created out of nothing -- use electricity to do so.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    4. Re:Never Did Trust it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except the "real" money is backed by the full faith and credit of the government. Many governments aren't very trustworthy, but the US has been generally acceptable in that regard (there's a reason people stuck in bad economies want dollars, and it's not because they like how they look.) Unless you want to carry around your goods and barter for everything, you have to trust somebody to be the middleman.

    5. Re:Never Did Trust it by icebike · · Score: 4, Funny

      Most things I consume were created out of water and sunlight.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    6. Re:Never Did Trust it by icebike · · Score: 1

      Yes, but don't jump to the conclusion that I trust government money all that much.
      I've been hurt by government money. At least Bitcoin hasn't injured me financially. It was an enjoyable toy for me.
      But trust really wasn't involved.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    7. Re:Never Did Trust it by VikingNation · · Score: 1

      I have read that something like 25% of Bitcoins are being held by Bitcoin miners. Has anyone done the long term analysis to compare the fees of traditional currency exchanges verses Bitcoin?

    8. Re: Never Did Trust it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Paper currency is a small fraction of the money supply. The Fed simply presses a button on a computer to create money.

    9. Re:Never Did Trust it by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      The idea of wasting perfectly good electricity creating something of value out of nothing at all never head any of my interest,

      Bitcoin will go about how you would expect a neo-libertarian utopian idea to go. Some people will get rich, a lot more will get burned, and most everyone will be left scratching their heads.

      And one guy will be hiding in Tokyo, saying, "The check is in the mail."

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    10. Re:Never Did Trust it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, how sweet would it be to buy a price-inflated "natural" diamond with my Ron Paul Funny Money? I'd be turning my valuable dollars into something of questionable value, then exchanging that for something else of questionable value, and then exchanging that for a blowjob!

    11. Re:Never Did Trust it by zieroh · · Score: 1

      Ever watch a streamed movie?

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    12. Re:Never Did Trust it by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Ever consider what the word "consume" actually means and how that's been twisted by the marketing types to imply that your experience of something implies that you've somehow, magickally used it up?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    13. Re:Never Did Trust it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one has done such analysis. I'm sorry.

      I don't know if it is too much to ask, but would it be possible for you to conduct such analysis in the near future? You seem like a rather smart guy and it would be quite interesting read.

    14. Re: Never Did Trust it by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      Correct only % of currency in the US exists in physical form, the rest are "bits" in computers.

      Much like .... bit coin...

      Good thing no one is tampering with the bit dollars....

      http://seekingalpha.com/articl...

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    15. Re: Never Did Trust it by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      3 percent...

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    16. Re:Never Did Trust it by mrjimorg · · Score: 1

      What the heck does that mean "It's backed by the full faith and credit of the government"? Can I take my money, go to Washington and demand to exchange these dollars for some of the computers that the NSA uses to spy on us? Or for an acre of government land? For a little piece of a national monument? No! They won't even give you gold for it (they did up to about 100 years ago). That "full faith and credit" is just a chant that people say to try to shut down thought and reasoning. The only way that they back up dollars is by prosecuting people who counterfeit dollars, yet the problem is that the harm done by counterfeiting is the same as "Quantitative Easing" which they freely admit to doing.
      The truth is that what backs up the USD is Apple who offers iPads for $xyz American dollars, Oil companies that offer barrels of oil at $abc American dollars, restaurants and grocery stores that offer products for American dollars. Its the private sector - the people of the US that give value to the US dollar. But the only thing the government does it print more of them which decreases it's value.

    17. Re:Never Did Trust it by mrjimorg · · Score: 1

      Yes, I have considered the word consume and yes we are using it up when we consume it. It's not magical and it doesn't have to do with experience it. I consume food- changing it's value to virtually 0. When I consume a steamed movie it has a value to me, but that value is gone after I stop watching it. I consume the paint on the walls of my home because every day that paint becomes less valuable because it gets nicked, it fades and because it ----- here is the key ----- is perceived as less valuable as it gets older. Consume = Turning higher value into lesser value for your purposes.

    18. Re:Never Did Trust it by zieroh · · Score: 1

      Ever consider what the word "consume" actually means and how that's been twisted by the marketing types to imply that your experience of something implies that you've somehow, magickally used it up?

      Ever consider not being a fucking pedant 24/7?

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
  5. Objection! by carou · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I never trusted Bitcoin.

  6. The digital tulip wilts by gatkinso · · Score: 1

    Only to grow anew in the spring.... ...mark my words.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    1. Re:The digital tulip wilts by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      Sorry, Germany opted for the Euro.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    2. Re:The digital tulip wilts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you meant Dutch, who did the same thing.

    3. Re:The digital tulip wilts by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      Deutschmark reference. Or am I just too old?

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    4. Re:The digital tulip wilts by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      For now they are in the Euro bandwagon, but as the full scope and depth
      of what is being done unravels, the Euro will likely fall apart.

      There are ppl wanting out now, and its more then one nation at this point.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    5. Re:The digital tulip wilts by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      How is it that giving excessive power to unaccountable jackwagons goes sideways so much of the time?

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    6. Re:The digital tulip wilts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The tulip bubble was in the Netherlands, not Germany

    7. Re:The digital tulip wilts by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      Right, but the Mark was a German currency--"mark my words"

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  7. i trust nothing by FudRucker · · Score: 1

    i would rather see platinum, gold, palladium and silver made in to coins and used as currency, at least the government can not counterfeit it like they do with the USD (QE infinity)

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:i trust nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      so... you trust gold?

    2. Re:i trust nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He does and I do too

    3. Re:i trust nothing by geekmux · · Score: 2

      so... you trust gold?

      Yes, and quite frankly, that was the last time we actually had any real stability behind the USD, when we actually had a gold standard to tie it to.

      Now, all we do is back our USD with arrogance and violence. And the gold was gone long ago.

    4. Re:i trust nothing by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      How are you supposed to buy things from online stores with gold? File off some shavings into an envelope and mail order stuff from online? Are we really going to all carry gold and silver coins in our pockets when we go shopping?

      Gold isn't really useful as a currency if it is just sitting in a vault.

    5. Re:i trust nothing by E++99 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There is far more stability in USD now than when it was tied to gold. How soon people forget.

    6. Re:i trust nothing by FudRucker · · Score: 1

      i rather buy from brick & mortar stores, too many times i would buy something from amazon and regretted it because it was too small, too big, too cheaply made, i want to see the product in person before deciding to buy it, shopping online mostly sucks!!!

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    7. Re:i trust nothing by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      so if I am arrogant and violent I get more gold? how come you didn't tell me that before, you jerk!

    8. Re:i trust nothing by noh8rz10 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I lost my car now I do almost all my shopping except for groceries on amazon prime. saves a lot of money and here's how:

      first, the prices are good. second, there's no casual / impulse purchases. So I need a dishrack? I buy a dishrack. I don't go to bed bath beyond to get a dishrack, then also pick up a paper towel holder, potholder, popcorn maker. that is money in the bank my friend! and I mean a real bank not the fake bitcoin bank.

      While we're talking about bitcoins, let me give you an analogy that is how I think of these things. when I was a kid i wouldu buy and sell girlscout cookies. buy, sell, buy, sell. they only come out like twice a year. so when they came out I would buy plenty and stock up. as plenty as i could because my money was liminted. sometimes i would pinch a little from my moms purse to get a few extra boxes.

      then i would wait a month or so when they were no longer avaialable, and resell them but at a higher price. see, when they're available then you can buy the same price anywhere so why pay more? but when they're unavaialbe you have to take the asking price or take a poop on the sidewalk.

      as i learned more about people's preferences, i started to modulate my prices with the size of my inventory, so i wouldn't get stuck with bad product. cuz they go bad, see? so I had to be careful to juggle product. sometimes when I had old stuff I would go into different neightbordhoods to burn to old coocies off, because i would never see those people again.

      so i was earning like 40-60% markup on average, sometimes 100% markup. what did I do with the money? I didn't have a bank account. so I took the money down to the comics shop where they weree buying and selling beenie babies. i would buy the safest investments possible, you know just the regular bear nothing fancy. cuz i knew when I made it home I could take them back to cash them in later.

      so what happens? I end up with a room full of beenie babies. which is kind of wierd, right? so my sister comes in, and starts tearing the tags off. which I'm like NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! because that destroys the value, right? so now I have to make a new plan.

      i went back to the comics shop, only this time instead of going in the day, I went at night. once there I took all my beenie babies and placed them in a jar outside. coming back the next day, I found that they were gone. plan foiled! went back the following week, but the store had closed. a week later, the bottom fell out of the beenie babie market. now I'm seriously out of money.

      long story short, you gotta be careful when entrusting your money to a non-cash instrument.

    9. Re:i trust nothing by weave · · Score: 2

      Gold hasn't been so hot for the past two years from looking at the chart, where stock market has. Gold is a gamble like any other investment. The value of my dollars may slowly degrade over time, but it's unlikely to lose a quarter of its value over night.

    10. Re:i trust nothing by sexconker · · Score: 1

      How are you supposed to buy things from online stores with gold? File off some shavings into an envelope and mail order stuff from online? Are we really going to all carry gold and silver coins in our pockets when we go shopping?

      Gold isn't really useful as a currency if it is just sitting in a vault.

      You don't have to transfer actual gold, you can transfer a note backed by a bank or government that guarantees a fixed amount of gold. Such a note can be exchanged physically, or electronically if it's held by a reputable 3rd party (such as a bank or a government) under an account in one's name.
      OH WAIT I JUST DESCRIBED UNITED STATES DOLLARS ON THE GOLD STANDARD

    11. Re:i trust nothing by zieroh · · Score: 1

      This is an oft-heard sentiment that is extremely naive to the point of outright stupidity. The use of gold (and silver, and other precious metals) as currency is fraught with difficulty. It turns out that money is a *lot* more complex than most people really fathom. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

      We in the US stopped using gold as currency -- and then removed the US dollar from the gold standard -- because having gold and the dollar be linked causes more problems than it really solves. And as of today, there are zero nations with a gold-based currency.

      Holding gold as an investment is one thing. Using it as a currency is pretty much impossible today.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    12. Re:i trust nothing by zieroh · · Score: 2

      There is far more stability in USD now than when it was tied to gold. How soon people forget.

      More likely, geekmux wasn't even born yet, or cognizant of the issues surrounding the removal of USD from the gold standard.

      And a poor student of history as well.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    13. Re:i trust nothing by Mitchell314 · · Score: 1

      And look where that got us: getting our arse kicked by the damn Canadians!

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    14. Re:i trust nothing by sexconker · · Score: 1

      then i would wait a month or so when they were no longer avaialable, and resell them but at a higher price. see, when they're available then you can buy the same price anywhere so why pay more? but when they're unavaialbe you have to take the asking price or take a poop on the sidewalk.

      Can't I do both?

    15. Re:i trust nothing by FudRucker · · Score: 1

      with the USD PetroDollar being a world standard reserve that means the same thing except instead of gold it is petroleum oil

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    16. Re:i trust nothing by stoploss · · Score: 2

      then i would wait a month or so when they were no longer avaialable, and resell them but at a higher price. see, when they're available then you can buy the same price anywhere so why pay more? but when they're unavaialbe you have to take the asking price or take a poop on the sidewalk.

      Can't I do both?

      He didn't say you had to take the asking price xor take a poop on the sidewalk. Common misunderstanding... go right ahead.

    17. Re:i trust nothing by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      the price of gold has dropped in the last 12 months from $1750/oz to $1300.
      In the last decade its gone from $400 to a peak of $1850.

      It's less stable that USD.

      The price steadily went up after the initial spike after the 2008 crisis and now its dropping back down at a faster rate now the economy is stabilising.

    18. Re:i trust nothing by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't transferring some bitcoins from your phone be more convenient than bringing a selection of gold and silver coins whenever you plan to buy something?

    19. Re:i trust nothing by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      What is the advantage of doing this over bitcoin? Sure the price of bitcoin is highly volatile. The price of gold is highly volatile as well. If you tie the dollar to gold, the dollar becomes volatile as well.

      The nice thing about bitcoin is that you skip the government middle man. You don't need to trust the government not to print more money than what it represents in gold reserves. You don't need to trust banks not to steal your money. You only have to trust that you can keep a secret password a secret. But then again you had to do that with online banking as well anyway.

    20. Re: i trust nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why trust an element whose supply was arbitrarily determined, and concentrated by geological processes that are largely due to chance?

      American Indians lived in the west for millenia without depleting the natural resources in their environment. Then anglos started killing them, because of the barbarous metal. Indians didn't need it to be happy.

    21. Re:i trust nothing by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      This is great, until they find a field of gold nodules the size of New Jersey on the floor of the pacific or some shit.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    22. Re: i trust nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      During regular panics, elasticity was needed. For example, farmers needed money to get their product to market and so made big withdrawals in the fall, and that was like a run and the banks took money out of stocks and the stock market fell and there was a panic. So the private banking system evolved a system of credit with clearing house certificates that were like money but not redeemable for gold. J. P. Morgan ended the Panic of 1907 using such an elasticity-creating ploy. Then the country decided, with the private sector's approval, that it was better for the govt to expand the money supply, rather than rely on Morgan who could choose to help only his friends. So the Fed was created. But the Fed was too conservative at first, and didn't expand the money supply enough during the Great Recession. Anyway the point is a gold standard was hindering economic growth.

    23. Re:i trust nothing by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The gold standard sucks for a variety of reasons, but mostly because it encourages sitting on wealth and stopping others from getting it.
      It's toxic to growing economies or if you want a society more egalitarian than feudal.
      If you're not a merchant prince of Venice in 1200 or a clueless and lazy trust fund baby now the idea of a gold standard looks pretty stupid after not a lot of thought.

    24. Re:i trust nothing by zieroh · · Score: 1

      with the USD PetroDollar being a world standard reserve that means the same thing except instead of gold it is petroleum oil

      Your statement would be meaningful, if only it were true. Or meaningful. It is neither. It would be necessary for the cost of a barrel of oil to be fixed to a static USD rate for your statement to be true. Since the price of oil clearly fluctuates on a regular basis, you're basically spouting a bunch of shit.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    25. Re:i trust nothing by vux984 · · Score: 0

      the price of gold has dropped in the last 12 months from $1750/oz to $1300.
      In the last decade its gone from $400 to a peak of $1850.

      It's less stable that USD.

      Since the prices you mentioned are IN us dollars, one could just as easily infer the instability you are observing is that OF the US dollar.

      After all if the USD dollar halves the price of gold in us dollars doubles. That's not instability in the value of gold, that's instability in the usd you are measuring.

    26. Re:i trust nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you actually have a *reason* to continue posting to this site?

      Did you ever?

    27. Re:i trust nothing by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      And there is nothing stopping the government from issuing gold dollars, or you from acquiring them.

      I know this because I have a gold dollar. Interesting because the face value is currently ~1/1300th of the value of the metal.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    28. Re:i trust nothing by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      what did I do with the money? I didn't have a bank account. so I took the money down to the comics shop where they weree buying and selling beenie babies. i would buy the safest investments possible, you know just the regular bear nothing fancy. cuz i knew when I made it home I could take them back to cash them in later. so what happens? I end up with a room full of beenie babies. which is kind of wierd, right? so my sister comes in, and starts tearing the tags off. which I'm like NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! because that destroys the value, right? so now I have to make a new plan. i went back to the comics shop, only this time instead of going in the day, I went at night. once there I took all my beenie babies and placed them in a jar outside. coming back the next day, I found that they were gone. plan foiled! went back the following week, but the store had closed. a week later, the bottom fell out of the beenie babie market. now I'm seriously out of money.

      lol I have no idea what to think about this, but it's definitely entertaining.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    29. Re:i trust nothing by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Yes, USD has gone down then up again, but not by 450%.

      The price of gold shot up because people got nervous about their investments and cashed out to buy gold. That drove the price up quickly and turned it in to a quick profit investment.

      Once it flattened out a few years ago, it didn't take long for it to drop off even quicker. All the chumps who bought gold back then have lost a fair amount of money now.

    30. Re:i trust nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I lost my car now I do almost all my shopping except for groceries on amazon prime. saves a lot of money and here's how:

      first, the prices are good. second, there's no casual / impulse purchases. So I need a dishrack? I buy a dishrack. I don't go to bed bath beyond to get a dishrack, then also pick up a paper towel holder, potholder, popcorn maker. that is money in the bank my friend! and I mean a real bank not the fake bitcoin bank.

      While we're talking about bitcoins, let me give you an analogy that is how I think of these things. when I was a kid i wouldu buy and sell girlscout cookies. buy, sell, buy, sell. they only come out like twice a year. so when they came out I would buy plenty and stock up. as plenty as i could because my money was liminted. sometimes i would pinch a little from my moms purse to get a few extra boxes.

      then i would wait a month or so when they were no longer avaialable, and resell them but at a higher price. see, when they're available then you can buy the same price anywhere so why pay more? but when they're unavaialbe you have to take the asking price or take a poop on the sidewalk.

      as i learned more about people's preferences, i started to modulate my prices with the size of my inventory, so i wouldn't get stuck with bad product. cuz they go bad, see? so I had to be careful to juggle product. sometimes when I had old stuff I would go into different neightbordhoods to burn to old coocies off, because i would never see those people again.

      so i was earning like 40-60% markup on average, sometimes 100% markup. what did I do with the money? I didn't have a bank account. so I took the money down to the comics shop where they weree buying and selling beenie babies. i would buy the safest investments possible, you know just the regular bear nothing fancy. cuz i knew when I made it home I could take them back to cash them in later.

      so what happens? I end up with a room full of beenie babies. which is kind of wierd, right? so my sister comes in, and starts tearing the tags off. which I'm like NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! because that destroys the value, right? so now I have to make a new plan.

      i went back to the comics shop, only this time instead of going in the day, I went at night. once there I took all my beenie babies and placed them in a jar outside. coming back the next day, I found that they were gone. plan foiled! went back the following week, but the store had closed. a week later, the bottom fell out of the beenie babie market. now I'm seriously out of money.

      long story short, you gotta be careful when entrusting your money to a non-cash instrument.

      Mod parent down. 100% made up and plagiarized from freakanomics.

    31. Re:i trust nothing by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Yes, USD has gone down then up again, but not by 450%.

      Yeah the price spiked due stock market panic.That's because the gold market is too small and couldn't effectively absorb the entire us economy without itself being distorted.

      Take the most stable country in the world, I don't know, like Canada or some of the Nordic countries that weathered that particular storm fairly well. Stable economies with sane banking regulations, whatever.

      If a massive sell off from the US stock market was channeled as panic buys into those economies, that's going to create a big buble on the chart, not because they are unstable or anything, just that nothing but an economy 100s of times the size of the USAs could absorb that much without being distorted.

      And gold is a smaller market, so the distortion was pretty great. However the money fled there because despite the distortion the currency itself is believed safe; and reliable enough to survive and hold value even if the us economy collapsed.

      Yes, people lost money buying gold at the peak of the distortion. But they were buying insurance (and at the peak, very overpriced insurance)... but still thinking (rightfully) that no matter WHAT happened, they would still have something of value coming out the other end, at a time when the possibility of the US economy collapsing like it was a badly run 3rd world country instead of the strongest economy in the world was now widely beleived (rightfully or wrongfully) as merely "improbable" instead of "utter ridiculous nonsense".

    32. Re:i trust nothing by pantaril · · Score: 1

      i would rather see platinum, gold, palladium and silver made in to coins and used as currency, at least the government can not counterfeit it like they do with the USD (QE infinity)

      The government also can't counterfeit or print bitcoin, that is one if its main purpose. It's advantage over metal coins is obvious: it can be sent anywhere in the world via internet.

    33. Re:i trust nothing by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Gold is strongly anti-cyclical, which means that when the economy is warming up people sell off gold to invest, when it's cooling down people sell off their investments and buy gold. It's not so much that gold itself changes but the money pumped in and out of gold causes rather large fluctuations. Particularly it was at an artifical high after the 2008 financial crisis and didn't really drop until the last two years.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    34. Re:i trust nothing by weave · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and that makes sense. And that can be leveraged by smarter folk. Problem is, there's a lot of folk who buy into the world is ending tomorrow, buy gold now, constantly -- especially those who hate the current President. They are preyed upon by companies who sell gold. My point is, it's not always a safe investment, it's an asset for a larger portfolio that one has to be smart about, like any other asset in a portfolio.

      Unfortunately many people aren't. :(

    35. Re:i trust nothing by Flammon · · Score: 1

      It's the opposite. You gotta be careful when entrusting your money to a cash instrument. I would much rather own an object that many people want than cash. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...

    36. Re:i trust nothing by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Whether you're talking about bits on a wire, cotton-based paper with green ink, or shiny rocks; all currencies suffer from the same issue - you can make more. Saying that one is better than the other is ridiculous.

      Yes, there's a finite amount of gold out there, but we've been mining it for hundreds of years and we haven't stopped finding it yet. Tying a national currency (and one that is used as a reserve currency for every single government on the planet) to a shiny rock is just asking for some large country that has a vested interest in seeing the dollar collapse to flood the market with that shiny rock.

      Then what happens to your gold standard? What happens if science perfects nuclear alchemy and manages to subtract a bit of atomic weight from lead and turn it into gold?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    37. Re:i trust nothing by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      I trust the value of physical assets, not just "shiny rocks".

      I trust the value of a working program the ppl use around the world.

      I trust the value of a "well built home" that is near zero-E use.

      I trust a reliable car that has statistics to back it up.

      Etc, etc... the whole shiny rocks, and ink and paper thing I have
      less faith in due to fraud recorded thru history regarding them.

      Ppl have put tungsten in gld bars, North Korea was counterfeiting
      US $100 bills like it was going out of style.

      So I trust that which is tangible, and much harder to fake.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    38. Re:i trust nothing by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      Ya it was pretty obvious our government was hijacked when they had the gold seizure in 1933.

      I expect them to do that and worse as things continue to fall apart.

      A dollar today has the relative value of 2 cents from 1913 when the Fed reserve corporation
      took the power of money away from the government.

      The last president who tried to take that power away from was JFK, and not long after he tried he died.

      Same for Lincoln and the Greenback, but they failed with Andrew Jackson as the Assassin's gun failed.

      I think "the creature from Jekyll Island" about the Federal Reserve bank which is as federal as federal express
      should be read by all citizens, but I would not enjoy the result of most ppl realizing what is going on because it
      might be much like Henry Ford said.

      "It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." ~ Henry Ford

      http://www.brainyquote.com/quo...

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    39. Re:i trust nothing by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      The poor man's gold is silver, but before you mess with shiny rocks its
      best to have your basic 5 survival needs covered in case there is
      another "Carrington Event" or "Super Volcanic Eruption" such as
      Yellow stone, Toba, or the other dozen or so Super Volcanoes...

      Also the Cumbre Vieja would make one hell of a mess out of the US east coast
      if it does land slide into the ocean as the lateral rift indicates it might do.

      Some nation might decide to point something like stuxnet at our SCADA systems here.

      So for these events that have nothing to do with politicians some of us prepare.

      My basic 5:

      1) self defense ( humans get nasty per history books )
      2) shelter ( make shift shelter can work, if its WW3 know how to do an expedient fallout shelter )
      3) Water ( learn how to find/purify water, carrying it is too heavy )
      4) dried stored food ( volcanic ash makes it hard to farm, same if there is grid failure )
      5) Knowledge ( know all you can about the 1st 4 and that which is relevant for restoring society/order )

      2)

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    40. Re:i trust nothing by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      Well for awhile money was backed by gold, but the problem is the ppl storing the gold
      usually are bankers and so we know what level of trust we can put in them.

      If the gold was stored and protected by robots with open source code it might work as
      the element of greed would not be there unless someone hacks the robots.

      I think a open camera system and open inventory of the gold would help too, but the
      current batch of plutocrats and puppet politicians in both parties are hopelessly corrupt,
      but that is not new either.

      So ... in all things .... Caveat Emptor indeed.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    41. Re:i trust nothing by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      In the past the gold and silver was stored with someone that was good in tricking the public to trust them.

      They learned that wearing nice suits, making roman looking buildings, having expensive large nice looking desks,
      and acting snooty made the sheeple trust them.

      Sounds a bit like government too now that I think of it, lol.

      Honestly most of our society is a confidence game, most of the ppl running the show are similar to con men of old.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    42. Re:i trust nothing by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      Well if anyone says tie bit coins to gold/silver keep in mind the current metal certificates are
      MASSIVELY oversold and fraud has not been charged because nation states are protecting
      the fraudsters for now.

      Several nations have asked for their gold back and are being told "we will return it in a few years", LOL.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    43. Re: i trust nothing by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      J.P. Morgan and his buddies were part of the ppl running the Fed.

      Once you realize they snuck like hyenas to Jekyll Island at night
      to create it, then you realize why Jackson, Lincoln, and JFK tried to undo it.

      "Picture a party of the nation's greatest bankers stealing out of New York on a private railroad car under cover of darkness, stealthily riding hundred[s] of miles South, embarking on a mysterious launch, sneaking onto an island deserted by all but a few servants, living there a full week under such rigid secrecy that the names of not one of them was once mentioned, lest the servants learn the identity and disclose to the world this strangest, most secret expedition in the history of American finance. I am not romancing; I am giving to the world, for the first time, the real story of how the famous Aldrich currency report, the foundation of our new currency system, was written... The utmost secrecy was enjoined upon all. The public must not glean a hint of what was to be done. Senator Aldrich notified each one to go quietly into a private car of which the railroad had received orders to draw up on an unfrequented platform. Off the party set. New York's ubiquitous reporters had been foiled... Nelson (Aldrich) had confided to Henry, Frank, Paul, and Piatt that he was to keep them locked up at Jekyll Island, out of the rest of the world, until they had evolved and compiled a scientific currency system for the United States, the real birth of the present Federal Reserve System, the plan done on Jekyll Island in the conference with Paul, Frank, and Henry... Warburg is the link that binds the Aldrich system and the present system together. He more than any one man has made the system possible as a working reality.[9]"

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      What the public is told is what they want the public to believe, not always the truth.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    44. Re:i trust nothing by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      Yes, I tend to agree shiny rocks are not the only thing with value.

      I'd tend to say all tangible assets have value and partly why we call them assets.

      The real problem here is a non-governmental organization posing as a government organization
      controlling the money supply and murdering presidents such as Lincoln and JFK who try to stop them.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    45. Re:i trust nothing by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      When the market looks like its being rigged by pirates ppl run to tangible assets.

      Some ppl were dumb enough to buy paper gold and got burned not too long ago.

      The issue here is paper money can be hit by fraud even if is backed by gold if
      the ppl you put in charge of it are thieves.

      So ... the lesson again is Caveat Emptor....

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    46. Re:i trust nothing by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      That or find tiny gold particles in the bottom of a LENR device....

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/ma...

      Curious how this turns out, hate to see the billions going to the hot fusion budget go poof...

      The humanity !!! LOL

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    47. Re:i trust nothing by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      The trick is owning something people want: people only want bitcoin on the assumption that other people also want it. Once we realise that no one else really wants it it'll be worthless again. Pretty stuff made out of shiny metals might not be terrifically useful but you can be fairly certain that a lot of people want it.

    48. Re:i trust nothing by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      If your premise were true (that the volatility in the dollar price of gold is down to the volatility of the dollar, not the gold), there would be two easy ways to tell:

      1) Gold can be bought using any currency in the world. There are hundreds of currencies other than the USD. If it was the value of the dollar that was changing, and not the gold, you'd expect to see the gold-to-other-currency prices change entirely differently. The price of gold in one currency might have gone down when the USD price went up, while others might have been very stable, and others could have gone up notably more than the USD. Even though the recent financial crisis has been pretty global, not all countries were affected equally, and past crises have been far more focused- the evidence for "the dollar is volatile, not gold" should be evident in the long term figures.

      2) Dollars buy things which are not gold. Bread, cars, coal, toasters, silver, people's wages, etc. If you're telling me that when the price of gold shoots up 100% in one year it is because the value of the dollar has halved (and not anything to do with the intrinsic value of the gold, nosiree), you'd expect to see all of the other things priced in USD shoot up by 100% too. If the value of bread, cars, toasters, coal, silver and human labour all remain aproximately the same while the USD value of gold doubles, you can safely assume it was the value of the gold (not the dollar) that has changed.

      I challenge you to find evidence to back up either of those points. To the best of my knowledge:
      1) The peaks and troughs of the value of gold are mirrored pretty evenly in the prices in any currency you care to mention, especially once you strip out events which definitely do affect the value of the currencies (which are well documented by official inflation/deflation figures). The price is near as damnit the same whatever the currency.
      2) Official USD inflation figures (which take an average of all sorts of goods and services) are in the low single digits, and definitely don't show any doubling or halving over the last few years. And the comparitive value of gold and other commoditiies (other metals, raw resources, fuel stuffs, etc.) does not stay in sync- when the value of gold spiked, it spiked in comparison to most other commodities as well as in comparison to hard currencies. The only things that spiked in sync with gold were other commodities with the same properties (i.e. precious metals with "safe haven investment" status)- and even then the values still decoupled.

    49. Re:i trust nothing by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      You can't tie the price of bitcoins to anything. This is because it is decentralized. The price is governed by supply and demand. The government can control the price of the dollar somewhat through increasing or decreasing the money supply. You can not do this with bitcoin.

    50. Re:i trust nothing by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      People who bought physical gold are no better off than those who bought 'paper gold'
      Except they have a nice heavy paper weight.

    51. Re:i trust nothing by zieroh · · Score: 1

      And there is nothing stopping the government from issuing gold dollars, or you from acquiring them.

      I know this because I have a gold dollar. Interesting because the face value is currently ~1/1300th of the value of the metal.

      I'm quite aware of that. And that gold dollar is legal tender. However, you'd be a fool to spend it for the face value.

      And therein lies the rub: the value of that gold dollar is not fixed to the price of gold, at least not as legal tender.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    52. Re:i trust nothing by zieroh · · Score: 1

      The real problem here is a non-governmental organization posing as a government organization
      controlling the money supply and murdering presidents such as Lincoln and JFK who try to stop them.

      Unless you have some tangible proof of that, I suggest you start taking your meds again.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
  8. I trust bitcoin itself just fine.... by ewhenn · · Score: 4, Informative

    I trust bitcoin itself just fine... it's the third party exchanges I don't trust.

    1. Re:I trust bitcoin itself just fine.... by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I trust bitcoin itself just fine... it's the third party exchanges I don't trust.

      Foo.

      That's preposterous. It's like saying you trust Dollars just fine, but don't trust the banks...

      ...

      'k, I'll shut up now.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:I trust bitcoin itself just fine.... by evan.teran · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not exactly a fair comparison. I only trust banks because they are insured and if they "lose" my money then I will have recourse to recover it. With the online bitcoin exchanges, there is no such thing.

    3. Re:I trust bitcoin itself just fine.... by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not exactly a fair comparison. I only trust banks because they are insured and if they "lose" my money then I will have recourse to recover it. With the online bitcoin exchanges, there is no such thing.

      2008 should teach you one thing - when the banks screw up, the execs make sure they never have to pay for their poor decision making - they pull the strings and make the representatives they own dance to their tune. It's not that nothing was learned from 1929, something was, it's to make sure the people at the top continue to line their nests and their lackeys in government make sure they can continue to do whatever. The belief that the banks are now all square is an illusion, they've borrowed from the Federal Reserve to pay back the government loans. With the government borrowing like a gambling addict to prop the economy up, one thing was lost - value of the dollar, it's nowhere as strong as it once was, nor buys as much as it did in early 2008.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    4. Re:I trust bitcoin itself just fine.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is actually a pretty good comparison. Since not even the looniest Bitcoin zealots would claim that BTC will ever replace actual money, the only real way for consumers to get hold of Bitcoins is through exchanges. But then again, you must trust the exchange, right? The fact that Bitcoin itself is still mathematically sound is no more helpful than saying that you can trust banks because the dollar bills have excellent anti-counterfeit measures. While the fundamental reason we can trust banks is actually because the government has massively vested interest in maintaining the integrity of the banking system, Bitcoin exchanges and other Bitcoin intermediaries can not give equal assurances – you are forced to doing bank-like business with companies that are not regulated as banks, and can pretty much disappear anytime with your money.

    5. Re:I trust bitcoin itself just fine.... by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 1

      Wha...? The only "exchange" you have to go through to get a Bitcoin is exchanging dollars for an encrypted key. If the Bitcoin isn't sent, you can reverse the charge.

      Why the hell are you keeping Bitcoins in a "bank", rather than keeping them in a wallet that you control?

    6. Re:I trust bitcoin itself just fine.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So where do you exactly exchange Bitcoins for dollars if not on an exchange like Mt.Gox, who can at any time disappear with both your fiat and BTC? See, you must trust the exchange. And please don't get started with that BS about buying BTC for hard cash from some dude on the corner like drugs. You must still trust the vendor, and such method is not suitable for newbies and corporations wanting to do business in BTC.

    7. Re:I trust bitcoin itself just fine.... by VikingNation · · Score: 0

      People are putting too much faith in the math and fail to look at the end-to-end implementation. Straight from the horses mouth. "Ongoing development - Bitcoin software is still in beta with many incomplete features in active development. New tools, features, and services are being developed to make Bitcoin more secure and accessible to the masses. Some of these are still not ready for everyone. Most Bitcoin businesses are new and still offer no insurance. In general, Bitcoin is still in the process of maturing" - Bitcoin FAQ

    8. Re:I trust bitcoin itself just fine.... by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 1

      That's true for all goods, and all currencies. If you order a book on Amazon.com and they suddenly disappear, taking all your money with them - what recourse do you have? If you sell something on eBay and send out goods before you receive payment, that's just like completing a BitCoin transaction before you get your dollars. How are you better protected?

      You must trust the other party in all transactions, no matter what you're exchanging. And if you don't trust them, go through an escrow service...assuming you can trust them.

    9. Re: I trust bitcoin itself just fine.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You must trust the exchange to a certain degree but the bitcoin owner *should* pull out exchanged coins or other currency as soon as possible. The sooner it is back in your wallet the better.

    10. Re:I trust bitcoin itself just fine.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, now we've gone from 1) "BTC is teh best!!!1 It's unregulated and the gov can't steal ur money OMG!", through 2) "well duh, ofc the exchange can steal ur money LOL but BTC is still sound!!1 Mathematics, bitch!!", to 3) "well u know, there are risks with all other currencies as well!! why'd you think BTC was any better, like duh??".

      Clearly, if BTC is to succeed, the intermediaries – like exchanges and payment handling services – must be regulated as banks, so people can trust them. But then again, the Bitcoin people are probably the last place on Earth where you would find those who are cool with submitting to government control and regulation. So either the Bitcoin people must change their attitudes towards regulation or BTC will forever remain a geek project.

    11. Re: I trust bitcoin itself just fine.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, gas was climbing to over $4 a gallon in early 2008. So your assertion of hyperinflation is wrong.

    12. Re: I trust bitcoin itself just fine.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this is only applicable if you plan to store the coins for an extended duration and not planning to spend them any time soon? If you are a business accepting Bitcoin payments, someone trading in Bitcoin markets or just a bloke who uses BTC to pay for everyday stuff, the coins must be stored by some sort of intermediary, like a payment processor, a BTC bank or an exchange. This so, because removing BTC from "cold storage" takes several minutes due to the transaction confirmation delay. So the only way to trade in BTC in a robust way, is through trusting your BTC to an intermediary – where they are essentially the same as dollars on a bank account, except in a actual bank you have vastly better legal protections for your money.

    13. Re:I trust bitcoin itself just fine.... by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 1

      I still see people espousing all 3 viewpoints, and they're all still true. The collapse of the latest scam doesn't change what BitCoin is. It's just as trustworthy as before. Vendors are just as trustworthy (or untrustworthy) as before. And the math is the same as before.

      I wouldn't judge BTC against the other currencies of the world. It's clearly not the same, and it's not trying to be the same. People who use it don't (or shouldn't, if they're smart) consider it to be the same. But that doesn't mean it's without merit or useless. It's just got a different risk profile than other currencies, but it also comes with different benefits.

    14. Re:I trust bitcoin itself just fine.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I trust my local currency just fine, but every time I see an ATM with a bluescreen or showing the solitaire win screen, I trust that bank a little less.

    15. Re:I trust bitcoin itself just fine.... by LF11 · · Score: 1

      Frankly, considering that banks rarely keep more than a few thousand dollars on hand, you are kindof a fool if you don't keep a reserve of emergency cash somewhere in case of a bank holiday. These things happen, and you still need to eat even if you can't get money out of the bank.

    16. Re:I trust bitcoin itself just fine.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More accurately, it's like saying you trust dollars just fine, but don't trust somebody's website that has the word "bank" in the title.

    17. Re:I trust bitcoin itself just fine.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is indeed a bad analogy, and here is the reason: if you want to store you physical fiat currency in a secure, digital way you need a bank to open up an account. With bitcoin, anyone can anonymously open up as many accounts as they want, and as far as we know these accounts are still perfectly secure. Places like MtGox are **not** acting as banks. They are acting as exchanges, allowing people to exchange fiat money for btc. People should never have been leaving btc lying about in the online wallets of MtGox, but should have immediately moved them to wallets which they controlled. Everyone has been saying this for years!

      The problem is that people find it unintuitive and a pain to manage their own wallets, and want an online company to make it easy for them. But this goes against the very grain of btc. It is meant to be, by nature, unregulatable and something you control yourself, semi-anonymously. You are not meant to use it as a replacement for fiat and people who lack the technical ability to manage their own wallets should not use it. You are meant to use it to buy weed or fund your favourite illicit political group, or do something else that you have a moral, natural, right to do but are currently been impeded upon by a tyrannous, all-surveilling government. The point is that the btc protocol makes it trivial to mix money and thereby hide it. This is much harder to do if you cant open up infinitely many accounts anonymously.

      After Snowden, surely all but the most obnoxious little Benedict Arnolds can see that a good cryptocurrency is a necessary condition for humanity to re-obtain some, slight, semblance of freedom. Right now, btc is our best candidate, simply since its the most popular. But dont trust the exchanges and minimize the time you keep coin in any online wallet, such as coinbase or btce or (previously) silkroad's wallet. **Using Coinbase is also a risk!!* Its just a shame that these fuck ups on the exchanges' sides have the ability to do great damage to bitcoin's reputation, when these problems are irrelevant to bitcoin itself.

    18. Re:I trust bitcoin itself just fine.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not exactly a fair comparison. I only trust banks because they are insured and if they "lose" my money then I will have recourse to recover it. With the online bitcoin exchanges, there is no such thing.

      2008 should teach you one thing - when the banks screw up, the execs make sure they never have to pay for their poor decision making - they pull the strings and make the representatives they own dance to their tune. It's not that nothing was learned from 1929, something was, it's to make sure the people at the top continue to line their nests and their lackeys in government make sure they can continue to do whatever. The belief that the banks are now all square is an illusion, they've borrowed from the Federal Reserve to pay back the government loans. With the government borrowing like a gambling addict to prop the economy up, one thing was lost - value of the dollar, it's nowhere as strong as it once was, nor buys as much as it did in early 2008.

      You are missing the point. Perhaps the banks are raping the federal government - that doesn't change the fact that if the banks lose insured deposits the depositors are made whole. Which is the advantage banks have over bitcoin exchanges.

    19. Re:I trust bitcoin itself just fine.... by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      Don't trust the banks, lol

      I think this should have been modded hilarious.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    20. Re:I trust bitcoin itself just fine.... by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      What if you found out that mathematically the FDIC was broke ?

      http://www.garynorth.com/publi...

      http://www.zerohedge.com/artic...

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    21. Re:I trust bitcoin itself just fine.... by Kogun · · Score: 1

      His statement makes sense. Learn the difference between the dollar and the NYSE and you might begin to understand his statement.

  9. Eh? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is like asking when you stopped beating your wife.

    It assumes a positive that for most people doesn't exist.

    1. Re:Eh? by x0ra · · Score: 0

      Why is everybody asking this "beat your wife" question with a negative thought in mind ? Or is your morals (and sexual experiences) narrow enough to be unable to compute that 'beating' can actually be consensual, and quite enjoyable to both party ? Some would be ready to a lot of degradation to get a good adrenaline dump, no matter what YOUR system of value mandates.

    2. Re:Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Translation: "I don't have a wife, so I'm still beating my meat to restraint pr0n."

  10. False choice by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    Bitcoin was (still is...) an interesting experiment, and I watch it with interest. But trust? C'mon, that's like saying "do you still trust Windows 1.0?"

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:False choice by ackthpt · · Score: 2

      Poor choice for analogy since Windows 1.0 was only ever a weak beta. Try 8.0, it's a weak full release with malarkey marketing monkey behind it.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:False choice by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Poor choice for analogy since Windows 1.0 was only ever a weak beta. Try 8.0, it's a weak full release with malarkey marketing monkey behind it.

      I understand what you're saying, (and agree with the assessment of 8.0) but I can't go there. The concept of Bitcoin is interesting, even if the implementation might be lacking. What I was trying to say is that it's too much to expect one to "trust" version 1.0 of anything. (Or in this case, one could argue that it was version .9 or less.)

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  11. Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Other than the fact that I lost most of my bitcoins and also a large amount of money...

  12. There is an adage that if something appears too go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There is an adage that if something appears too good to be true then it usually is too good to be true. Especially concerned as to the absence of explanation for the Mt.Gox collapse: never a good sign

  13. Still?!? by ackthpt · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I've never trusted it. If I mine a coin I'll sell it, tout suite!

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Still?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "tout de suite"

    2. Re:Still?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drette là

    3. Re:Still?!? by Chas · · Score: 1

      I've never trusted it.

      Ditto.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    4. Re:Still?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More likely the one stealing your computing power will sell it.

  14. Only one player by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Let me answer your question with a question. Do you trust the US Dollar less because of the Leaman Brothers collapse? Trusting or not trusting a currency (virtual, or fiat) based on the actions of one player, regardless of how large, makes no sense. I believe in what Bitcoin is about, I trust it more than I trust the banks and government. I still need fiat money to pay my bills, but would prefer to live without the banks who have already shown to not be trustworthy.

    1. Re:Only one player by Enry · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Let me answer your question with a question. Do you trust the US Dollar less because of the Leaman Brothers collapse? Trusting or not trusting a currency (virtual, or fiat) based on the actions of one player, regardless of how large, makes no sense. I believe in what Bitcoin is about, I trust it more than I trust the banks and government. I still need fiat money to pay my bills, but would prefer to live without the banks who have already shown to not be trustworthy.

      *headdesk*

      I'm going to say this as simply as I can:

      Bitcoin is also fiat currency

      There's nothing backing it. Zero, zip, zilch. At least the US dollar is backed by the full faith and credit of the US government, and it's been that way for 40 years. Bitcoin hasn't lasted 10.

    2. Re:Only one player by Nutria · · Score: 1

      but would prefer to live without the banks who have already shown to not be trustworthy.

      When was the last time a bank did something squirrelly with your checking or savings account?

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    3. Re:Only one player by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bitcoin isn't currency, it's a commodity. And fiat currencies like the USD may not be backed by anything tangible, but like you said they're backed by the U.S. Currencies like the USD have value enforced at the point of a gun. That is, the U.S. Govt only accepts USD for payment of taxes, and they enforce tax collection through law.

    4. Re:Only one player by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tuesday.

    5. Re:Only one player by zieroh · · Score: 1

      *headdesk*

      I'm going to say this as simply as I can:

      Bitcoin is also fiat currency

      There's nothing backing it. Zero, zip, zilch. At least the US dollar is backed by the full faith and credit of the US government, and it's been that way for 40 years. Bitcoin hasn't lasted 10.

      You're being pedantic. In discussion of cryptocurrencies, the term "fiat" is universally used to distinguish cryptocurrency from government-declared currency. Yes, any unbacked currency is technically also fiat, and that includes Bitcoin. But that point is, as I said, excessively pedantic.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    6. Re:Only one player by zieroh · · Score: 1

      When was the last time a bank did something squirrelly with your checking or savings account?

      You want me to list all of them?

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    7. Re:Only one player by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      At least the US dollar is backed by the full faith and credit of the US government

      What does this even mean? The full faith and credit of the US government is not going to buy me a small fries at McDonalds. If the government / central bank prints too many dollars by accident, the medium loses value, regardless of what is inked on the paper.

    8. Re:Only one player by Enry · · Score: 2

      From a fiscal standpoint, they're the same thing. In fact, Bitcoin is worse as it's backed by absolutely nothing.

    9. Re:Only one player by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      You say it like its a bad thing. When currency depreciation happens all outstanding loans you contracted are now effectively cheaper to pay off with your assets as well.

    10. Re:Only one player by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      * Inflation. Not doing ANYTHING with my money makes it disappear a little bit for each day. WTF?
        * Fees. When I want to do stuff with it, I have to pay the bank to do so. WTF!
        * Delays. When I want to transfer money to someone else, I have to wait several DAYS. WTF? Aren't computers around?
        * Privacy. When I transfer money somewhere, the transfer gets logged and kept for I-don't-know-how-long and by I-don't-know-which agencies.
        * Access. To access my money I am locked into some mostly useless web-interface which sometimes (if I'm lucky) works in my browser. Worst case, I need to physically walk somewhere to do so.
        * Security. How do I know if my money is securely stored? Sure, the bank might refund me but they are simply charging me as a customer for their own security flaws anyway.

      Want more?

    11. Re:Only one player by Nutria · · Score: 1

      You want me to list all of them?

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    12. Re:Only one player by Nutria · · Score: 1

      * Inflation. Not doing ANYTHING with my money makes it disappear a little bit for each day. WTF?

      That's not the bank.

      * Fees. When I want to do stuff with it, I have to pay the bank to do so. WTF!

      Like what?

      * Delays. When I want to transfer money to someone else, I have to wait several DAYS. WTF? Aren't computers around?

      That I agree with. But your money is still there.

      * Privacy. When I transfer money somewhere, the transfer gets logged and kept for I-don't-know-how-long and by I-don't-know-which agencies.

      That's not the bank, it's the government.

      * Access. To access my money I am locked into some mostly useless web-interface which sometimes (if I'm lucky) works in my browser.

      Vote with your feet, and get a better bank.

      Worst case, I need to physically walk somewhere to do so.

      Wow, you're young. *Really* young. I guess you're not moving to a new bank, though.

      * Security. How do I know if my money is securely stored? Sure, the bank might refund me but they are simply charging me as a customer for their own security flaws anyway.

      Securely stored? Huh? Do lots of bank robberies happen where you live?

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    13. Re:Only one player by zieroh · · Score: 1

      From a fiscal standpoint, they're the same thing. In fact, Bitcoin is worse as it's backed by absolutely nothing.

      Sure, although I would argue that the US dollar is backed by little more -- a promise, basically. And for that matter, gold is backed by... [drumroll] nothing at all. It is valuable solely because people value it. And Bitcoin is essentially the same, just with less people.

      But all that aside, the term "fiat" inside the cryptocurrency community means somethings specific. The fact that you insist on sticking to a definition that predates the rise of this particular community -- when said community has agreed among themselves exactly what "fiat" means to them -- is a pointless endeavor. You might as well insist that "decimate" means to destroy 10%, instead of the common-day usage of that word.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    14. Re:Only one player by rastos1 · · Score: 1

      If the sum of my savings exceeds the sum of my loans, then: yes, depreciation is a bad thing for me. Am I doing it wrong by having no loans?

    15. Re:Only one player by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      * Inflation. Not doing ANYTHING with my money makes it disappear a little bit for each day. WTF?

      That's not the bank.

      Well, why is Bitcoin being blamed for what an exchange did then? Some honesty in the debate please.

      * Fees. When I want to do stuff with it, I have to pay the bank to do so. WTF!

      Like what?

      Withdrawing money at the bank's office, changing into other currencies, splitting one account into two, sending money to someone, etc. All of these actions should cost next to nothing in a day when an account is nothing more than a few kB/MB of storage.

      * Delays. When I want to transfer money to someone else, I have to wait several DAYS. WTF? Aren't computers around?

      That I agree with. But your money is still there.

      * Privacy. When I transfer money somewhere, the transfer gets logged and kept for I-don't-know-how-long and by I-don't-know-which agencies.

      That's not the bank, it's the government.

      See my first point.

      * Access. To access my money I am locked into some mostly useless web-interface which sometimes (if I'm lucky) works in my browser.

      Vote with your feet, and get a better bank.

      Vote with your feet, get a better Bitcoin exchange.

      Worst case, I need to physically walk somewhere to do so.

      Wow, you're young. *Really* young. I guess you're not moving to a new bank, though.

      No, I'm not very young. I worked before we everyone had email addresses. I don't mind walking or running, but a bank still shouldn't force me to do so in this day and age.

      * Security. How do I know if my money is securely stored? Sure, the bank might refund me but they are simply charging me as a customer for their own security flaws anyway.

      Securely stored? Huh? Do lots of bank robberies happen where you live?

      I read about internet scams and fishing attacks on internet banks almost every day. In my pocket I have a few plastic cards with 16 digits and a date. I hear that if anyone has those numbers, they can steal my money. Do you know if that's true? That's real security.

    16. Re:Only one player by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He specifically asked for the last occurrence. In some cases last equals all, but only if there only is a single instance.

    17. Re:Only one player by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Distinguish the money by calling it government issued fiat and cryptocoin fiat.

    18. Re:Only one player by Flammon · · Score: 1
      Fixed that for you

      At least the US dollar is backed by guns of the US government

    19. Re:Only one player by Enry · · Score: 1

      Err..no:

      Backed by the economic output of the US.

    20. Re:Only one player by Flammon · · Score: 1

      US government only accepts their dollar to pay taxes.

    21. Re:Only one player by Enry · · Score: 1

      So?

    22. Re:Only one player by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're deep enough into economics-talk to be discussing the virtues and vices of a currency, you're deep enough in that you probably want to be careful about your meanings when talking about the source of a currency's value.

    23. Re:Only one player by Flammon · · Score: 1

      I guess I have to connect the dots for you. The US government forces its citizens to pay taxes in US Dollars. This creates a demand for the US Dollar not because it is valuable or because it is backed by economic output of the US, but because it is the only form of payment that the government accepts. What are you missing here?

    24. Re:Only one player by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      The only difference between the US govt and Mt Gox is the US govt is friendly with a
      corporation called the Federal Reserve that has what equates to a printing press,
      but they really just type numbers into a computer and create around $65 billion a
      month out of thin air backed by faith alone....

      The BRIC alliance being sick of this situation of seeing what they are owed being diluted
      was formed and has started to make all intra nation trades via money other than US dollars.

      A storm is brewing, and more nations are moving in the BRIC direction daily.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    25. Re:Only one player by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      There have been quite a few bank security issues.

      Some banks have had very poor website security.

      Click this google search and you will see bank security is really not there...

      https://www.google.com/#q=bank...

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    26. Re:Only one player by zieroh · · Score: 1

      If you're deep enough into economics-talk to be discussing the virtues and vices of a currency, you're deep enough in that you probably want to be careful about your meanings when talking about the source of a currency's value.

      Keep tilting at that windmill, Don.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    27. Re:Only one player by Enry · · Score: 1

      Every government forces its citizens to pay taxes in the local currency. You seem to be taking two separate issues (the economic output of the US, which is not always in dollars given the huge amount of exports we have) with US tax policy and...I don't know...confusing them?

    28. Re:Only one player by Flammon · · Score: 1

      I was pointing out one of the reasons the US dollar's value didn't reflect its economic output. Here's another. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

    29. Re:Only one player by Enry · · Score: 1

      I must say, your lack of intellect is truly stunning.

    30. Re:Only one player by Flammon · · Score: 1

      I like the irony there. You're resorting to an ad hominem because of your lack of intellect to come up with anything better. Any counter arguments to the petrocurrency or do you just have more insults?

    31. Re:Only one player by Enry · · Score: 1

      Nobody else in /. is reading this and I'm done humoring you. You clearly have no idea how modern economies work and instead rely on throwing your ideas against the wall to see what sticks ('gun-backed!..I mean...The US government only accepts US dollars!...nowait...Petrodollars!'). And none of it does. So frankly I don't care what other ideas you have and want to try throwing. If you think that means you win by default because I give up, then I'll admit it. You win.

      Except I still have a decent understanding of how the US economy works and you haven't been able to retute any of my specific points, and you're still rather ignorant. So who really won?

    32. Re:Only one player by Flammon · · Score: 1

      What I'm throwing out there isn't random. They are situations that involve coercion and my point is that whenever there's coercion, the dollar value represented isn't accurate. More coercion equals more distortion.

      The U.S. spent more on defense in 2012 than did the countries with the next 10 highest defense budgets combined! http://pgpf.org/Chart-Archive/...

      Do you really think the US is that paranoid that they'll be attacked or do they use this army to coerce other countries in doing what they want?

      I understand how economics is suppose to work but it never does when there's coercion involved.

    33. Re:Only one player by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bitcoin is not issued by any central authority. And it is dependent on computational power.

      Computational power backs bitcoins. If there's anything in the last 40 years we SHOULD have learned it is that computational power drives society forward, no matter the "industry". New materials, better computers, better models in physics, better medicines, better entertainment, better fucking EVERYTHING.

    34. Re:Only one player by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Computational power is the prime mover of advances for the last 40 years.

      Fat economists or bureaucrats in (central) banks... not so much...

  15. Poor wording by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never did.

  16. Blame the gamers by nicoleb_x · · Score: 1

    Clearly Bitcoin's downfall was the cannibalization of gamer video cards for bitcoin mining and the related price increases of those cards. Gamer's know alternative currencies and bitcoin wasn't one they liked.

  17. I still waiting for the fellow who says yes.... by Timmy+D+Programmer · · Score: 1

    I got some sweet real estate to sell them!

    --


    (If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
  18. This is not a simple question by SampleFish · · Score: 4, Insightful

    BitCoin, by nature, is as trustworthy as SHA256 which is used by TLS, SSL, PGP, SSH, S/MIME, and IPsec. So the math behind BitCoin is trusted by most of the world whether or not you are aware of that fact.

    As a currency it is just as trustworthy as any other imaginary money system. It's value is highly speculative, like the NYSE. Nobody really trusts the NYSE just as you shouldn't trust the value of BitCoin.

    That being said, cryptocurrencies have the potential to be more stable than fiat currencies. BitCoin may not be the final solution but behold as we are watching the future of money unfold. History is in the making.

    1. Re:This is not a simple question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yuh huh, look into the history of monetary regulation, or rather the lack of regulation and where that got people.

      aka

      how hobo is formed

    2. Re:This is not a simple question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Purchasing tulip bulbs, Chinese yuan currency, or bitcoins, is speculation.

      The only difference between investment and speculation is the amount of risk taken.
      In both you buy something with the expectation that you will be able to increase your money by selling it for more later.

    3. Re:This is not a simple question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The mathematics are sound but the fundamental premise is flawed. I'll explain.

      For Bitcoin to work, it requires that the majority of computing power in the minting network will be spent by white hats. The original paper goes to great lengths to prove that even a fractional minority can never catch up, but it hand-waves over the HUGE elephant in the room: it's assuming that the good guys will be the majority 100% of the time.

      Evil black hat business plan:

      1. Build up a secret botnet;
      2. Wait for the white hat minter activity to drop below your bot-net's the CPU capacity;
      3. Turn on your botnet just long enough to insert a bogus transaction (just like Superman III / Office Space, with or without the "must have decimal point in the wrong place or something" mistake of the latter).
      4. Repeat steps until your wallet is worth $15 trillion; then cash out and go buy up the entire US real-estate.

      TL;DR: To trust Bitcoin, you have to trust the the white hat minter network will always spend more CPU time than any black hat organization is capable of spending -- all day, every day, forever.

    4. Re:This is not a simple question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BItcoin is a unique cryptosystem built on SHA256. If SHA256 is broken Bitcoin is too, but Bitcoin could be insecure without it reflecting poorly on SHA256.

    5. Re:This is not a simple question by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      History is in the making.

      That sounds very much like what they were saying around 7:20 PM on 6 May 1937 in Lakehurst, NJ...

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    6. Re:This is not a simple question by Unipuma · · Score: 1

      As a currency it is just as trustworthy as any other imaginary money system. It's value is highly speculative, like the NYSE. Nobody really trusts the NYSE just as you shouldn't trust the value of BitCoin.

      And this is basically the sad thing about the economy. Stock used to represent real value that a business had: The ground it stood on, the buildings it owned, it's warehouse stock, it's patents, the knowledge of the people working for it.
      That has all changed into how much another fool will pay for it. If you look at the net-bubble of 2001, ISPs were being valued based on the number of subscribers to their service, times an imaginary amounts that investors though those subscriptions should be worth. However, it was never really backed by anything, other than some hope that another sucker would buy their calculation and be willing to pay even more for the same stock.

      It would be nice if stocks could go back to what they were for: Investors believing in a company and supporting it by trading a percentage of that company's capital for an injection of money. Not like gambling in a casino or with art where you hope some other sucker is willing to pay more for imaginary value in the future than you did. Also my problem with intellectual property, it's usually based on imagined value, instead of actual proven value.

    7. Re:This is not a simple question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cryptocurrencies have the potential to be more stable than fiat currencies

      A) BitCoin (the cryptocurrency under discussion) is a fiat currency. It's farther into fiat-land than government backed currency, in fact, because it's not even backed by promises from an institution.

      B) Saying something doesn't make it so - if you have a good argument for that, make it, but as it stands, nothing we've seen in the extant history of cryptocurrency is bearing that out.

    8. Re:This is not a simple question by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      One might say the entire US economy, government, wall street, and politicians honesty
      are an exercise in speculation.

      With the puppet strings controlling most of these one might say its " all rigged "
      from top to bottom much like one politicians hot mic recently did.

      http://dailycaller.com/2010/11...

      Most ppl have no idea what is coming, epic suck is on the way.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    9. Re:This is not a simple question by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      Or like they were saying in 1913 on Jekyll island ???

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    10. Re:This is not a simple question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That being said, cryptocurrencies have the potential to be more stable than fiat currencies. BitCoin may not be the final solution but behold as we are watching the future of money unfold. History is in the making.

      I think you're discovering the nature of money. Currencies are about trust, and the technology they use is largely irrelevant to their success. The only value of Bitcoin's technology is in its ability to reduce friction for transfers - everything else about it is a liability against it, it will never succeed, and not for technological reasons. If you disagree, you should stop reading books about encryption and techno-utopias and start reading books about history: we've been at this money thing for a while. Bitcoin will never succeed.

  19. As compared to what..? by geekmux · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Do I still trust bitcoin?

    How much trust did you have in our financial system circa 2008, right after the financial meltdown?

    After you watched the most notorious criminals of our time (a.k.a. bankers) get away with financial genocide and got to keep their jobs and their bonuses, how much trust should you have in the current system? We don't arrest or prosecute financial criminals. We reward them.

    Sorry, but bitcoin is no more stable than any other currency. Only the criminals in charge want you to believe it is. And we pay them millions to do so, so might as well STFU about stability. We don't even give a shit about the current system to protect it from crashing again, much less any new ones.

    1. Re:As compared to what..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We reward them.
       
      True but, by and large, we also maintained the status quo. Bitcoin has lost half it's value in the last 3 months. When's the last time you seen that in a currency market for any first world country?
       
        Sorry, but bitcoin is no more stable than any other currency....
       
      Either you've misspoke you you're willing to make no sense at all.

    2. Re:As compared to what..? by geekmux · · Score: 1

      We reward them. True but, by and large, we also maintained the status quo. Bitcoin has lost half it's value in the last 3 months. When's the last time you seen that in a currency market for any first world country?

      And why would you assume that bitcoin represents itself as a "first-world" currency? How many "first world" governments out there are only 5 years old? And we've seen almost as much instability in precious metals as we have bitcoin. Silver sits at $4/oz for literally decades and suddenly it's worth almost $40? And the current banking institution and the criminals running the USD almost took down a system that took a century to build, and there's nothing in place right now to stop it from happening again. We sit back and watch the illegal monopolies continue to grow and manipulate the system and our lives.

      Let me put it this way. I trust bitcoin as much as any other currency. It's all bullshit value like the USD. We print billions more of it on paper every month just to sustain that same bullshit value. $400 million in bitcoin losses? The world lost $15 trillion in 2008. Just because we've always had enough criminals around who want to keep their precious value who have helped "stabilize" that mess via corruption doesn't mean it's actually any more stable. The liars just say it is. And we'll believe them, even after they cause the next global financial meltdown.

    3. Re:As compared to what..? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I'd say yeah, I trust bitcoin, I just have no idea how to value it.

      Trusting bitcoin isn't the problem. Knowing how to value it is, and always has been, the problem.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:As compared to what..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow.. this scalated quickly!

    5. Re:As compared to what..? by coldsalmon · · Score: 1

      How much trust did you have in our financial system circa 2008, right after the financial meltdown?

      Quite a bit, since prices for goods and services didn't change at all. I said to myself, "Oh well, the Fed will take care of it with monetary policy." And they did. There was a real estate crash, but there was no currency crisis.

    6. Re:As compared to what..? by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      MOD PARENT UP !

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
  20. Blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you don't trust Bitcoin, I assume you don't trust rifles, bombs, cash, diamonds, computers or math either. What happened here is a company (MtGox) was dishonest and took money from its customers. It happens with cash all the time. Is cash to blame for this?

  21. Just rename it bitdot: news about bitcoin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give it a rest already. We'll find out if bitcoin survives or not without having another story every couple of hours.

  22. To distrust bitcoin b/c of mt gox problems is like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To distrust bitcoin b/c of mt gox problems is like distrusting email because of gmail problems.

  23. Never trusted bitcoin in the first place. by Noryungi · · Score: 1

    Several reasons:

    1) OK, has anyone - preferably someone with solid crypto/math credentials - ever audited the fscking crypto behind Bitcoin? Anyone? Not that I know of.
    2) Even if the basic crypto is sound, what about the wallet software? Surprise, surprise, it seems this is how Mt Gox was attacked... And wasn't a TV talking head wallet hacked after he showed the number on the air? Oooops...
    3) Any "market" where the majority of the "product" is owned by a very small group of people is not a free market - it's a cartel. And cartels usually are up to no good...

    So, no, Bitcoin IMHO is not to be trusted.

    --
    The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
    1. Re:Never trusted bitcoin in the first place. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) OK, has anyone - preferably someone with solid crypto/math credentials - ever audited the fscking crypto behind Bitcoin? Anyone? Not that I know of.

      That is the dumbest thing I've heard anyone say in weeks.
      But, no, I'm sure you're totally right. Nobody has ever given any thought behind SHA256... I mean, it's not like it's used as the American Encryption Standard (AES), SSL / TLS, or anything else that's important, right?

      2) Even if the basic crypto is sound, what about the wallet software? Surprise, surprise, it seems this is how Mt Gox was attacked... And wasn't a TV talking head wallet hacked after he showed the number on the air? Oooops...

      So... you have no clue how the wallets work, nor what happend to Mt. Gox, and then went on to compare an actual crypto wallet to a paper wallet (which is basically just a print out including all the information needed to extract money from it). Wow. I'm getting the odd feeling you have no clue what you're talking about.

      3) Any "market" where the majority of the "product" [businessinsider.com] is owned by a very small group of people [bitcoinexaminer.org] is not a free market - it's a cartel. And cartels usually are up to no good...

      So the US dollar is a vastly more powerful cartel?

      Please refrain from making any more comments on crypto currencies until you have the slightest idea as to what it is or how it works.

    2. Re:Never trusted bitcoin in the first place. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Yes. It's open source and it's being constantly audited by people. See current open issues on the Github page.

      2) MtGox was attacked because they had written wallet software with bugs. Blame them, not Bitcoin itself. The Bitcoin client (or "wallet software") doesn't have this problem.

      3) So, don't trust any major player in today's software world.

      Replace Bitcoin with "Android", "IOS", "Windows", "Facebook", "VISA" or almost any product or service and the same holds.

    3. Re:Never trusted bitcoin in the first place. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3) Any "market" where the majority of the "product" is owned by a very small group of people is not a free market - it's a cartel. And cartels usually are up to no good...

      So, no, Bitcoin IMHO is not to be trusted.

      The "majority"? You're fucking kidding me with this shit, right?

      I suppose that whole concept of the 99% vs. the 1% in reference to our current monetary split somehow doesn't count as a "majority" in your eyes. Interesting math you have there. Reminds me of a banker.

      And I wholeheartedly laugh at the idea that those controlling the USD are somehow not "up to no good", since we've only fined the major banking institutions trillions for violations that they continue to do every fucking day. The whole damn global system almost came crashing down in 2008. Won't be long before they accomplish that feat permanently, because we have done nothing to stop it from happening again. (That would be due to the cartel in charge who are writing their own financial laws in case you were wondering)

      Believe me the bullshit we have now isn't any more stable. You just believe the cartel when they say it is.

    4. Re:Never trusted bitcoin in the first place. by Linsaran · · Score: 2

      Several reasons:

      1) OK, has anyone - preferably someone with solid crypto/math credentials - ever audited the fscking crypto behind Bitcoin? Anyone? Not that I know of.

      The basic crypto behind bitcoin is sha256 it's the same crypto used behind TLS and SSL, PGP, SSH, S/MIME, and IPsec. If sha256 is compromised the fact that your bitcoins are now double spendable is the least of the world's problems.

      2) Even if the basic crypto is sound, what about the wallet software? Surprise, surprise, it seems this is how Mt Gox was attacked... And wasn't a TV talking head wallet hacked after he showed the number on the air? Oooops...

      The 'official' wallet software is open source, and is not subject to the sort of transaction malleability that affected MtGox. In short the official software is sound, however, the official wallet software is not designed to handle the volume of transactions that an enterprise environment like an exchange needs to be able to process. It simply isn't fast enough to keep up with hundreds to thousands of transactions per second. To this end MtGox like most exchanges used the official source code as a reference point and created their own custom wallet software to interact with their exchange. Unfortunately they made shortcuts in their coding to do this, which allowed this particular vulnerability to be exploited.

      3) Any "market" where the majority of the "product" is owned by a very small group of people is not a free market - it's a cartel. And cartels usually are up to no good...

      So, no, Bitcoin IMHO is not to be trusted.

      And that's different from the over all distribution of USD how? Most of the people with large bitcoin fortunes are early adopters, and frankly why shouldn't early adopters be rewarded for taking a risk on something that ultimately may not pan out. You don't have to go far to find plenty of people who think Bitcoin is a scam, scheme, or otherwise 'no good'. You yourself imply as much. Like anything early adopters take a big risk, if BTC never got to be worth more than chump change they're out time and possibly money if they invested anything heavily into it. As another analogy, 25-35 years ago there were plenty of people who insisted personal computers would never be popular and there was no market for them. You don't begrudge people like Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates who took a risk on fledgeling technology and came out on top do you? Maybe in 10-20 years BitCoin will have gone the way of the betamax and vhs, but then maybe it won't.

      --
      In a bit of shameless internet panhandling, I accept Litecoin Donations at Lbd2oH9QsthD1GfuUXPyka12YxvWJYnBVf
    5. Re:Never trusted bitcoin in the first place. by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      FWIW TLS, SSL, PGP, SSH, S/MIME are protocols. I remember using them before SHA-256 was even available. When a cypher or hashing algorithm is compromised the protocol accommodates replacing the cypher with something else altogether as long as the clients and servers support it.

    6. Re:Never trusted bitcoin in the first place. by Linsaran · · Score: 1

      If you want to get technical transactions on the bitcoin network are using the bitcoin protocol, which happens to be cyphered with SHA256. Also should the community of developers determine that SHA256 was no longer a viable cypher, it would be relatively simple to create a cutoff point in the blockchain where new transactions need to be processed in whatever the next generation cypher is. My point was that if the above protocols are compromised because the underlying cryptography is vulnerable, there are much greater dangers in terms of potential fraud or data security, considering every modern agency in the world relies on the premise that those protocols are secure.

      --
      In a bit of shameless internet panhandling, I accept Litecoin Donations at Lbd2oH9QsthD1GfuUXPyka12YxvWJYnBVf
    7. Re:Never trusted bitcoin in the first place. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "1) OK, has anyone - preferably someone with solid crypto/math credentials - ever audited the fscking crypto behind Bitcoin? Anyone? Not that I know of."

      Half the greedy hackers out there have done it - no luck so far. If there was an exploitable flaw in bitcoin protocol you can bet anything it would have already been used and there wouldn't be bitcoin anymore.

      "2) Even if the basic crypto is sound, what about the wallet software?"

      er.. i have to say no here, in fact you can bet half the wallet softwares you can find out there will make every attempt to steal any bitcoins you store in them. Buyer beware is the proverb to use here. Its your money, its your responsibility to keep it safe.

      "3) Any "market" where the majority of the "product" [businessinsider.com] is owned by a very small group of people [bitcoinexaminer.org] is not a free market - it's a cartel"

      And the difference with "real world money" is exactly what?

  24. Bitcoin is a hoot by MindPrison · · Score: 3

    Sure is, it clearly demonstrate how easy it is to get someone to invest in virtual money without any real substance. Sure, you could argue that you could convert real money (whatever that is, paper?) to bitcoin and lock it with some encryption and a unique footprint, but it's still pretty much a virtual currency that in theory means nothing, practically...it's what YOU put in it...that makes up the actual value - that is - if you can manage to get your money, once you received your payment from someone.

    To me, this is an interesting experiment, one that I watch closely. I read about this guy who invested in Bitcoins in the early stages, he paid very little for them, and some years later...he was allegedly a MILLIONAIRE because of his forgotten Bitcoins, yay... All the wannabees who SO wished they had bought Bitcoins back in the early days, just to find out a few months later - that no one really want to recognize Bitcoin as a real valid currency, yes - I'm having a laugh.

    --
    What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
    1. Re:Bitcoin is a hoot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I paid three K for my Bitcoins last april. Cashed a few out in Jan. this year.

      Jan. 7, 2014 International wire transfer $32,841.99 Finished

      Funny huh?

      suck it.

    2. Re:Bitcoin is a hoot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > it's what YOU put in it.

      Just like USD you dumbass. You CONservatives are all the same. You can't make a rational argument so you just shout nonsense. Even more annoying is how you people always have to make everything about politics. Seriously, just stop. The readers here are not like your kind. We know better.

    3. Re:Bitcoin is a hoot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a billionaire... in Zimbabwean Dollars. That's about how I feel about Bitcoin.

    4. Re:Bitcoin is a hoot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you are a successful speculator--this time round.

    5. Re:Bitcoin is a hoot by beernutmark · · Score: 1

      This just reiterates how bitcoin is not a currency but a speculators market. You didn't share how you spent them to buy groceries or anything else that currency is normally used for. You simply were lucky to buy and sell at the right time in a speculative bubble. Your statement could easily have been said by tulip traders in the 1630's.

  25. History repeating by AdamHaun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oh look, a bank-like entity failed and people lost money. Good thing the FDIC is there to--

    Oops.

    If cryptocurrencies are going to repeat the last 100+ years of economic history, can they hurry up and rediscover monetary policy too?

    --
    Visit the
    1. Re:History repeating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks God ther eis no FDIC! Why should I pay for idiocity of some people who unwiselly kept money stashed on exchange, especially on mtgox?! They loss, and my coins are safe.

    2. Re:History repeating by geekmux · · Score: 0

      Oh look, a bank-like entity failed and people lost money. Good thing the FDIC is there to--

      Oops.

      If cryptocurrencies are going to repeat the last 100+ years of economic history, can they hurry up and rediscover monetary policy too?

      Uh yeah, and speaking of history, perhaps we could bring back the Glass-Steagall Act that should have been left intact. Perhaps that will prevent the greedy fuckers from crashing the entire monetary system again that shouldn't have been allowed to happen in the first place...just a thought.

      I find it comical that you think current monetary policy actually works.

    3. Re:History repeating by Linsaran · · Score: 1

      Oh look, a bank-like entity failed and people lost money. Good thing the FDIC is there to--

      Oops.

      If cryptocurrencies are going to repeat the last 100+ years of economic history, can they hurry up and rediscover monetary policy too?

      To be fair I don't think that foreign investment accounts are covered under the Federal Deposit Insurance Company either. Or for that matter, there are plenty of charter banks that aren't FDIC insured domestically. Even if MtGox wasn't based in Japan, there's no requirement (except as provided by state law) for a bank to be FDIC insured. In short, if you're worried about your money you probably should have some caveats about putting it into an organization that has no official policy for how it's going to compensate you if they screw up, monetary policy or no.

      --
      In a bit of shameless internet panhandling, I accept Litecoin Donations at Lbd2oH9QsthD1GfuUXPyka12YxvWJYnBVf
    4. Re:History repeating by defcon-11 · · Score: 1

      FYI: the FDIC doesn't insure most fiat currency exchange accounts either.

    5. Re:History repeating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure that's what the bitcoin foundation is working towards by ASKING the government to get involved in regulation.

    6. Re:History repeating by elloGov · · Score: 1
      Wrote this few weeks ago, must repost.

      There is no one nor entity backing up the currency like there is FDIC on the $. It's a big risk with my most liquid asset. Finance is all about mitigating risk and quite frankly bitcoin is too much of a gamble.

    7. Re:History repeating by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

      Mine mine mine MINE mine mine mine (not yours) MINE mine mine mine. Mine mine. It's MINE. Mine mine mine Mine mine mine MINE mine mine mine (not yours) MINE mine mine mine. Mine mine. MINE. Did you hear me? I said it's MINE. Mine mine mine Mine mine mine MINE mine mine mine (not yours) MINE mine mine mine. Mine mine. I don't have to give anything to anybody else. MINE. Mine mine mine Mine mine mine MINE mine mine mine (not yours) MINE mine mine mine. Mine mine. MINE. Mine mine mine Mine mine mine MINE mine mine mine (not yours) MINE mine mine mine. Mine, mine, MINE. Mine mine mine Mine mine mine MINE mine mine mine (not yours) MINE mine mine mine. ALL MINE!!!!!!

      Right, I think we get the idea.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    8. Re:History repeating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haaaa!!!!! Haaaa!!! Haaaa!!!....yes, let's protect the 'exchanges'/banks by having the government (people) ensure the people's money to a MAXIMUM of $250K...what you have more than that in a single account? O sorry, you're out of luck! The FDIC is a scam on you, it isn't 'insuring' you at all, insurance at least generally provides for 'complete replacement cost' for the object insured, the FDIC doesn't do that at all.

      Ask yourself why a bank simply isn't required by law to keep every single dollar you deposit available to return to the depositors? Why does anyone need the FDIC to begin with? And I'm not talking about being able to return the value in physical currency, that's not a 'bank issue' just an issue with the current amount of green pieces of paper they happen to have on hand at any given time, just call up the government & have them print more as needed, big deal.

      So again, I ask you to think, really think about what it is the FDIC is there to 'insure'.

      PS. The government doesn't 'create' money, banks create money when they give out loans, they do NOT use their own money. Think about that one too while you are at it.

    9. Re:History repeating by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

      It's not difficult to troll someone whose entire political-economic philosophy can be summed up as, "Because I don't want to share anything with anyone else, it's wrong for anyone else to share anything, too."

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    10. Re:History repeating by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      The only thing your ideology ends up sharing is misery, beyond that you are also completely off-topic when it comes to responding to my comments. I am talking about government created moral hazard, I don't know what the fuck you are talking about beyond trolling.

    11. Re:History repeating by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      The don't keep money on hand to cover their deposits, they do the good ol' boy trick of the Texas ratio.

      Some of them went off the deep end on it.

      http://bankimplode.com/list/tr...

      The list used to be a lot longer but some were pulled off the
      list after they no longer existed.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    12. Re:History repeating by Kogun · · Score: 1

      Your "oops" probably speaks more truth about what happened to a lot of MtGox victims than you realize. In the US, at least, we've grown accustomed to the nanny state with the government always promising to protect us from fraud. So I have to assume that, although there were plenty of warning signs that MtGox was seriously flawed and unwilling to correct their issues, people assumed they would be protected in some manner *other than the security they gave up that was built into the bitcoin design).

    13. Re:History repeating by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Oh look, a bank-like entity failed and people lost money. Good thing the FDIC is there to--

      Oops.

      If cryptocurrencies are going to repeat the last 100+ years of economic history, can they hurry up and rediscover monetary policy too?

      The whole point of Bitcoin is that you don't need to put your money into a bank. If you don't put your money in a bank, then you're not susceptible to bank failures.

    14. Re:History repeating by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Just because you choose to wear ideological blinders doesn't mean that I do.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  26. From Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So stupid this question, this is like asking "Do you trust the dollar" right after Bear Stearns collapsed. One has nothing to do with the other. Incompetence and perhaps fraud has nothing to do with the value of anything. GOX != Bitcoin.

    1. Re:From Slashdot? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      The US dollar is backed by the US government. Bitcoin is backed by zip.

    2. Re:From Slashdot? by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      The US govt is $16 trillion in the hole on the books, with future obligations
      much much higher then that.

      The US has a massive trade deficit because the plutocrats shipped offshore what
      they could, then bribed the congress critters to create 100+ different types of
      immigrant visa, and leave the border wide open in spots.

      So having faith in the US government is much like having faith in a sock puppet.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
  27. Bitcoin needed this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the kind of flushing out of weak players you need for Bitcoin to stabilize and be taken seriously. This is a good thing in the long term.

    This will also get more regulators involved. Again, a plus for long term stability and adoption.

  28. Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem here isn't bitcoin, it's the lack of security from 3rd parties and vulnerabilities within their websites. Bitcoin has the potential to make a person very rich and as such will have a higher risk of someone wanting to steal them. The easiest way for them to do that is either to attack websites that deal with it or go after the end users who use it. With that being said, most if not all bitcoin exchangers/ mining pools have had a ddos. Despite the senate hearing and bitcoin having positive feedback, who's to say that the fbi isn't secretly trying to discredit it or have it fail simply because of it being associated with the silk road.

  29. I don't trust the government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suspect the US government will eventually make bit coin illegal which, of course, won't cause it to loose all its value. But its use in the united states will be reduced and I could image the US government mass arresting people who hold bit coin similar to how they arrest people who have other contraband.

  30. Not at all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's an interesting experiment, but only that.
    As much as we may despise some of the red tape in financial transactions with "regular" currencies, there are good reasons for many of the regulations.

    Mt. Gox illustrates one of them..

  31. Yes ! by Khalid · · Score: 1

    What doesn't kill me, makes me stronger ! this saying surely apply for bitcoin.

    This is juste a passing youth crisis, bitcoin will probably recover, the genie is out of the battle and nothing can put it back. Bitcoin will probably correct it's problems and continue it's march toward world domination .... fast !

    1. Re:Yes ! by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that business with the Hindenburg was just a passing crisis which in no way halted the worldwide adoption of zeppelins for long distance passenger travel.

      (NB: I am a lifelong dirigible fanboi. But I recognise the difference between what I think is cool and what is real.)

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    2. Re:Yes ! by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      Well in the case of the Hindenburg they used hydrogen, and helium balloons
      don't have that problem.

      Stupidity can kill, and so far Bitcoin hasn't killed anyone that I know of,
      but the US dollar is likely the number one reason for collateral damage death
      around the world due to greed of the US military industrial complex.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
  32. I've never trusted BitCoin by JMZero · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There was money to be made at certain points, sure - and there may be more money to be made in the future. I'm sure some people have done quite well. But that doesn't mean any significant involvement with BitCoin going forward is a good idea.

    Trusting "BitCoin" isn't exactly what's important. To invest in or use BitCoins significantly, you'll end up trusting other people - and how do you know to trust those people, especially as the stakes get higher and higher? Banking and securities trading have a web of trust and regulation that's been built out over centuries. There's failure states and scandals, sure, but you have reasonable tools to decide who to trust and how much.

    What I see in people's experience with BitCoin is often a long string of red flags - difficulties doing withdrawals and transfers, huge fluctuations in value, varying exchange rates that nobody is able to arbitrage - all met with too few questions and far too much exuberance.

    --
    Let's not stir that bag of worms...
    1. Re:I've never trusted BitCoin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was money to be made at certain points, sure - and there may be more money to be made in the future.

      Wait... are we talking about "BitCoin the currency" or "BitCoin the commodity"?
      You don't (typically) "make money" with currencies as having a stable value is pretty much the entire point of currencies.

      Maybe, someday BitCoin will mature to the point of being a useful currency, but right now it's just a very volatile commodity.

  33. Short answer, yes by Linsaran · · Score: 1

    I trust that bitcoin will continue to be a currency with value and use until something else comes along that replaces it (and given BitCoins incumbent status as king of the cryptocurency world is I believe, unlikely in the near future. There are a number of 'altcoins' which each seek to improve upon BitCoin's core functionality in some way or another, but none of them have successfully come close to dethroning BTC).

    Bitcoin has a lot of functional benefits as a system for transferring value, even if it is eventually determined that its volatility ultimately makes it unsuitable as a currency for conducting day to day business with. This is especially true when it comes to international transactions. Currently the fees for transmitting USD across international wires, not to mention conversion to local currency (if needed) are significant, and time consuming (I've oft seen quotes of international wires taking 2-3 weeks to complete, depending on where it's going and what not). On the other hand, a bitcoin transaction is instantaneous, and after roughly 60 minutes is pretty much irrevocably entered into the block chain so that there is no possibility of the funds being lost or otherwise delayed in transmit.

    Now does this mean that I trust bitcoin to go up, or down, or sideways, or do anything else? Well, I'd like to say I'm hopeful for a strong future for the currency, and I trust that in the long run bitcoin will eventually stabilize as it matures more, but in the short term, we're still in the wild west so to speak.

    --
    In a bit of shameless internet panhandling, I accept Litecoin Donations at Lbd2oH9QsthD1GfuUXPyka12YxvWJYnBVf
    1. Re:Short answer, yes by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      I've been sending money internationally for years. I've never had it take longer than a day or so. Perhaps your country should consider joining the international banking system.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    2. Re:Short answer, yes by Linsaran · · Score: 1

      Even a 'day or so' is frankly outrageous considering our current technological capabilities. There is no real reason that an international transfer of funds should even take that long. I'll be fair and state that the 2-3 weeks is an outlier situation, but it's not at all unreasonable for someone transferring funds to a 2nd or 3rd world nation.

      --
      In a bit of shameless internet panhandling, I accept Litecoin Donations at Lbd2oH9QsthD1GfuUXPyka12YxvWJYnBVf
  34. What if? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What if you went to an Indian casino, exchanged your dollars for chips, and when you went to leave and cash out your remaining chips, they refused to exchange the chips for dollars, and instead decided to close shop. Would you still trust the dollar?

    That's essentially analogous to what this article is asking. Maybe bitcoin has porblems. It's too volatile to be an effective unit of cost. Those are separate issues from the problems Mt. Gox is having.

    Even the dollar has problems with corruption and cronyism involving the treasury, the fed, wallstreet, and too big to fail banks, that doesn't mean that an indian casino deciding to steal your money is due to any weakness in the dollar. That's just a business failing to uphold a promise either through theft or incompetence.

    Mt Gox is a financial institution that didn't have it's shit together. Yes it dealt in bitcoins. It also dealt equally in dollars and other currencies (i.e. because it was an exchange). That doesn't mean it the dollar or bitcoin is weak. They still could be, but it's not because of Mt. Gox.

    1. Re:What if? by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Bitcoins must be "mined", and there are an effective 21M of them. That's stupid.

      Fiat money like the USD is trusted because there's a history of trusting the nation that issues those fiats. In fact, since most dollars are virtual, stored as bit on computers, I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't all work on one mass halucination.

      "Horrors", you say! But humans have been living one hallucinations since they became cognizant, even before the rise of h. sapiens, so I have no problem with a worldwide hallucination.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    2. Re:What if? by DogDude · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What if you went to an Indian casino, exchanged your dollars for chips, and when you went to leave and cash out your remaining chips, they refused to exchange the chips for dollars, and instead decided to close shop. Would you still trust the dollar?

      I think you've got your analogy backwards and upside-down. The correct question would be, "Would you still trust the casino chips?"

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    3. Re:What if? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Bitcoins must be "mined", and there are an effective 21M of them. That's stupid.

      What is stupid about it?

    4. Re:What if? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Bitcoins are able to be used outside of an exchange. Casino chips can only be redeemed at the casino. In my example the casino chips represent GoxCoin (a promise of a bitcoin from mt gox), and the dollar represents a real bitcoin. The casino doesn't care if you keep the chip, as they are now worthless. Mt. Gox is not allowing people to withdraw money or real bitcoins. They are/were only allowing people to exchange promises of bitcoins (GoxCoins). This is similar to how a casino chip is a promise (which can be broken) of X dollars. Bitcoins at one point were trading at 5x the value of GoxCoins, which indicated that the market was only about 20% sure that Mt. Gox would ever allow withdrawals again.

    5. Re:What if? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      I know we have a tendency here at Slashdot to overextend analogies in order to break them so that we can claim that they don't apply, but I don't think I'm overextending it when I say that the analogy you provided really doesn't apply for one simple reason: the dollar isn't dependent on the casino to anywhere near the same degree that bitcoin is dependent on these exchanges. A casino is not at the core of the dollar's system. These exchanges are. Replace "casino" with "bank" and "chips" with, well, "dollars", and you'd have a more productive analogy.

      And if we did that, and if the bank refused to cash out my account, then yes, it is possible that I may not trust the dollar afterwards, depending on the size of the bank and why it was that they refused to cash it out. If I had my money with the biggest, most trusted bank in the world, and it suddenly collapsed, I'd question whether it would have an impact on the value of the dollar and would start to ask questions about how dollars are being managed. If runs on the bank are a regular occurrence, it may be an indication of a more deep-rooted problem with the underlying currency (e.g. volatility in inflation), and we have things like the FDIC and other forms of monetary policy in place to prevent those sorts of issues from taking place. Bitcoin doesn't.

      Can the dollar still fail? Absolutely, but there's been a few hundred years of work on making sure that it, and other currencies like it, take quite a bit of work to get to that point. Bitcoin works great on paper, but in practice, there's a lot more to consider.

    6. Re:What if? by Nutria · · Score: 1

      In a world of 7.2Bn people, a total currency of 21M is... 1/343th coin per person. Even restricted to the USA, that's 200 people for every coin. Use, you say, fractions of coins! The fractions would be so tiny as to be impractical.

      And another huge reason why bitcoins won't become popular: computers. Bitcoins require them, and most people don't have them. But everyone (including young children) can use cash.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    7. Re:What if? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      The reason I chose a casino, is because banks don't typically run away with people's money because they are usually heavily regulated. I figured an indian casino might better conjure an image of a unregulated exchange. That said, I don't think bitcoin is dependent on exchanges, especially one particular exchange, even if it was the biggest.

      if the bank refused to cash out my account, then yes, it is possible that I may not trust the dollar afterwards, depending on the size of the bank and why it was that they refused to cash it out. If I had my money with the biggest, most trusted bank in the world, and it suddenly collapsed, I'd question whether it would have an impact on the value of the dollar and would start to ask questions about how dollars are being managed.

      I think this confuses the issue, because we know how bitcoins are managed, because it is a decentralized currency with open source code, and freely available information of every single transaction that has ever occurred. How a currency is run is separate from how an exchange is run. You can have a good exchange that deals in poorly run currencies. You can have a bad exchange that deals in well run currencies.

      If the largest bank in the world collapsed, it might well be due to some destructive manipulation of the dollar. Bitcoin is not able to be manipulated in this same way. An indian casino really doesn't get to affect how many dollars are printed. While Mt. Gox certainly had an effect on bitcoin prices, they don't get to change the parameters bitcoin operates on. They don't get to adjust mining difficulty or the 21million cap. Nobody does.

      it may be an indication of a more deep-rooted problem with the underlying currency (e.g. volatility in inflation), and we have things like the FDIC and other forms of monetary policy in place to prevent those sorts of issues from taking place. Bitcoin doesn't.

      It doesn't, but there is nothing stopping you from insuring your bitcoins. Depositors are actually indirectly paying for FDIC insurance. If there really is a problem with the dollar tanking, and FDIC doesn't have enough money to cover the losses, they will just have the fed print more money, in essence dividing the loss among all people holding dollars. People could also buy insurance on their bitcoins to achieve the same risk mitigation. Or they could hedge their bets, neutralizing the risk of holding bitcoin but also the potential for gains.

      I think part of the reason these sorts of bitcoin risk mitigation strategies aren't used is because the people currently investing in it, are doing so because they like risk. People who want to play it safe are not investing in bitcoin. That doesn't mean that it's not possible to make bitcoin less risky to hold.

    8. Re:What if? by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      Use, you say, fractions of coins! The fractions would be so tiny as to be impractical.

      What exactly makes tiny fractions impractical? All the transactions are done on computers, and computers are quite good at multiplying and dividing to reformat those tiny fractions into whatever units you want to use.

      For example, if you think it's impractical to spend 42/100,000,000'th of a BitCoin, just tell your BitCoin app to spend 42 Satoshis instead.

      BitCoin has its problems, but the use of fractions isn't one of them.

      And another huge reason why bitcoins won't become popular: computers. Bitcoins require them, and most people don't have them.

      Most people have cell phones. Cell phones are computers.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    9. Re:What if? by LiENUS · · Score: 2

      I think you've got your analogy backwards and upside-down. The correct question would be, "Would you still trust the casino chips?"

      I dont think you understand this analogy. In this analogy the dollars represent bitcoins and the chips represent mt gox's internal units. They represent bitcoins much like the casino chips represent dollars, but as we learned were not backed with actual bitcoins.

    10. Re:What if? by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Cell phones are computers.

      But most people don't have smart phones. (That's what Project Ara is for, but it's not a product yet.)

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    11. Re:What if? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mt Gox is a financial institution that didn't have it's shit together.

      Mt Gox is the financial institution which traded about 70% of the BitCoin volume in the world. If, out of the handful of nations using the USD, the USA suddenly ceased to exist, I'm sure the rest would have issues.

    12. Re:What if? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Why are fractions impractical? Are concepts like $0.13 or $1.2 Million or 4.5 micro bitcoins too hard to understand? Are milliliters or kilograms too hard to understand?

      Are fractions still too hard to understand? Well luckily you don't have to. The smallest unit is called a satoshi and it represents 1/100000000 of a bitcoin. If you hate fractions you can just count everything in satoshis.

      That total number of satoshis is 210,000,000,000,000 = 2.1x10^15 = 2.1 quadrillion. This is 300,000 satoshis per person on planet earth.

    13. Re:What if? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was thinking the same, in the situation mentioned it is the casino exchange that is defrauding you not the Fed. If you could get your dollars back you could go out and buy Twinkies, try that with a plastic chip, monopoly money or Bitcoin. If the Bitcoin exchanges cannot be trusted then the currency is useless. Few retailers will exchange physical goods for virtual currencies that can't be cashed out. Linden Dollars and PLEX/ISK are probably a safer storage of wealth than Bitcoin

    14. Re:What if? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The analogy is fine as originally stated. If someone had a bitcoin wallet, and didn't entrust it to Mt Gox, they'd be perfectly fine - that's the equivalent to holding dollars. If they entrusted their bitcoin wallet to Mt Gox in order to use it as an exchange, then it's at risk - that's the equivalent to holding chips.

      The real problem here is that we've got a cryptocurrency that allows someone to truly be in control of their own holdings - and then we ruin it by using exchanges that require the exchange to have control over the holdings in order to use them. (If I understand correctly how Mt Gox works.)

    15. Re:What if? by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Are fractions still too hard to understand?

      Of course not. But they can be inconvenient at high negative exponents.

      The smallest unit is called a satoshi and it represents 1/100000000 of a bitcoin.

      The first thing I thought of when seeing that is the late and unlamented Italian Lira, which ended at around 2,000L/USD.

      Currently, one bitcoin is US$585. That means that 300,000 satoshi is worth... US$1.75.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    16. Re:What if? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he got it exactly right. The question was not "do you still trust MtGox Bitcoin accounts?" but rather "do you still trust Bitcoin?". MtGox closed shop because they could not pay out Bitcoin, not because they could not deliver "MtGox Bitcoin". There is little question that the faith in "MtGox Bitcoin" has dropped a lot as the trust in "MtGox dollars" has dropped over the last years (which is the reason that the "MtGox dollar/MtGox Bitcoin" exchange rate, only loosely coupled to real dollars and Bitcoins, was considerably higher for a long time than at every other exchange. Basically, MtGox had better excuses for delaying dollar payouts (and masking their financial holes in that manner) than for delaying Bitcoin payouts. But as the exchange rate for real dollars to MtGox Bitcoins was bad, people tended to stop bringing in real dollars to MtGox. And once they figured out that MtGox dollars were not really convertible well, they stopped bringing real Bitcoins in, either.

      So MtGox had only holes for stuffing their holes.

    17. Re:What if? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Currently, one bitcoin is US$585. That means that 300,000 satoshi is worth... US$1.75.

      That's a good thing not a bad thing.

    18. Re:What if? by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      In the not too distant future most ppl on the planet will have a cellphone.

      While it is not a "desktop" or "laptop" be assured it qualifies as computer
      and is a bit more robust then the the one on the Apollo missions.

      "The first hand-held cell phone was demonstrated by John F. Mitchell[1][2] and Dr Martin Cooper of Motorola in 1973, using a handset weighing around 2.2 pounds (1 kg).[3] In 1983, the DynaTAC 8000x was the first to be commercially available. From 1990 to 2011, worldwide mobile phone subscriptions grew from 12.4 million to over 6 billion, penetrating about 87% of the global population and reaching the bottom of the economic pyramid.[4][5][6][7]"

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    19. Re:What if? by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      Project Ara is a modular cellphone with swappable customizable parts.

      Current cellphones are doing BTC trades, thou most are smart phones.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    20. Re:What if? by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      Its in the BETA phase, most BETAs have issues, and even after final release they get service packs/patches.

      BitCoin isn't perfect, and neither is any of the paper currencies.

      "Work in Progress" sums up the stage BTC is at in my opinion.

      Someday it may become a final product that will never need another "patch",
      but even most modern software that is many years old still gets patches.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    21. Re:What if? by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      " A casino is not at the core of the dollar's system. "

      That's right, wall street is not a casino, its stable, honest, and reliable.

      Glad I wasn't drinking anything I might have spewed while typing that.

      While wall street is not the one that issues the money, they are the ones
      that turn it into a casino, and theft is VERY much a part of it.

      http://www.democraticundergrou...

      To the tune of $32 trillion that has been traced.

      How much was not traceable, who knows...

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    22. Re:What if? by Nutria · · Score: 1

      most ppl on the planet will have a cellphone.

      The people pushing cryptocurrency must not have children (who can handle small amount cash loooong before they're responsible enough to be given a cell phone -- especially an expensive smartphone).

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    23. Re:What if? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To complete that analogy, in case of bitcoin those chips are also accepted by *all* other indian casinos. ya i would still trust the casino chips so long as they are honored by others.

    24. Re:What if? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Why would you give small children cell phones or cash? Parents can just buy things for their kids. I really don't think the inability for small children to use cryptocurrency to be a significant disadvantage. You may as well complain that dogs can't use it.

    25. Re:What if? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Would you trust other casino chips == Would you trust another bitcoin exchange/promise of bitcoins (e.g. goxcoins).
      Would you trust the dollar == Would you still trust bitcoin

    26. Re:What if? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Mt Gox is the financial institution which traded about 70% of the BitCoin volume in the world. If, out of the handful of nations using the USD, the USA suddenly ceased to exist, I'm sure the rest would have issues.

      And even with this "catastrophic" event (e.g. an event that would have been catastrophic for the dollar), bitcoin is still trading at what it's price was in november 2013 (3-4 months ago). Other exchanges pick up the slack. This does nothing to affect actual bitcoin transactions or how many bitcoins are in the supply. In this respect I think bitcoin is more resilient than a government backed currency. Bitcoin is not dependent on Mt. Gox like the dollar is dependent on the US government and the democrats and republicans controlling it.

      Who is more resilient? Someone who has bones broken all the time, or someone who has never broken a bone but will die instantly if they ever do?

    27. Re:What if? by Dagger2 · · Score: 1

      Children are too young to use Paypal (which requires them to be 18 or above to agree to the contract). Does that mean Paypal is useless?

      For that matter, it also requires a computer to use. It fails two of your conditions for becoming popular, despite having become popular. This suggests that neither of these two conditions are actually necessary.

    28. Re:What if? by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Why would you give small children cell phones or cash?

      You don't have kids, do you? And your parents didn't (try to) teach you responsibility when you were young by giving you small amounts of money which was yours to do with as you wish?

      Parents can just buy things for their kids.

      Which, as a parent, I do all of the time. But I also give them cash.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    29. Re:What if? by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Why are you -- metaphorically -- comparing bananas and trucks?

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    30. Re:What if? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      You don't have kids, do you?

      No but I was a kid. Yes my parents gave me small amounts of money. I don't see why the cell phones and money can't come at the same time. In fact, bitcoin is actually safer than a credit card. 1. Your kids can have a separate wallet where you can decide how much money to transfer to them. 2. The most they can be robbed by is how much money is in their wallet, and that's assuming they accidentally give their private key to someone (equivalent to giving out bank routing numbers).

      If I felt safe giving a kid $5 to go to the store, I'd feel safe transferring $5 of bitcoins to their wallet and letting them go to the store to spend it (assuming there was a store that accepted bitcoin). Tablets are like $100 nowadays. I just got 2 free ones as promotions. They are only going to get cheaper.

    31. Re:What if? by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Cell phone -- even inexpensive ones -- are quite a bit more expensive than anything a responsible parent would trust with a child. Not to mention all of the confidential information on them (no, I actually don't want my kids' school enemies -- or random strangers -- to know all of our family phone numbers).

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    32. Re:What if? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I think you are worried about the wrong things. You are worried about your kids school enemies knowing your phone number? I don;t know if you are aware, but kids have cell phones these days. One could argue that no responsible parent would let their kid be without one, but I won't stoop to making these "no responsible parent" arguments. I don;t know why you think it's crazy not to trust a kid with $10 but crazy to trust them with a $40 device. You can even buy used cell phones for like $15. Are you worried that some enemy kids will learn your phone number buy simply bullying your kid until he tells them? Is that a rational fear?

    33. Re:What if? by Dagger2 · · Score: 1

      I'm not. The whole point of Bitcoin is to make a payment network -- essentially, a distributed-but-still-secure version of Paypal. And as it happens, Paypal is in pretty common use despite not being usable by kids and despite requiring computers, so it seems pretty unreasonable to claim that having either of those restrictions will stop it from becoming popular.

    34. Re:What if? by Nutria · · Score: 1

      The whole point of Bitcoin is to make a payment network -- essentially, a distributed-but-still-secure version of Paypal.

      Then "they" are failing miserably.

      Bitcoin -- being a cryptocurrency -- is fundamentally different from PayPal, which is a payment network sitting on top of various government fiat currencies.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    35. Re:What if? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +5? The analogy is correct. bitcoin/dollar, casino/mtgox, chips/mtgox btc balance. The title is not "Do you still trust your mtgox bitcoin balance".

    36. Re:What if? by Dagger2 · · Score: 1

      They aren't failing miserably. It works just fine for paying people.

  35. Sure, why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you stopped using the mail protocol after the Lavabit web email service closed down?

    Have you stopped using the internet after vulnerabilities in some routers where discovered?

    Have you stopped using credit cards after the last great Korean hack of 30.000.000 users data? Well, probably you should think about this one...

    1. Re:Sure, why not? by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      A vulnerability in a router or e-mail provider is not the end of the world, but a money system has to be something that is extremely trusted and reliable.

  36. Other exchanges do not manage the currency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The currency is managed by a decentralized network of computers which maintain a distributed database of transactions through "mining", which is a cryptographic work proof that prevents any single entity from manipulating the database. The exchanges "only" facilitate trading between fiat currencies and crypto currencies. Giving bitcoins to someone else or receiving bitcoins is an entirely decentralized process and does not require exchanges or banks.

    1. Re: Other exchanges do not manage the currency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And handing cash to another person under the table is somehow less decentralized? Been working quite well in underground circles for centuries! And if you think an electronic anything is "untraceable" you need a mental exam, pronto! I think it's probably the most traceable monetary idea, well ever!

    2. Re: Other exchanges do not manage the currency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem that Bitcoin is designed to solve is that currencies have centralized issuers, who can manipulate the value of the currencies as they see fit ("printing money"). In order to change that, Bitcoin uses a distributed database and cryptographic work proofs. But to be viable as a currency, Bitcoin must also fulfill other requirements, for example facilitating value transfers over large distances is a necessity. If Bitcoin required banks for that, like cash does, then that would add a single point of failure to an otherwise nicely distributed system. So Bitcoin has that advantage over cash: With Bitcoin, you can pay someone all the way on the other side of the planet without having to trust any third party not to take your money and vanish.

      You can hand cash to another person under the table, but the value of that cash depends on the whims of very few people. And even so, if that person isn't in the same room with you, you can't just hand over cash, can you?

  37. I'm married to my drum kit by smittyoneeach · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm married to my drum kit, you insensitive clod!

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    1. Re:I'm married to my drum kit by noh8rz10 · · Score: 0

      either that or your dong.

  38. I trust it just as much as I always have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Specifically, I trust it to deliver regular doses of shadenfreude and libertarian nerd tears.

  39. What do you mean "still"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one with an grain of common sense trusted it in the first place.

  40. I trust bitcoin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's only when it is gathered in mass in on place that I get itchy. Mt. Gox is natural progression. As long as there is banks, there will be bank robbers.

  41. My reply by aliquis · · Score: 1

    Yes.

    Then again if you have a lot of value stored in it you better take good care of your identifications. As with GPG keys and such ..

  42. I invited reddit for some fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reddit crew is here ready to defend their turf. Let the games begin!

  43. tractors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Blaming Bitcoin for these problems at MtGox is like blaming tractors for a dealer that goes bankrupt.

    Tractors are done, I never trusted those filthy toys. Let's go back to using horses to farm.

    Clearly tractors downfall was the combination of steel and oil both of which can deteriorate, what a farce. Tractors bah.

    I've never trusted tractors, If I inherit one I sell the damn thing tout suite.

    That's how ignorant some of you sound...

    Go get educated. Bitcoin didn't "die"... MtGox did. And good riddance. Moon.

  44. Bernie by ebonum · · Score: 1

    One could ask: after Bernie Madoff how could you ever trust a fund manager again?

    At some point Visa or Bank of America will start exchanging bit coins and change very high fees. They will have the same internal controls they use for the rest of their business. We don't need any innovation. The old processes work today and will work in the future. We need some company who knows how to run a transactional financial service to set up a service for bit coins. This does not exist today.

    1. Re:Bernie by jmd · · Score: 1

      I would take this a step further. Banks and the money people will adopt the bitcoin protocol and harness it for private use. Then they will discredit (as we see now) bitcoin until the general public thinks of bitcoin as a joke. Then, surprise! You will have JPMcoin. BofAcoin.

      The fundamentals are great. It is greed that will determine if the idea of digital currency is to benefit the money people or the common people.

  45. I don't trust Mt.Gox, but it's too late for that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I lost 1.3 BTC. That's at least partly my fault for not paying attention to what was going on at MTGox. On the other hand, I sold 1.2 for $1500 on Black Friday, so I did ok. I had bought the 2.5 for $50. :)

    So Mt.Gox was either full of incompetents or crooks. Or both. But that has to do with the "bank", not the currency. It'd be nice if they were protected by the Federal Government, but again, that's not a problem with the currency itself. I won't believe that there's something wrong with Bitcoins themselves unless someone shows a reliable way of stealing them that isn't based on user incompetence but instead on the currency itself.

    BTW, is there anyone out there insuring Bitcoins against loss or theft? Maybe that's too risky to do, but there'd certainly be a market after this mess.

  46. Do you still not believe it's a bubble ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Open your wallets, I have some extremely valuable tulips to sell you, they used to be worth 2 houses but they're currentty worth 10

  47. bitcoin is not independent and that's a problem by jinchoung · · Score: 1

    its value is pegged to "real" money.

    if it never or rarely converted to government backed cash, then it is viable. goods and services for bitcoins. that's a closed loop system that can be completely independent of all the players its purporting to avoid.

    but since people are buying into and cashing out and even SPECULATING with real currency, then you have an achilles heel.

    the point at which conversion happens IS regulated and guarded by government players and is actually and IDEAL place for governments to actually sabotage the entire endeavor if they wanted to.

    so until bitcoins slash any and all ties with real currencies and certainly until it loses all DEPENDENCE on them, they are just a new forex player that is highly unstable and insecure.

  48. My guess by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I speculate that the real story behind mT Gox is not the one they are telling us. My guess is that back when bitcoins were worth pennies that Mt Gox needed a bridge loan to cover a shorfall in revenues wrt to expenses. I imagine they gave themselves a loan from their holdings intending to pay it back from downstream revenues. But then bit coin went 10,000 fold in exchange rate and they could never pay back the 400 million that was now due. Their only hope was to either wait for the market price to drop, or to act like a ponzi scheme where they paid demands out of other depositors money. All of which they could do because they controlled the coins. Even if they paid everything back but $4000 of an original bit coin loan, that would now be worth the 400 million they are short. Perhaps they also boofed the maliabile ID too at some point, but they would have easily detected that instantly because their total assets would be different that their total liabilities. Unless of course they already had a deficit in assets that was masking that.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:My guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your explanation only works if their "revenue shortfall" expenses were in bitcoin and their "bridge loan" embezzlement was as well. You know, for all those business startup costs that are denominated in.... bitcoin... rather than local currency.

      Right, *or* they could be incompetent fuckups who got scammed and then tried to cover it up (and also get a bailout from the other exchanges).

      Occam doesn't seem to be conflicted here.

    2. Re:My guess by blackicye · · Score: 1

      I posit that this is just another smash and grab.

      Do I "trust" Bitcoin, yes, probably as much as any Fiat currency.

      Do I "trust" unregulated exchanges? No, how could anyone?

    3. Re:My guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is exactly what I thought the moment I heard it was never coming back up again. But what astonishes me is how much value the BTC users still give to the cryptocurrency. It's as if they don't mind that the iconic exchange went down under extremely suspicious circumstances. It's almost certain that what you described, is what's going on in every exchange out there.

    4. Re:My guess by MickLinux · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know, money is a commodity of value that is used as a medium of exchange.

      So there's the difference between bitcoin and national fiat currencies: national fiat currencies have as their commodity the mutual defense of the nation, which in turn makes for more reliable business, and thus profits.

      With bitcoin, the valuable commodity is... finding a greater fool. In other words, bitcoin is entirely bubble.

      Maybe I'm wrong. Bitcoin's valuable commodity could be laundering. But if that is the case, then I still have no value for it.
      No, I never did trust bitcoin.

      --
      Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
    5. Re:My guess by Mashdar · · Score: 2

      Not to mention that while national currencies can be manipulated to affect the economy, Bitcoin floats wherever the masses bid it up/down to. It has all of the instability with none of the control mechanisms and no underlying value. Meanwhile, Bitcoin is inherently deflationary. It's really a disaster of a currency in any financial sense. The only people touting it seem to be ideologues and get-rich-quick types.

    6. Re:My guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the fuck did I just read?!?!?!?!?

    7. Re:My guess by zedrdave · · Score: 1

      While entertaining, this hypothesis makes absolutely no sense...

      In what world would it be easier to exchange glorified magic beans for a loan? (a loan that would have to be in real, solid cash, as that's pretty much the only thing your staff and building manager will take)

      I don't even see how a "company" like MtGox (essentially, one basement-dwelling PHP coder and the couple people he eventually hired) could run into any serious "shortfall" in revenues. But even assuming they did: living in a country where interest rates are actually in the negative, would make it pretty easy to get a cheap loan, without offloading a commodity that, by design is guaranteed to appreciate in value (until it pops for good, in which case your business would also be in trouble, for other reasons).

      That MtGox guy is clearly an incompetent morons (as are the people foolish enough to trust him), but probably not that much of an idiot.

    8. Re:My guess by goombah99 · · Score: 1

      Your explanation only works if their "revenue shortfall" expenses were in bitcoin and their "bridge loan" embezzlement was as well. You know, for all those business startup costs that are denominated in.... bitcoin... rather than local currency.

      Right, *or* they could be incompetent fuckups who got scammed and then tried to cover it up (and also get a bailout from the other exchanges).

      Occam doesn't seem to be conflicted here.

      it's not hard to turn bitcoin into govt money. They just had to sell it on another exchange. IN fact if they thought bit coins price was going down, it would be a clever way to short it by borrowing the bitcoin and selling it all on another exchange, buy it back when the price falls.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    9. Re:My guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another person who doesn't understand the term 'inherently deflationary'...and doesn't understand the difference between a digital currency that can be almost infinitely split in to smaller sizes and physical 'currency' such as gold that can't be...

      Bitcoin floats because of the relatively small number of people still actively using it to trade products for Bitcoin. But since I can get a hooker in Vegas in exchange for Bitcoin that won't last long, if the sex trade is using it, soon enough everybody will...that's how society develops.

    10. Re:My guess by afxgrin · · Score: 1

      Nah you're giving them far too much credit for being clever.

      Just look at this stupid shit.

    11. Re:My guess by oobayly · · Score: 1

      My personal conspiracy* theory about the whole MtGox debacle is this: After playing the legit game of taking commission on trades, they found it increasingly hard to deal in real money as various countries around the world shut out access. Realising that their revenue stream will dry up, they use a bug in their withdrawal processing that allows them to slowly transfer their bitcoin holdings.

      Or maybe that they were simply playing the long game - make a bit of cash from the exchange, slowly build people's confidence, all the while "losing" bitcoins due to a bug, which conveniently isn't highlighted because they never bothered to reconcile how many bitcoins they thought had with how many they actually had.

      I've seen a presentation where a guy followed the path of bitcoins (I can't find it now), due to the public transaction records, it'd be interesting to see if someone does that with MtGox's wallet ID, and whether a large amount of them end up in the same place.

      * I enjoy making up conspiracy theories, one day one of them will take off.

    12. Re:My guess by rastos1 · · Score: 1

      With bitcoin, the valuable commodity is... finding a greater fool. In other words, bitcoin is entirely bubble.

      Was there ever a problem to find a greater fool? AFAIK, there is no shortage in that area.

    13. Re:My guess by satuon · · Score: 1

      Lol, password in the URL in cleartext!

    14. Re:My guess by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Pretty much everyone agrees on the first bit, that somehow Mt Gox got into trouble, and tried to get out of it by gambling with the customers' money like a bank (but uninsured!). The question is what that trouble was. It does not go back to when bitcoin was worth pennies, that I'm pretty confident of. I'm also pretty confident that it wasn't the transaction malleability bug itself - at worst, that could have drained the

      However, the transaction malleability bug might have been the trigger - or rather, the bank run it provoked was the trigger. As people were trying to withdraw bitcoin, Gox tried to dip into their long-term storage (cold wallet) - and they made an unpleasant discovery.

      What? That some of the cold wallets were empty, drained by an unfaithful employee? That they'd lost the passwords to some cold wallets? I don't know. Anyway, they briefly tried some desperate things with the money they had, in order to fix the problem before anyone knew. It failed. Then they went to other exchanges for a "bailout", trying to buy more time to fix the issue. Then the other exchanges demanded they come clean and reported them to the authorities.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    15. Re:My guess by pantaril · · Score: 1

      So there's the difference between bitcoin and national fiat currencies: national fiat currencies have as their commodity the mutual defense of the nation, which in turn makes for more reliable business, and thus profits.

      With bitcoin, the valuable commodity is... finding a greater fool. In other words, bitcoin is entirely bubble.

      In case of bitcoin, the valuable comodity is it's properties. You are fool if you think that national fiat curencies will last forever. I encourage you to find the mean life-span of past curencies various nations used.

    16. Re:My guess by pantaril · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that while national currencies can be manipulated to affect the economy, Bitcoin floats wherever the masses bid it up/down to. It has all of the instability with none of the control mechanisms and no underlying value. Meanwhile, Bitcoin is inherently deflationary. It's really a disaster of a currency in any financial sense. The only people touting it seem to be ideologues and get-rich-quick types.

      Maybe the pople touting it understand what you obviously don't: bitcoin is much more then currency. Even if it fails as currency, it can be store of value, payment network or some other service which uses proof of work concept.

    17. Re:My guess by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Even if they paid everything back but $4000 of an original bit coin loan, that would now be worth the 400 million they are short. Perhaps they also boofed the maliabile ID too at some point, but they would have easily detected that instantly because their total assets would be different that their total liabilities. Unless of course they already had a deficit in assets that was masking that.

      Exactly. Bitcoin exchanges are not really exchanges like a stock market exchange. They have take large short positions in Bitcoins that they cannot cover as Bitcoin prices rose. They could, and did, limit withdrawals to try to control cash flow but ultimately that will not be enough. They could simply refuse to cover their position and return all Bitcoins to their owners and go out of business, which would seriously erode the price of Bitcoins. What most exchange users failed to realize was the amount of counter party risk, instead they simply assumed the exchange would act like a real one despite the obvious liquidity problems. As with any speculative bet they lost even though they may not have realized they were in the game.

      What means for Bitcoin is until someone solves the liquidity issue Bitcoin will remain a highly speculative bet. Personally I doubt the liquidity issue can be solved.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    18. Re:My guess by Mashdar · · Score: 1

      Do you store your wealth in Beanie Babies, or use them as a means of payment? You talk about "store of value" and "payment network", but that's exactly what a currency is, and a failed currency is a terrible option for either, because it has very unpredictable value.
      The algorithm behind Bitcoin is interesting. It's just not a functional currency. The lack of built-in scaling means it would be deflationary purely due to population growth, if nothing else.
      I'm not saying Bitcoin has not given us an interesting case study, or possibly laid groundwork for some more functional accounting algorithm, but I have not seen any economically sound argument for its stability.

    19. Re:My guess by pantaril · · Score: 1

      Do you store your wealth in Beanie Babies, or use them as a means of payment?

      No, because unlike bitcoin, they are not digital, cannot be sent over internet, are not decentralized and can be easily faked.

      You talk about "store of value" and "payment network", but that's exactly what a currency is

      Oh realy? So paypal is currency? gold, land or houses are currency? I don't think so.

    20. Re:My guess by MickLinux · · Score: 1

      Yes, there was. That is the moment bubbles burst: when the greater fools run out.

      At that point, the market peaks, the current fools have to cover, the debts are called in, and then the market crashes. Greatest fools lose out.

      Except with TARP, in which the greatest fools in the real estate / banker swaps bubble were the rulers and their friends, at which point they sold out the weak of their country, defining them [us] to be the greater fool.

      Which makes us the greater fools, but only by definition. A lot of us were fully aware, but powerless.

      Come Lord Jesus.

      --
      Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
    21. Re:My guess by MickLinux · · Score: 1

      I never said that I thought national fiat currencies last forever. Venezuela and Ukraine both have currencies that are self-destructing as we speak. Argentina too.

      The national currencies last as long as the mutual defense does ... or in other words, as long as the "full faith and credit" does. I long ago lost any trust I had in the faith or credit of the rulers of my government. They're liars.

      --
      Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
    22. Re:My guess by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      In what world would it be easier to exchange glorified magic beans for a loan? (a loan that would have to be in real, solid cash, as that's pretty much the only thing your staff and building manager will take)
       

      I believe the theory would go like this:
      MtGOX had in it's virtual vaults other people's bitcoins.
      They decided to make use of this money (to bridge a shortfall, or to embark on some new business venture- it doesn't matter), and so took $1X worth of (other people's) bitcoins out of their vaults, and sold them for actual currency (using their or one of their rival's exchange services).
      They now have $1X (in real USD) in their possession to pay for whatever it is they wanted to pay for.
      They intend to use $1X USD to buy back $1X worth of BTC in the future to pay back into the business, so that their customers can have their money back. Perhaps they intend to do so "on demand", only if and when their customers actually ask for their money back in sufficient numbers.
      Suddenly, the value of BTC skyrockets. Each of their customers is now much richer. In order to buy back those BTC they owe, they'd now need to spend $10000X USD. They do not have $10000X- they only took $1X out, and haven't made THAT much money since.
      They hope like hell that enough of their customers keep a balance with them at any one time that they never get called on it until the problem fixes itself (either the value of BTC collapsing again, or them managing to make more profits).
      The value of BTC doesn't collapse fast enough, they find themselves unable to pay back customers making withdrawals, and their business collapses.

      The fact that there is a step there for "convert BTC to USD" doesn't particularly matter- that's obviously doable (hell, it's MtGOX's actual business!). Other than that conversion step, it's a classic bank run.

    23. Re:My guess by mrjimorg · · Score: 1

      Then put your money where your mouth is- if it really and truely deflationary then you would make money by buying bitcoins. Yet, my guess is that you don't own any. Is it because you don't want to make money or because you don't really believe your own words.

    24. Re:My guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then put your money where your mouth is- if it really and truely deflationary then you would make money by buying bitcoins. Yet, my guess is that you don't own any. Is it because you don't want to make money or because you don't really believe your own words.

      So then in converse, since you believe it is inflationary, you would be a fool to be holding bitcoins? Just buy them when you need them, but never hold them as a store of wealth.

    25. Re:My guess by Mashdar · · Score: 1

      No because deflationary currency is unstable, and Bitcoin is a hype bubble.

    26. Re:My guess by Mashdar · · Score: 1

      Are you claiming that online banking does not exist? Do you think banks are shipping paper back and forth when transactions occur? And paypal stores value in (wait for it) Dollars. Gold is a commodity, and has value (although we could argue about whether the current value is inherent or speculative). Likewise land and housing represent resources/goods and have value. But like all goods prices fluctuate, and (other than resources like gold and land) depreciation is a killer. If you are "storing" your worth in a house, land, etc., viewing it as superior to more diverse assets, you are a goof. Even if you buy that the housing market in general is fairly stable (can we lay this theory to rest?), individual markets surely are not.

  49. Doomed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It only survives if it is regulated by governernments (maybe?), and that defeats the purpose! The current failures are only the tip of the iceberg. The concept has no actual underlying support, other than difficult to solve hashes... It'll get hacked over and over! Pump-and-dump mixed with pyramid scams... As we have learned, a currency must have BAILOUT support to survive, if only for awhile... I suspect most of the participants will loose everything before long!

  50. Nothing changed except theory becoming reality by gman003 · · Score: 1

    Bitcoin is, by design, unregulated and unregulatable. That gives it strengths - the feds cannot seize your funds effectively, nor can your spending be monitored effectively. But it also gives it weaknesses - namely, the "banks" and other financial institutions are not inspected or insured, meaning they can "fail" rather easily either through mishap or malice.

    Anyone who thought that something like this wouldn't happen is a fucking idiot.

    But the fact that it could, and did, happen, just means the system is operating as designed, flaws and all. If you think the design was good, well, this doesn't change anything. If you think it was bad, now you have proof that one of the flaws can actually manifest, but that still doesn't automatically mean those flaws outweigh the benefits of the system.

    Now, there is a good argument to be had about just how bad that flaw is. But so far we've had very few Bitcoin failures, too few IMO to really predict how frequently they will occur in the future. So that argument isn't going to be settled for a long while.

    As for me, I'm still more concerned about speculators than about failing or fraudulent exchanges. I'll join up with cryptocurrencies once the waves of speculative investors die down - I trust them enough as currencies, but as an investment they're a horrible gamble.

    1. Re:Nothing changed except theory becoming reality by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      There is no reason you couldn't have a bitcoin bank that was regulated by the government.

  51. It's working quite well by Trogre · · Score: 1

    Bitcoin now functions as a wonderful scam perpetuated by electricity retailers, and so far is yielding impressive returns for those investors.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  52. Isn't bitcoin meant to be decentralized ? by x0ra · · Score: 1

    If so, how can the fall of a centralization point lead to such a loss

    Please excuse my ignorance, but there is something I do not get here...

    1. Re:Isn't bitcoin meant to be decentralized ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An exchange failed, not the Bitcoin system. The exchanges enable people to trade "real money" for Bitcoins in a more fluid way than "cash for Bitcoins", which is another possibility. The way most exchanges work is that you give them your money or Bitcoins respectively, then trade them and eventually have your funds transferred back to you. Transferring Bitcoins and storing them does not require centralized banks or exchanges. The Bitcoin system has worked as designed all the way through the MtGox collapse. You can get robbed of your possessions in many ways, especially if you just give them to someone else.

    2. Re:Isn't bitcoin meant to be decentralized ? by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Bitcoin can be used completely decentralized, but it can also be stored in a Bitcoin bank if the user wishes to. That's all there is to it.

    3. Re:Isn't bitcoin meant to be decentralized ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as bitcoin itself is concerned no loss has happened, as far as mtgox and their customers are concerned, well now some hackers are stinking rich. Just as when a pickpocket empties your wallet of dollars - as far as dollar the currency is concerned, no loss has occurred. As for you - tough luck.

      If you give your bitcoins to someone, say mtgox, be prepared to never see them again.

  53. So far yes by jmd · · Score: 1

    What I don't trust is the servers that people store their coins/cash on. I transfer my BTC and cash in and out as needed. I invested in BTC. I mine BTC. I support BTC.

    Anyone who reads any technology sites should know by now that computer systems are woefully unsecured. Why would anyone leave a few million bucks (or 20 for that matter) sitting on someone elses system.

    The real irony of the exchanges disappearing is that people want an unregulated currency. Well, guess what comes along with unregulated currency? If you promote unregulated currency you had better be prepared to do the work yourself to deter theft, ponzi scheme or whatever snakes lay in the grass.

  54. Huh? by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 1

    Saying that MtGox "proves" Bitcoin isn't trustworthy is like saying Bernie Madoff "proved" dollar bills aren't trustworthy.

    Conmen trick people into giving them money and then run off with it. That doesn't say anything about the financial value of the currency itself.

  55. Even more so now by reanjr · · Score: 1

    Mt. Gox disappearing is good for BTC. From what I've been reading, people who left their money in Mt. Gox accounts have mostly been blaming themselves for trusting an untrustworthy organization. The signs were all over the place that people should pull their money out. And judging by the decline in volume at Mt. Gox, it seems most people did already. And observers need to know that these exchanges are not secure places to keep their money.

    Anyone who willingly lets someone they hooked up with over the internet hold hundreds of thousands of dollars of their money should know the risks involved.

  56. Do Slashdot editors still SUCK COCK ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because they sure aren't doing any EDITING.

  57. People will trust any damn thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bitcoin is the magical merger of two different pixie dusts: the gold standard pixie dust and the technophilia pixie dust. The fact that it is unnecessary and lacking some of the most important benefits of a modern currency makes no difference. It's not about value, it's about some nebulous sensation of fixing something that's wrong in the universe that actually isn't wrong if you know enough about it. Anti-government Bircher crackpots and Silicon Valley technotopian nutcases can rally around their newest flavor of Kool-Aid, which appeals to, well, exactly those two groups and nobody else.

    Which is fine, really. Whatever makes them happy, and it actually doesn't harm most of them that much. Keeps them off the streets.

  58. Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never did. So, i guess i can't vote.

  59. Do I have to answer "yes" or "no"? by Baldrake · · Score: 1

    This is rather like that old one about are you still beating your wife?

    .

  60. Are drug addicts trustworthy? No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then a currency made to solely facilitate the purchase of drugs can't be either. Remember, it's thought that the inventor of Bitcoin is the same person who invented the Silk Road. From its very inception Bitcoin was nothing more than a tool for drug dealers and drug addicts.

  61. Maybe this will give bitcoin a chance by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    to NOT be used as money and instead become something useful.

  62. MtGox isn't the problem; stupidity is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People who put there entire life savings into MtGox/Bitcoin deserve whats coming. The problem wasn't that they possessed bitcoins or used MtGox. The problem was they didn't diversify assets. Having everything in one place is just asking for trouble. Particularly when it's an uninsured risky investment. If your young/middle age a much better idea is to do a 30/30/30 split. 30% in bitcoins (a risky investment, with potentially high returns), 30% in something that'll probably have a good return, but not high risk, and 30% in something that's stable and highly unlikely to lose money (this should be something that is easily accessible if you need funds). Now you can change these percentages depending on your age and risk tolerance. A person with lots of money may be able to handle more risk than a person whose financials are nil. If your living from paycheck to paycheck and going to starve/lose your rental/etc and can't afford to lose any money bitcoins isn't for you. If your doing well, and you have 30% disposable income then risking 25% isn't that big of deal if your willing to gamble your disposable income.

  63. Re:There is an adage that if something appears too by sexconker · · Score: 2

    There is an adage that if something appears too good to be true then it usually is too good to be true. Especially concerned as to the absence of explanation for the Mt.Gox collapse: never a good sign

    Mt. Gox collapsed because they had fewer Bitcoins than the sum of all the balances of the accounts.

    Imagine if Mt. Gox had 25 BTC, but they had 5 users total with a balance of 10 BTC each. That's a total balance of 50 BTC, which is double what MT. Gox actually has. That's Bad News Bears (Walter Matthau).

    Mt. Gox got in that position because the people running it were stupid.
    A commonly cited reason is the recent "attack" exploited a flaw in their software. Bitcoin transactions have an ID associated with them, but this ID can be changed. It is NOT an ID you want to use if you want to track a transaction. Mt. Gox and some other exchanges / pools relied on this ID, and some people were exploiting this by claiming that a transaction was not credited when it really was. When Mt. Gox / the pool looked shit up by the ID they'd see the user was right and they would credit them again. Of course, this "attack" was obvious to anyone with a brain, and even the morons without a brain figured out something was up when it happened a second or third time.
    But Mt. Gox did NOT go down because of this "attack". Mt. Gox went down because they spent (or stole) more than they took in through fees, plain and simple.

  64. I still trust /r/Bitcoin/ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just love to read the post on http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/ after yet another Bitcoin catastrophe has happened.

    "Mt. Gox Shuts Down"
    "Bitcoin banned in China"
    "Millions of Bitcoins stolen"
    "Bitcoin plunges"
    "Russia bans Bitcoin"
    "..."

    No matter what, the reply will always be: "THIS IS ACTUALLY GOOD NEWS" and then everybody is jerking all over the place, and telling about how another shitty hipster coffee shop now accepts Bitcoin. Don't forget the lame memes.

  65. everything made by man fails eventually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    even the 'weather' http://www.globalresearch.ca/weather-warfare-beware-the-us-military-s-experiments-with-climatic-warfare/7561 is being buggered up http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=weather%20manipulation&sm=3 so trust is relative to the time space & circumstance we're in.. never a better time to consider ourselves in relation to one another & our surroundings instead of phony payper schemes

  66. I never by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    trusted the scam that is bitcoin. Until its backed by more than bits on a server somewhere, and I can spend them in all of my local stores.its a scam to me.

  67. Trust and money by mendax · · Score: 1

    Money, or more specifically, currency has value only because others will accept it in exchange for goods or services. The reason why these pieces of paper, plastic, and base metal the governments of the world call dollars, euros, yuan, yen, francs, etc., etc. have value is not because those governments say they do but rather because those governments will accept them in payment of taxes, fees, and other amounts of money owed to them. From that one fact all else follows.

    So, let's follow the logic, Bitcoins are not issued by any governments. Furthermore, as far as I know, no government will accept them as payment for taxes or fees. However, because there exists an exchange for the buying and selling of Bitcoins using government-issued currencies, they have value but only relative to the values of the other currencies. You can think of it in another way, Bitcoin is almost exactly the same as buying gold and silver bullion coins. Because no government uses the gold standard anymore or issues gold or silver coins for general circulation, the value of gold and silver in relation to the dollar or the euro, for example, also varies.

    But the value of Bitcoins also is dependent upon the security of the place they are stored. If your Bitcoin wallet can be easily picked, you are going to value them less. You will view dollars deposited in a bank whose deposits are not backed by the government in a similar light. This happened during the Great Depression when people kept their money in their mattresses and other places. While a mattress may not be a secure place to store money, people viewed their mattresses as more secure than the banks that were going bust left and right at that time. The same can be said about gold. You can buy gold and pay someone else to store it securely, someone with insurance. But I can keep it myself under my proverbial mattress if I choose. And the same can be said about my 401K retirement account. It's with a reputable brokerage (well, if you can use that word to describe Wall Street shysters) and my account is backed by insurance. I expect it to be there when I need it. But I can if I choose get everything on paper and put it with the gold to keep it company. But Bitcoins do not exist physically. There is nothing I can stuff under the mattress. And there lies the ultimate problem I think.

    Well, the largest Bitcoin exchange is dead, 3/4 million Bitcoins have gone missing, and those who owned them are now out of luck. Do I trust them? What do you think?

    --
    It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
    1. Re:Trust and money by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      But Bitcoins do not exist physically. There is nothing I can stuff under the mattress. And there lies the ultimate problem I think.

      You can print out your private key and put it under your mattress. In fact many people do precisely this. This removes the possibility of your private key being discovered by malware on a computer you might use to access your wallet. But if you do this, you need to make sure that this private key is kept safe, because if you lose it or it burns in a fire, those bitcoins are lost forever.

      I don't see why physical manifestation matters, especially since all your bitcoins can be converted to a physical thing (piece of paper with a long number on it), in the same way that a digital picture can be converted to a physical picture by printing it at CVS.

    2. Re:Trust and money by mendax · · Score: 1

      But Bitcoins do not exist physically. There is nothing I can stuff under the mattress. And there lies the ultimate problem I think.

      You can print out your private key and put it under your mattress. In fact many people do precisely this. This removes the possibility of your private key being discovered by malware on a computer you might use to access your wallet. But if you do this, you need to make sure that this private key is kept safe, because if you lose it or it burns in a fire, those bitcoins are lost forever.

      I don't see why physical manifestation matters, especially since all your bitcoins can be converted to a physical thing (piece of paper with a long number on it), in the same way that a digital picture can be converted to a physical picture by printing it at CVS.

      Ah, an excellent point. This makes Bitcoins no more stable in value theoretically than precious metals or stocks and bonds. But I trust those more than I trust Bitcoins at present.

      --
      It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
  68. Implying. by Raven42rac · · Score: 0

    This implies and presupposes it was to be trusted to begin with. A wild west currency with no accountability. This is a logical outcome.

    --
    I hate sigs.
  69. What would Bruce Schneier say about Bitcoin? by VikingNation · · Score: 0

    Bitcoin uses cryptologic building blocks that have been around for years. On their own these algorithms have gone through extensive peer review. The challenge with cryptography comes in the implementation of the algorithms and the end-to-end protocols involved in the system. To quote Bruce Schneier "Anyone, from the most clueless amateur to the best cryptographer, can create an algorithm that he himself can't break. It's not even hard. What is hard is creating an algorithm that no one else can break, even after years of analysis. And the only way to prove that is to subject the algorithm to years of analysis by the best cryptographers around." [1] [1] - https://www.schneier.com/blog/...

  70. Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I trust it about as much as I trust the US dollar, which is to say that I fully expect a horrifying incident every few years that shakes my faith in it to the core. But unlike the USD, I can give BitC the benefit of the doubt since it's a relatively new currency that hasn't been properly shaken down yet. At least it still has that excuse.

  71. Silver dimes. by gatkinso · · Score: 1

    Mark my words.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  72. Unbacked != Fiat by LordLucless · · Score: 1

    Fiat currency and backing are different things. All fiat currency is unbacked, but just because a currency is unbacked, doesn't make it fiat.

    Backed currency relies on the physical properties of the universe to create scarcity (i.e. anything backed by a physical thing is inherently limited). Fiat currency relies on the authority of the state to create scarcity (i.e. only the state is allowed to print money). Cryptocurrencies like bitcoin rely on mathematical principles to create scarcity. Bitcoin is not backed; it's also not a fiat currency.

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  73. Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and yes.

  74. Spare the Trees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a tree hugger, spare the trees.........STOP THE PRESSES NO MORE PAPER MONEY!!! Save The Trees!!!! :P

  75. Not True by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not exactly true, banks are only insured to a point!

    1. Re:Not True by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      And to less of a point then most might think....

      http://www.zerohedge.com/artic...

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
  76. Wrong question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The question is not if I still trust bitcoin, the question is whether or not someone else trusts bitcoin and will accept bitcoin payment from me.

  77. Trust Bitcoin? Wrong question. by FeebleX · · Score: 0

    The question "Do you still trust Bitcoin?" is the equivalent of asking "Do you still trust the Internet?"

    Do I trust the protocols? YES.
    Do I trust random individuals? NO.
    Do I trust the market as whole? YES.

    Bitcoin is beautiful and one of the most significant developments in my life since the internet and mobile phones. Too bad the money aspect brings out the worst in people though.

  78. Logarithms! by Bram+Stolk · · Score: 1

    Guess what... bitcoin price is arguably still trending up.
    All you have to do is look at the logarithmic graph.
    And frankly, logarithmic is the only way to view it, considering the exponential price movement.
    Here's the data: http://bitcoincharts.com/chart...

    --
    Bram Stolk http://stolk.org/tlctc/
  79. Re: There is an adage that if something appears to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem here is that bilkcoin has no elasticity mechanism, because of its die-hard libertarian economic philosophy.

    Currencies like the dollar use elasticity (money creation) to deal with such crises.

  80. The problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    with BitCoin (atleast for MAJOR institutions) is that it raises some serious questions about markets ALREADY in place. Do you think that those markets are any more secure? How long before we start asking the right questions... Like who and how this happened:

    http://news.slashdot.org/story/13/09/25/1955220/somebody-stole-7-milliseconds-from-the-federal-reserve

  81. Headline - testing the waters is it? by dbIII · · Score: 1

    "Do you still trust bitcoin" can be translated as "are you a potential mark for this pyramid scam I'm part of".

  82. From the MtGox homepage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Dear MtGox Customers,

    As there is a lot of speculation regarding MtGox and its future, I would like to use this opportunity to reassure everyone that I am still in Japan, and working very hard with the support of different parties to find a solution to our recent issues.

    Furthermore I would like to kindly ask that people refrain from asking questions to our staff: they have been instructed not to give any response or information. Please visit this page for further announcements and updates.

    Sincerely,
    Mark Karpeles

    Dear Mark,

    A simple "Fuck you!" would have sufficed.

  83. Millions of dollars conjured from thin air... by Lendrick · · Score: 1

    ...vanishes into thin air again.

    No, I don't trust Bitcoin. Never really did.

  84. Re:There is an adage that if something appears too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Insolvent.

  85. Create value "out of nothing" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wasting perfectly good electricity creating something of value out of nothing

    I earned the bitcoin by selling a piece of software

    In one instance you use computation power and time to create value, and in the other you use your brain power and time to create value. So, you think you don't generate value?

  86. Theft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't fully understand how bitcoin operates so this might be a bad question.

    If there are supposed to be multiple sources to validate an exchange of bitcoins, and a trail to verify ownership, shouldn't it be 100% possible to know exactly which bitcoins were at MT Gox and where they went?

  87. Racist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Analogy would have worked just as well without the word "Indian'.

  88. New marketing campaigns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "A Bitcoin is forever"

    "How large a Bitcoin should I give my fiance? Use the two-months salary rule."

  89. Trading Cards by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    People can still speculate in Magic The Gathering trading cards. And Beanie Babies and all other sorts of ways of getting rich.

  90. ha? by superwiz · · Score: 1

    Doesn't the fact that it survives mtgox's collapse without regulation and without any bail outs show that it is more stable than the dollar?

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    1. Re:ha? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Doesn't the fact that it survives mtgox's collapse without regulation and without any bail outs show that it is more stable than the dollar?

      No. It simply shows that as with any highly speculative investment some people will lose a lot of money and most of the world won't give a damn about what they invested in or their loses

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  91. Currency vs. bank by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 1

    There's a distinction between the currency and the bank or other place you store your currency in. I can trust the currency while not trusting my bank, usually that results in my pulling my money out and putting it somewhere I do trust. That's actually one of the reasons we have the FDIC today in the US: at one point banks proved so untrustworthy that literally 90% of the country was trying to pull their money out to stuff into their mattress. We've been close to that happening again not too long ago. It's no surprise that we're running into the same thing with Bitcoin exchanges. It'll only get solved when, whether by technical or regulatory/legal means, the Bitcoin exchanges have a sufficiently hard time getting out of having to pay account holders their account balance and are required to have sufficient reserves to give confidence in their ability to do so. Right now the only place I'd trust to store Bitcoins is my own computer. Fortunately, that's possible.

    As far as the currency goes, right now no I wouldn't trust it to retain it's value. It's spiked too hard and too high. That spike combined with exchange problems says to me it's going to be too volatile to trust until it settles down again.

  92. the answer is by dimko · · Score: 1

    YES! At any time i trust more mathematical concept than a goverment agent of any kind.

  93. Hell Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh yes I do trust bitcoin

  94. Yes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I trust bitcoin, it's software.

    I don't trust people to be smart with digital currency. I don't trust banks for sure. Everyone else is having problems but my own bitcoin is safe.

    Problem? What problem?

  95. Depends... Do you still beat your wife? by denzacar · · Score: 1

    Loaded what now?

    Bitcoin? No thanks.
    I try to avoid investing in pyramid schemes and lottery tickets.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Depends... Do you still beat your wife? by Dagger2 · · Score: 1

      The point of Bitcoin is to replace Paypal, not to be an investment.

      Obviously investing in anything is a gamble that most people would want to avoid. The real question here is: would you be willing to use Bitcoin to pay somebody money? (If not, what bit about it don't you trust enough for doing that?)

    2. Re:Depends... Do you still beat your wife? by denzacar · · Score: 1

      The real question here is: would you be willing to use Bitcoin to pay somebody money? (If not, what bit about it don't you trust enough for doing that?)

      No.
      The real question is would EVERYONE from whom I want to buy something accept the payment in Bitcoin - BECAUSE of the wild fluctuation of its value when converted back into cash.
      When I pay for something on eBay using PayPal neither I nor the seller have to worry about ludicrous changes in value of the money I paid with.

      Followup questions being:
      Can Bitcoin ever have a fixed exchange rate to actual currencies?
      When will Bitcoin achieve that?

      My guess is, probably not on the first - because people treat it as if it is both a gamble and as if hoarding it is a good... no BRILLIANT idea as its value will always go up.
      After all, there being a limited number of BTC out there its value MUST continuously go up, right?
      Which makes it highly susceptible to pump-and-dump schemes.

      Which answers the second question - when people stop being stupid hoarders.
      AND when some heavy regulation of BTC takes place - which would probably kill it as any regulation would first and foremost concentrate on making it impossible to use BTC for criminal activities.
      And that would probably mean something like using your real name and a biometric ID for any BTC exchange.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    3. Re:Depends... Do you still beat your wife? by Dagger2 · · Score: 1

      So basically, your complaints boil down to "the exchange rate is too volatile", which suggests you'd be okay with Bitcoin if that wasn't a problem. (And as it happens, it's something that can be pretty much completely hidden today if you buy BTC as you need it and pay via somebody like Bitpay that fixes the price for a period of time.)

      (I don't see any way for the price to ever be fixed to actual currencies -- partially because this would involve being fixed to multiple currencies which are themselves not fixed to each other. The good news is that this obviously isn't important, because e.g. USD, EUR and JPY are all not fixed to each other, and yet people still use them.)

      Other than that, your only issue is regulation (of, presumably, exchanges). IANAL, but I would've thought that exchanges would already be covered under existing regulation for companies that handle money. It's worth pointing out at this point that Paypal in America isn't directly regulated by the US federal government, so if you're in America and you use Paypal then this isn't actually a requirement for you anyway.

    4. Re:Depends... Do you still beat your wife? by denzacar · · Score: 1

      And as it happens, it's something that can be pretty much completely hidden today if you buy BTC as you need it and pay via somebody like Bitpay that fixes the price for a period of time.

      You are completely missing the point.

      I can go and buy gold and diamonds and bear skins TODAY - but they are useless to me as a currency in my local shop that won't accept them.
      Why? Because the risque and taxes attached are too high for THEM. THE SELLERS OF ITEMS.

      They would either have to get rid of my gold, diamonds, bear skins or BTC right away OR face possible consequences of huge losses when that "pretty much completely hidden today" volatility kicks in.
      Same goes for online retailers. Only those willing to gamble on heavy losses (and possible tax issues) would use something so volatile.

      And if I'm gonna use an intermediary like Bitpay - what's the point of BTC? Why not simply use Paypal? Or, you know, cash and credit cards?
      An established, secure, widely accepted way of paying (and being paid) for various things.

      I don't see any way for the price to ever be fixed to actual currencies

      You pay all your bills in BTC? Food, water, electricity, clothing, transport, medical bills...
      Try talking your local cashier into accepting some perfectly usable Yen.
      And that's an actual currency. Used by MILLIONS of people every second for centuries. AND you can actually hold it in your hand.

      As for your regulation talk...
      You're doing some ignoratio elenchi there.
      Paypal is a service using real world currencies. Any regulation present or not would regulate Paypal.

      BTC regulation would regulate BTC. Not exchanges. Bitcoin itself needs regulation.
      Just like the dollar is regulated.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    5. Re:Depends... Do you still beat your wife? by Dagger2 · · Score: 1

      I can go and buy gold and diamonds and bear skins TODAY - but they are useless to me as a currency in my local shop that won't accept them.
      Why? Because the risque and taxes attached are too high for THEM. THE SELLERS OF ITEMS.

      They would either have to get rid of my gold, diamonds, bear skins or BTC right away OR face possible consequences of huge losses when that "pretty much completely hidden today" volatility kicks in.
      Same goes for online retailers. Only those willing to gamble on heavy losses (and possible tax issues) would use something so volatile.

      No; they're useless to you in your local shop that won't accept them because the shop won't accept them. But if the shop does accept them, then they're useful to you. It doesn't matter to you how fast they need to get rid of whatever you used to pay with, or whatever other problems they might have, because that's all internal to the shop and has nothing to do with you.

      "Because the shop doesn't accept it" is a pretty good reason for not using Bitcoin -- but it would mean that you'd be perfectly happy using it if the shop did accept it.

      And if I'm gonna use an intermediary like Bitpay - what's the point of BTC? Why not simply use Paypal? Or, you know, cash and credit cards?
      An established, secure, widely accepted way of paying (and being paid) for various things.

      The point of Bitcoin is that it's decentralized. You don't have some central entity telling you who you can or cannot pay.

      Perhaps you don't care about that, in which case, the reason might well be simply that you are trying to pay somebody that doesn't accept Paypal, cash or credit cards.

      I don't see any way for the price to ever be fixed to actual currencies

      You pay all your bills in BTC? Food, water, electricity, clothing, transport, medical bills...
      Try talking your local cashier into accepting some perfectly usable Yen.
      And that's an actual currency. Used by MILLIONS of people every second for centuries. AND you can actually hold it in your hand.

      I have no idea what relation this has with the text you quoted. You do allude to a good point here though: even though my local cashier doesn't accept Yen, Yen is still a thing that's useful. If you found a cashier that only accepted Yen, presumably you'd be happy to use it. Why do you not apply that same logic to Bitcoin?

      As for your regulation talk...
      You're doing some ignoratio elenchi there.
      Paypal is a service using real world currencies. Any regulation present or not would regulate Paypal.

      BTC regulation would regulate BTC. Not exchanges. Bitcoin itself needs regulation.
      Just like the dollar is regulated.

      What regulation are we talking about here, then? The necessary regulation for making Bitcoin a payment network (anti-counterfeiting, accurately keeping track of money etc) is handled by the Bitcoin protocol. What more is necessary to make it usable as a payment network?

  96. /. users were in love w/ BTC by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    It assumes a positive that for most people doesn't exist.

    I know what you mean, but there are several Bitcoin fanbois on /. as well....was it really a bad assumption?

    Just look how bad I got trolled & downmodded when I dared ask if Bitcoin had peaked & questioned MT Gox's credentials

    I started out as a +1 then my +1 modifier, and got modded all over...over 10 mods both directions +/- ending with a neutral

    Here's a less trollface logged-in user, one of many on that thread, that tried to tell me how stupid I was for asking those questions: http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

    And now...wow...look at the top comments...everyone seems to have seen this "coming a mile away"

    But really, /. is just so big...point being...it was reasonable for /. editors to assume that a sizable portion of /. users would have trusted Bitcoin.

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  97. use as directed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bitcoin was designed a medium for commerce and trade, and can work well for that. If you're using it for speculation or investment, you're setting yourself up for trouble. It's just like your physical wallet. How much cash do you carry around in your physical wallet? $100 maybe? If you are carying around $100,000 in cash then you're setting yourself up for trouble.

  98. use as directed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bitcoin was designed a medium for commerce and trade, and can work well for that. If you're using it for speculation or investment, you're setting yourself up for trouble. It's just like your physical wallet. How much cash do you carry around in your physical wallet? $100 maybe? If you are carrying around $100,000 in cash then you're setting yourself up for trouble.

  99. short sale by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    If you don't like my theory then then consider a less benign but equivalent Short sale angle. If you are confident Bitcoin is going to lose value then you "borrow" all the bit coin entrusted to your exchange and sell it on another exchange for dollars. Then when the price falls you buy it back. Shorting are a common practice to leverage huge gains from little investment and are a good way to get in real trouble fast if the price goes up instead.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  100. Of course, nothing has happened to change the valu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course, nothing has happened to change the value of the bitcoin invention. bitcoin is awesome, its the future.

  101. s/Do you still/Did you ever by mmell · · Score: 1

    Fixed the title for ya!

  102. The problem with that is by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    The fact that Bitcoin goes backwards with regards to monetary policy is a feature, not a bug, according to its proponents. It seems that most people who are Bitcoin advocates do not have a very good knowledge of financial history. There is this belief that back in the day when we had currency that was backed by, or composed of, precious metals that we never had any financial problems. They believe that all our financial woes are a new thing, and that by moving back to an older monetary policy things would be better.

    This is just typical âoenever wasâ syndrome. You see it from various people for all kinds of things: they look back to a glorious past where everything was better, in other words a past that never was. You frequently see this in relation to crime, schools, and social things like that, this is just the financial version.

    Then of course there are people who the lack of regulation is a bonus for because theyâ(TM)re criminals, con artists, and things like that. A currency with no government regulation, no tracking, and no way to reverse transactions is an absolute boon for those that wish to rip others off. So they quite like Bitcoin as it is.

    People who actually like new monetary policy? Well weâ(TM)ve all avoided using Bitcoin because we recognized it for the problem it is. So donâ(TM)t expect to see any changes. The problems with it that you quite rightly see his major flaws, the proponents see is a good things.

  103. Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mt. Gox isn't bitcoin. The protocol is sound and it will change the way people deal with money.

  104. It's irrelevant whether YOU trust btc... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... fact is you can swap 1 btc for $560 at a number of exchanges right now.

  105. It is simple, what is the zombie survival guide to by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    It is simple, what is the zombie survival guide to you? There are other older books like it, I had one about what to do after nuclear war.

    But to some such books are emergency guides on how to deal with disaster, to others they are a wet dream they wish would come true tomorrow.

    Same with the collapse of the world banking system when GOLD.... BITCOINS will become THE currency of choice. They don't predict it will happen as much as they desperately wish it to become true. You are dealing with the fantasies of people who WANT to see the world BURN.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  106. Wow... dumb by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    So a currency that is supposed to untraceable and outside government control, is safeguarded by the same law it is claiming to be outside the control off.

    Makes sense.

    Bitcoin user: Police officer, I have hidden a fortune from the IRS and now someone abskonded with it, I have no proof of any of this of course because bitcoins are untraceable and there is no paper trail by design. Do something.

    Police officer: Mwahhahahahahah! Wait, let me call the IRS, you just after all gave testimony to a police officer you have a fortune, they don't care if you no longer have it, you still have to pay taxes over when you had it. ahahhahahahhahahaaa! Donut time!

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Wow... dumb by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      This was in regard to an exchange, in which case there will be a paper trail. And while you are right that it would be a bad idea to try and get the police to help you get Bitcoins you have hidden from the IRS back, the same would be the case for ordinary money, or art, or anything else.

    2. Re:Wow... dumb by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Bitcoins are actually much easier to trace than cash. Every transaction is recorded in the block chain which is public for anyone to see. I bet intelligence agencies absolutely love bitcoin and are actively using it to trace connections between criminals all over the world.

      There are ways to anonymise transactions using third party services who receive bitcoins from many different sources and return the money in randomised, seemingly unrelated transactions, but that requires trusting those services. Basically, they do money laundering just like similar laundering services for other currencies. And if you received money from them, you might have some explaining to do when law enforcement one day asks you where you got all those bitcoins. Just like you might have to explain where you got the bundle of banknotes you used to pay for your new house.

      So yes, it is possible to launder bitcoins and render them very hard to trace, just like it's possible to launder other currencies, but I wouldn't call bitcoin untraceable by design. If anything, it's more traceable.

    3. Re:Wow... dumb by pantaril · · Score: 1

      So a currency that is supposed to untraceable and outside government control, is safeguarded by the same law it is claiming to be outside the control off.

      Bitcoin is not supposed to be untracable, that is a myth, see blockchain. Every transaction can be traced to unique bitcoin address.

      Also bitcoin is not outside of all govrrnment control. Nothing is. Bitcoin has no central authority which could print new bitcoins but that doesn't mean is somehow stands outside of existing laws.

    4. Re:Wow... dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said it was hidden from the IRS, or that taxes have not been paid?

      This smells like the thief that assumes everyone else steals when they have the chance. Or the spouse that is paranoid of their partner because they themselves cheat at every opportunity.

  107. Sustained! by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    I didn't ever trust it either. The idea is nice enough but where lots of money is to be had, crooks gather. And I am not smart enough to play chicken with them. Banks have crooks too? Sure but they deal with billions, my bank account is of no interest to them whatsoever. Saved by poverty.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  108. No, I don't trust it. by YukariHirai · · Score: 1

    But on the other hand, I didn't trust it before so recent events haven't decreased my trust in it.

  109. Bitcoin investment game: Greater Fool Theory by perpenso · · Score: 1

    Bitcoin has been gaining traction for a long time. Did you notice the run from $5 to $1200?

    Do you understand the implications of that run?

    Lets say you purchased a bit coin at $5 back in the day and you sold it a couple of months ago for $1200. Where did the exchange get the $1200 to pay you? What happens if lots of other bitcoin holders want dollars all of a sudden?

    Bitcoins may work as a transactional intermediary. You immediately (or recently) convert traditional currency to bitcoins, purchase something with bitcoins and the seller immediately (or soon) converts bitcoins to traditional currency. However it can not work as an investment vehicle. The exchanges can only pay out the amount of traditional currency they have taken in from bitcoin purchases or fees they have charged in traditional currencies. That $5 to $1200 run should be setting off all sorts of warning bells. The bitcoin investment game is a great example of the Greater Fool Theory", from wiki:
    "The greater fool theory states that the price of an object is determined not by its intrinsic value, but rather by the often irrational beliefs and expectations of market participants. A price can be justified by a rational buyer under the belief that another party is willing to pay an even higher price. Or one may rationally have the expectation that the item can be resold to a "greater fool" later."

    That $5 to $1200 run is nothing to brag about, it encourages the speculative investment game that will destroy bitcoin's credibility.

    1. Re:Bitcoin investment game: Greater Fool Theory by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      Lets say you purchased a bit coin at $5 back in the day and you sold it a couple of months ago for $1200. Where did the exchange get the $1200 to pay you?

      From the person who agreed to pay $1200 for your bitcoin. Do you not understand how exchanges work?

    2. Re:Bitcoin investment game: Greater Fool Theory by perpenso · · Score: 1

      Lets say you purchased a bit coin at $5 back in the day and you sold it a couple of months ago for $1200. Where did the exchange get the $1200 to pay you? What happens if lots of other bitcoin holders want dollars all of a sudden?

      From the person who agreed to pay $1200 for your bitcoin. Do you not understand how exchanges work?

      You left out that final question which is the point of the post? There have to be buyers to match to the sellers, others who are pumping new currency into the exchange. In other words bitcoins act like stock and can therefore crash, possibly going to zero. You are entirely dependent upon the existence of the "greater fool" as described in the theory.

    3. Re:Bitcoin investment game: Greater Fool Theory by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      Yet the stock market has been operating just fine for 100 years. What's your point?

    4. Re:Bitcoin investment game: Greater Fool Theory by perpenso · · Score: 1

      Yet the stock market has been operating just fine for 100 years. What's your point?

      Actually lots of wealth was lost by some in the last 100 years and that is with a regulated market. Look at the stock markets prior to regulation, they are a far better comparison.

      My point is the "Greater Fool Theory". Bitcoins may be a modern tulip in its current unregulated form. A poor investment, although possibly useful as a temporary intermediary for a transaction. The store that internally denominates an item in dollars or euros, does a real time conversion of the price to bitcoins, accepts the bitcoins as payments and then immediately converts them back to dollars or euros should be OK. My problem is with holding bitcoins over time as was exemplified by the bragging about the $5 to $1200 run. People involved in such speculative behavior are going to screw things up. When the speculators bail out and sellers outnumber buyers and that store has problems immediately converting bitcoins to dollars or euros the store may stop accepting bitcoins, or pad the price for bitcoins users. In short the $5 to $1200 run is something to be concerned about, not something to brag about.

  110. I don't keep my bit/whatever-coin in the exchanges by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    how can we be sure that an exchange won't be hacked?

    There is a simple way out of the mess ... do NOT keep your coins in the exchanges.

    I have offline wallets - yes, chip based wallets that keep my virtual currencies from prying parties.

    I'll hook them up online when I need to use them to load or unload the virtual currencies - mostly, to convert the virtual currencies into real world assets.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  111. Paper currency used to equate to metal ... by perpenso · · Score: 1

    How are you supposed to buy things from online stores with gold? File off some shavings into an envelope and mail order stuff from online? Are we really going to all carry gold and silver coins in our pockets when we go shopping? Gold isn't really useful as a currency if it is just sitting in a vault.

    You are mistaken, gold in a vault was effectively an everyday currency until about 40 years ago. The problem of carrying around gold and silver coins was solved a long time ago.

    Paper currency used to represent a specific amount of gold or silver sitting in a government vault. Various U.S. bills used to say "silver certificate" on them. They could literally be exchanged for silver dollar coins if you wanted to. As recently as 1964 $1, $5 and $10 bills were silver certificates.

    When people refer to the "gold standard" they are referring to a standard by which a currency equates to a specific amount of gold sitting in a government vault. In the U.S. this was done as recently as 1971.

    1. Re:Paper currency used to equate to metal ... by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      Yeah just don't try to setup silver certificates to replace the Federal Reserve corporate notes
      or you will end up like Lincoln and JFK.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    2. Re:Paper currency used to equate to metal ... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      You are talking about gold backed currency. The OP was talking about using gold *as* currency.

    3. Re:Paper currency used to equate to metal ... by perpenso · · Score: 1

      You are talking about gold backed currency. The OP was talking about using gold *as* currency.

      If the paper certificates represent gold the difference is semantics. The problem of carrying around gold coins is a red herring, that problem being solved by the certificates.

    4. Re:Paper currency used to equate to metal ... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      The OP made no mention of using certificates. He said:

      i would rather see platinum, gold, palladium and silver made in to coins and used as currency, at least the government can not counterfeit it like they do with the USD

      Presumably he is not talking about paper certificates because the government could counterfeit those just as easily. Furthermore, what is the point of having the gold be in coins if you never use them as currency?

  112. The dollars is volatile, not gold by perpenso · · Score: 1

    What is the advantage of doing this over bitcoin? Sure the price of bitcoin is highly volatile. The price of gold is highly volatile as well. If you tie the dollar to gold, the dollar becomes volatile as well.

    You are mistaken. Gold itself is not very volatile. It is the exchange rate between gold and a particular currency that may be highly volatile. When a particular free floating currency suffers a loss of confidence it takes more of that currency to purchase gold. If confidence can be restored to the currency then it will take less of that currency to purchase gold. Note that free floating currencies can behave independently. Free floating currency A can experience a loss of confidence and the price of gold in currency A will go up. Simultaneously free floating currency B can be experiencing no loss in confidence and little to no change in the price of gold when purchased with currency B.

    The point of a gold standard is that a currency's purchasing power is more stable. The amount of money is limited by the amount of gold a government possesses, the government can't just print more money and devalue the currency. Plus it encourages a government to keep trade somewhat balanced, unbalanced trade equates to exchanging gold between countries and deflating one currency and inflating the other.

    1. Re:The dollars is volatile, not gold by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Gold is still volatile. The steadily increasing price of gold is due to the dollar being dilluted over time. The short term booms and busts of gold are just due to the volatility of gold. It is not due to volatility of the dollar. If this were true, then you'd see the price of everything compared with dollars just as volatile as gold. Cans of soup don;t jump in price every time gold jumps in price (i.e. keeping cans of soup and gold at the same exchange rate).

    2. Re:The dollars is volatile, not gold by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      That IS the value of gold being volatile.

      Let's say a loaf of bread is $1. You could also exchange that $1 for X BTC or Y gold, and then exchange those BTC or gold for a loaf of bread (assuming your grocer is amenable).

      Now let's say you go back one year later to buy some bread. Now that bread costs $1.03 (damned inflation). Or it costs 0.001X BTC, or 1.5Y gold. The value of both the gold and the BTC can be seen as mor volatle, in grocery terms, than the dollar.

      This is actually what has happened in the last couple of years. Dollar inflation remains in low single digits. In the meantime, BTC is 10,000x more valuable (in dollar or grocery terms) than it was a couple of years ago, and gold has lost about a third of it's value (again, in dollar and grocery terms) over the same period. This isn't just the dollar being volatile- otherwise the price of bread (and everything else) will have changed wildly in that time in dollar terms, which it didn't (or at least not as much as it did in gold and BTC terms).

      Or to put it another way- if you had converted all of your wealth to gold a few years ago, you'd be able to buy far less actual stuff (groceries etc.) with it today than you thought you could a few years ago. That is value changing, not just a "volatile dollar".

    3. Re:The dollars is volatile, not gold by perpenso · · Score: 1

      Gold is still volatile. The steadily increasing price of gold is due to the dollar being dilluted over time. The short term booms and busts of gold are just due to the volatility of gold. It is not due to volatility of the dollar. If this were true, then you'd see the price of everything compared with dollars just as volatile as gold. Cans of soup don;t jump in price every time gold jumps in price (i.e. keeping cans of soup and gold at the same exchange rate).

      Gold gives a falsely inflated appearance of high volatility because you are measuring it in terms of dollars. Gold's "stability" is largely relative to the currency you use to measure it. In the 2009-2011 timeframe where the price took off, the change in gold as measured in swiss francs is half the change as measured in dollars.

      You are mistaken to think that the volatility of the dollar would translate into a rise in the price of a can of soup. If all the inputs into a product are sourced from a region whose currency is the dollar there is no problem. There is only a problem when inputs are sourced from a region using some other currency that is strong while the dollar is weak. Notice how when a currency weakens that country's exports become more attractive since they are denominated in that weakened currency, and conversely become less attractive when that country's currency strengthens.

    4. Re:The dollars is volatile, not gold by perpenso · · Score: 1

      That IS the value of gold being volatile.

      No, the volatility is primarily in the currency. The problem is that you are attempting to measure something (gold) using a measurement that is not fixed (dollar). Imagine if the "inch" was not fixed, if it was allowed to change, say it varied with the distance between two joints in the U.S. President's thumb. Your 32" monitor may become a 31" or a 33" monitor after an election. Is the size of your monitor volatile?

      Gold had a big jump in price from 2009 to 2011. If we measure the change in terms of Swiss francs rather than US dollars that change is cut in half. If we measure gold in terms Australian dollars the change is 1/6 that of the US dollar.

      Let's say a loaf of bread is $1.

      The analogy fails because the cost of inputs are denominated in US dollars. Inside the closed system you don't see the volatility so much. Consider what happens outside the closed system. As the US dollar weakens compared to another country that country's exports become more expensive, as the dollar strengthens those exports become less expensive. Gold acts like these exports to a degree, the volatility is in the currencies not the gold or already assembled toyota car.

      BTC is 10,000x more valuable (in dollar or grocery terms) than it was a couple of years ago

      The change in bitcoin prices has a lot to do with investor speculation, the price is highly distorted. Gold experience some speculation too, however the relative strength/weakness confidence/lack-of-confidence in currencies is the bigger player. The speculation was more against the US dollar than for gold, as we see from the Swiss franc and Australian dollar. If gold itself was the primary source of volatility, say an incredibly huge (relative to global economy) amount of gold was discovered and mined then we would see a more uniform change when measuring in terms of various currencies.

    5. Re:The dollars is volatile, not gold by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      The Swiss Franc is a difficult example, because it is used as a "safe haven" investment in exactly the same way as gold is. It is badly effected by speculation, and in a way that almost exactly mirrors the speculation patterns gold experiences. Considering that the Swiss Franc itself had a distinctive pattern of value changes (the value in comparison with other currencies shoots up at the first sign of world troubles, and collapses again as soon as the troubles are over), it is difficult to use it as an argument AGAINST exactly the same volatility patterns in gold.

      For most people, value can be measured at it's basic level in absolute terms. I.e., how much is their labour worth (their pay), how much are their savings worth, and how much "stuff" (groceries, utilities, luxuries) can they buy with their money. By this measure, the USD, EUR and GBP are far more stable than gold. That is, Compare the value of a loaf of bread, a car, or someone's pay in any two years and the change in currency terms is far more predictable (a steady march of 1-5% price inflation, mostly) than in gold (which yoyos). You can argue if you like that gold and other safe haven investments are the only things in the world with stable value, and EVERYTHING ELSE (including every thing in the world with any day to day use) is volatile in a uniform way. Or you can argue that the value of everything else is relatively stable, and it is gold that is volatile.

      Frankly it doesn't actually make a difference- it's a point of philosophy which way you look at it, not economics. But for most people, the important measure of "stable value" is in knowing in a predicable way how much stuff can be exchanged for their labour and savings at any given point. Gold does not pass that test.

      (And nor does BTC).

    6. Re:The dollars is volatile, not gold by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      You are mistaken to think that the volatility of the dollar would translate into a rise in the price of a can of soup. If all the inputs into a product are sourced from a region whose currency is the dollar there is no problem.

      There really aren't that many products whose inputs are all from America. It's a global economy.

      The volatility of gold comes from the fact that it lacks utility. Obviously there are some uses for gold, but it is essentially just sitting in vaults around the world. The price of gold is due almost purely to speculation. How much you value owning a bunch of gold is purely subjective. When currencies look like they are taking a bad turn, gold looks more appealing, and the price goes up. When we are in a boom, gold doesn't look so good, and the price goes down. Granted these prices are in dollars, but this price fluctuation happens with just about every thing you compare gold to.

      I am not saying the dollar is not volatile. I am saying that it's crazy to believe that gold is not. Lets say hypothetically that the value of gold never changes. The only things that change are the dollar, euro, yen, cans of soup, cars, etc (everything besides gold). How do you differentiate this scenario from one where gold is volatile? The result is the same.

    7. Re:The dollars is volatile, not gold by perpenso · · Score: 1

      I am not arguing that gold has no volatility. My original statement: "Gold itself is not very volatile. It is the exchange rate between gold and a particular currency that may be highly volatile." Again, if we look at gold in Australian dollars rather than US dollars we see 1/6th the change.

    8. Re:The dollars is volatile, not gold by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      How did you calculate this? I am looking at some data, and I just don't see it. What data are you looking at? What time span are you looking at?

    9. Re:The dollars is volatile, not gold by perpenso · · Score: 1

      I googled "gold price currency", found this site, and selected a 5 year chart since I wanted to look at the period of the current economic crisis.
      http://www.kitco.com/gold_curr...

      I noted the peak price in late 2011.
      From mid 2009 to late 2011 the price in USD went from roughly 900 to roughly 1900, about a 110% increase.
      During that same time frame the price in AUD went from roughly 1500 to 1800, about a 20% increase.

    10. Re:The dollars is volatile, not gold by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Ironically this is the exact same data I was looking at, but I would not interpret the data the same way. What I would take away form this data is that both currencies are equally volatile with respect to gold in that they follow the same medium term trends (the peaks and valleys are in the same places), they both have a lot of short term volatility compared with gold (the general roughness of the line), but that the gold price in dollars is rising at a higher rate (indicating a higher rate of inflation for the dollar).

      What would convince me that that the dollar was the cause of the volatility is if the gold price in US dollars was squiggly and the price in australian dollars was 6x as smooth.

      If you call the function of price of gold in australian dollars over time f(x), then the price of gold in us dollars looks basically like f(x)*scalar starting at about 2007

      From mid 2009 to late 2011 the price in USD went from roughly 900 to roughly 1900, about a 110% increase.
      During that same time frame the price in AUD went from roughly 1500 to 1800, about a 20% increase.

      Yes but this range of data seems like an anomaly especially if you look at the 10 year graph. The 1500 value of gold in australian dollars in 2009 is a huge local maximum it immediately dips back down to something like 1150.

      I can pick a range where the price in dollars actually goes down and the price in australian dollars goes up, but that would be cherry picking data too.

      It would be interesting to see 20 year, and 30 year graphs.

    11. Re:The dollars is volatile, not gold by perpenso · · Score: 1

      I can pick a range where the price in dollars actually goes down and the price in australian dollars goes up, but that would be cherry picking data too.

      I didn't cherry pick, I picked the range for the current economic crisis before I saw the numbers. The crisis created the lack of faith in the dollar which translated into the wild change in gold.

      The fact that you can find a time period where the US shows less volatility than Australia does not disprove my argument that the volatility is primarily in currency not in gold itself.

      It would be interesting to see 20 year, and 30 year graphs.

      High volatility is found in the midst of crisis.

    12. Re:The dollars is volatile, not gold by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Volatility means erratic change. Both the graph for the gold price in USD and australian dollars show approximately the same level of volatility.

      If you replaced the graph for the USD with a straight line that went from the bottom left to the upper right of the graph, it would make the dollar a very poor investment related to gold, but there wouldn't be any volatility. It would indicate that the price of the dollar was gradually and predictably rising (e.g. due to gradual and predictable inflation).

      The jaggedness of the line is the volatility. Both the USD and australian dollar are jagged, but not only that their jaggedness actually aligns quite well. If you subtracted one curve from the other, you'd find a more smooth line as a result. The fact that 2 different currencies show the same pattern indicates that the bulk of the volatility is in gold.

      volatility is more than just how much something changes. It also includes how much the rate of change changes.

      Volatility isn't always bad. I'd rather have something that was increasing in value in a volatile way than having something else that was decreasing in value in a very predictable way.

      The downside to volatility is that it creates uncertainty, and uncertainty carries risk. If you can have confidence in what is going to happen, then you can make better decisions. Investing in gold carries a lot of short/medium term risk, but tends to be a good long term investment.

      When we have an economic crisis and everyone flocks to gold, driving the price up sharply in a short amount of time, this is not a sign of stability for gold. This is a source of volatility. It is good for people who already had gold, but that's different than stability.

    13. Re:The dollars is volatile, not gold by perpenso · · Score: 1

      Both the graph for the gold price in USD and australian dollars show approximately the same level of volatility.

      No, the shape of the graph is not a measure of volatility. Each plot is using a different scale. See the scales on the side of the image. The US chart is showing a change of about 100%, the Australian about 20%. That is not that same level of volatility, that is a 5x difference in volatility.

      The fact that 2 different currencies show the same pattern indicates that the bulk of the volatility is in gold.

      No. Simliar patterns show a correlation. The US and Australian economies are not independent. They interact, they are effected by some of the same external factors. Australia was much less volatile because they were effected to a lesser degree by the respective economic crisis in the US and Europe.

      When we have an economic crisis and everyone flocks to gold, driving the price up sharply in a short amount of time, this is not a sign of stability for gold. This is a source of volatility.

      Gold has some volatility and speculation can surely add to it. This volatility in gold would be a common risk shown in all currencies, speculation would drive up the price in all currencies. The fact the the US was 5x Australia demonstrates that there is a different currency specific risk that dominates, that is a far greater source of volatility.

    14. Re:The dollars is volatile, not gold by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      1. The scale doesn't matter. If for example the australian dollar was worth 10 USD, you'd expect the absolute volatility of the USD to be 10x as much. If it was 10x as much in absolute terms then that means it is the same relative volatility. This is why a $1 stock going up a dollar is a big deal and Google stock going up a dollar is not.

      2. This graph does not show even show the USD being 6x as volatile as the australian dollar in absolute terms. They way they have scaled it actually highlights that their relative volatility is almost the same. Even the absolute volatility is minimal. It looks like only a factor of about 20%

      You are absolutely cherry picking data. You are selecting a peak and comparing it to a valley at a later date to show a lack of change. This is intellectually dishonest and would be rejected by any sort of peer review process if was interpreted this way in a journal. These are not the sorts of things you are allowed to do in statistics.

    15. Re:The dollars is volatile, not gold by perpenso · · Score: 1

      1. The scale doesn't matter. If for example the australian dollar was worth 10 USD ...

      That's why I expressed things in percentages. The 5x difference was referring to the percentage change, not the absolute change. From several posts back:
      From mid 2009 to late 2011 the price in USD went from roughly 900 to roughly 1900, about a 110% increase.
      During that same time frame the price in AUD went from roughly 1500 to 1800, about a 20% increase.

      You are absolutely cherry picking data.

      No. I picked the time period of the current economic crisis first, *then* I looked at the data. That period happened to show the rise above. Cherry picking is when you look at the data then decide on the time frame to use. Before throwing around phrases like "intellectually dishonest" consider what you are doing. One person picks a time frame of economic crisis because that is when volatility is the most severe, then looks at data. Another person rejects that timeframe because the data is contrary to their position. You sure you want to discuss intellectual honesty?

    16. Re:The dollars is volatile, not gold by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      1. It's still cherry picking data if someone points out that the one piece of data you picked is an anomaly and is not representative of the data as a whole, and you just disregard it. That's one of the reasons you are supposed to use lots of samples to prevent stuff like this from happening. Cherry picking usually involves carefully selecting your data so all your samples falsely indicate some predetermined conclusion. If you only pick one sample to base your conclusion on, not only is it cherry picking, but bad cherry picking.

      2. If we look at data from June 2008 to may 2009 the USD stayed the same and the australian dollar lost 33% of it's value. Why is 2009 - 2011 a better time to pull a single sample to base a conclusion on than 2008 to 2009? I didn't cherry pick this data. I picked it *then* looked. I did however look at a bunch of other bits of data first that didn't really fit what I was saying. But when I picked this range, and *then* looked, it did a really good job of proving my point so I kept it.

      3. 2009 - 2011 is not "the economic crisis". It actually began in late 2007.

      Before throwing around phrases like "intellectually dishonest" consider what you are doing.

      You probably actually have to know what you are doing to be intellectually dishonest. So maybe intellectually dishonest was a bit too harsh.

      One person picks a time frame of economic crisis because that is when volatility is the most severe, then looks at data. Another person rejects that timeframe because the data is contrary to their position. You sure you want to discuss intellectual honesty?

      It's more like one person chooses the one of the only possible sample to base a conclusion on that proves his point. The other person points out that this is an anomaly and suggests that the whole data set should be used. The first person comes up with some irrational reason why this one sample is better than the others.

      You sure you want to discuss intellectual honesty?

      You're a fucking idiot. I'm done with this discussion.

    17. Re:The dollars is volatile, not gold by perpenso · · Score: 1

      It's still cherry picking data if someone points out that the one piece of data you picked ...

      Again, I did not pick the data. I picked the 5 year time frame because that was the period of recent crisis. The options were 1 year, 5 year and 10 year. 5 year was the best match. What data would appear was unknown.

      ... is an anomaly and is not representative of the data as a whole, and you just disregard it.

      Your argument fails given that we are discussing high volatility, which is itself an anomaly. What we are discussing is whether the high volatility, the anomalies, are primarily due to gold's inherent volatility or primarily a lack of faith in a particular currency. When you want to examine the lack of faith in a currency at what time period do you look? Economic crisis, that is when faith drops.

      That's one of the reasons you are supposed to use lots of samples to prevent stuff like this from happening.

      We aren't discussing whether high volatility is the norm, we are discussing what happens in high volatility.

      If we look at data from June 2008 to may 2009 the USD stayed the same and the australian dollar lost 33% of it's value.

      You further prove my point. The price of gold is more a product of currency fluctuations than inherent volatility in gold. Its not which direction a particular currency moves in that matters. Its that when the high volatility exists currencies diverge or experience wildly different magnitudes of change. If the high volatility were primarily due to gold itself then currencies would experience similar trends. All boats rising and falling with the tide.

      2009 - 2011 is not "the economic crisis". It actually began in late 2007.

      Actually the lack of faith in the dollar and the US economy coincides with the banking failures, late 2008.
      Lehman Brothers bankruptcy, Sep 2008.
      Merrill Lynch sold to Bank of America, Sep 2008.
      Government sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac placed into receivership, Sep 2008.
      US stock market crash, Oct 2008.
      International Monetary Fund warns of systemic meltdown, Oct 2008.

      It's more like one person chooses the one of the only possible sample to base a conclusion on that proves his point.

      No. My point is simply that the perceived volatility in gold has more to do with confidence in a currency than any inherent volatility in gold itself, especially so in periods of high volatility. Your 2008-09 counterexample also demonstrated this point.

      The other person points out that this is an anomaly and suggests that the whole data set should be used.

      Actually the other person is trying to move the goal posts, to move away from the topic of periods of high volatility.

  113. I still trust BitCoin by 1s44c · · Score: 1

    BitCoin didn't break. MtGox failed. It was obvious to anyone that did any research in the last year they they were going to fail. For around a year they took months to make bank transfers to their customers. How much more of a clue do people seriously want?

    Do I still trust BitCoin? Yes! A hell of a lot more than the conventional banking system actually. What I don't trust is scumball companies who pay their customers 6 months late.

  114. Wrong question... by Foske · · Score: 1

    Did I ever trust bitcoin ? No I didn't. Nothing has changed. Scary how easy people can trust a new system they don't have a clue about.

  115. Bitcoin is doomed to fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The entire system requires a good chunk of "miners" which are using their electricity and spare cycles to process all transactions in the system. As Bitcoin is designed to double the cost of producing a Bitcoin every X steps, there will be a point in which mining will not be worth it, most miners will leave, and the system will not have enough CPU power to support itself.

    It's a very cleverly disguised Ponzi scheme, as the elements that double their cost at every step are not apparent and poorly understood. Bitcoin is also proof that even when presented with an obvious scam, it's practically impossible to stop idiots from burning their money in it, as the "gold fever" makes them not act rationally and ignore all cautionary advice. They play the idiot's game: they bet big money in that they can find an even bigger idiot before the timer runs out.

  116. the real elephant in the room by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the problem isnt mt gox or all the shady things you can buy with bitcoin. the fundamental problem is that bitcoin is fundametnally deflationary.

    there are x number of bitcoins int the world, maximum. today a cheeseburger costs some number of bitcoints - let's call it 1. if bitcoin grows in popularity, the number of bitcoins stays the same but the price of that cheeseburger has gone from 1 bitcoin to .5 bitcoins. that is, the nominal prices of what you can buy with them goes DOWN, not up as in a regular, inflationary economy i'm not going to repeat the reams of economic literature evidencing why a deflationary economy is a really really bad thing, but, long story short, it does not bode well for bitcoin at all.

    what i am suspecting is happening now is that people are hoarding bitcoins because it's in their interest to do so because of its inherent deflationary pressures coupled with the fact that,well, it's a social-phenomenon type bubble too. this double whammy is why it's "the perfect storm" of bubbles and why it will likely crash spectacularly.

    to review: if more people get into bitcoin, the fixed number of bitcoins makes it inherently deflationary. if fewer people use bitcoins, prices will likewise go down because of lack of demand for them. if only there was some 'federal reserve...' hmm.

  117. The price will go up, but I think it's a bubble by ET3D · · Score: 1

    I don't know about trust. Bitcoin is a speculative market, and it will probably always be like that, because the characteristics of bitcoin make it a commodity and not money. I can't see it ever being used directly as money (i.e., without going through a "real" currency such as dollars).

  118. Trust by scarboni888 · · Score: 1

    Why do you assume we ever did, you insensitive clod!?!

  119. Still better than the dollar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and not susceptible to massive devaluation, when a corrupt regime decides to let the printing presses roll, to bail out their corporate paymasters

  120. I never trusted Bitcoin by kcmastrpc · · Score: 1

    Just like I don't trust the USD. That doesn't stop me from using it or investing with/in it.

    Some common sense can go a long way, I didn't lose my ass when the markets tumbled in 07-08, and I sure as hell didn't put all my eggs in the bitcoin basket - or mtgox for that matter. My money doesn't stay in an exchange very long, anywhere.

  121. Wrong question by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Do You Still Trust Bitcoin?

    I never trusted bitcoin in the first place. WAY too much risk and provides me precisely zero advantages for any financial transaction I'm likely to engage in.

  122. It's been around for just 5 years by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Bitcoin has been gaining traction for a long time. Did you notice the run from $5 to $1200?

    Beenie babies had a similar run a few years back. Eventually the bubble collapsed. No different here in all likelihood. And bitcoin hasn't been doing anything "for a long time". It's been around less than 5 years and there are VERY few things that go up 240X in 5 years that are based on sound economic fundamentals. It hasn't been around long enough for that to be possible. Just because something gains a lot in value in a (very) short amount of time, does not mean that it will sustain that valuation or that it is anything more than a fad. Come back to me in 20 years and we can talk about it "gaining traction for a long time".

  123. Dilution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem i'm having with bit coin isn't with bit coin itself, as the exchanges seem to do a decent job of keeping the prices stable, and everyone i've talked to said they'd never let it go below a certain price or they'd buy it up - it's with the exchanges that handle the alternate coins that trouble me. Of course bit coin needs orders of magnitude more security, but these exchanges are accepting all these baby coins left and right.

    If we're trying to make this market acceptable and respectable, we need solidarity and at least some form of vetting process between a community of exchanges. Currently they'll agree to trade any coin that has the support of at least 10 people and it's ridiculous. You're going to see fartcoins rise in popularity next week and following that, birdcraponyourcarcoin will hit the shelves for purchase.

    I've lost trust in crypto currency - not bit coin. More vendors are accepting them, and more technology is being created to accommodate it, so long term future is good but we have to cut the shit with these bullshit alternative coins. It's diluting the market and destabilizing coins that have been around for some time and have some real value in relation to bitcoin.

  124. Yes ... by morbingoodkid · · Score: 1

    Of course. Do you stop trusting the dollar because someone was able to steal 50 Million dollars from a bank in Zimbabwe (Yes they use US dollars as currency).

    Just saying :-)

  125. Congress is the problem by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Uh yeah, and speaking of history, perhaps we could bring back the Glass-Steagall Act that should have been left intact.

    A form of that regulation has been put back in place though I agree Glass-Steagall never should have been messed with.

    I find it comical that you think current monetary policy actually works.

    It DOES work insofar as it is able. The problem is that monetary policy, while important, should not be relied upon exclusively to manage the economy - we need sensible fiscal policy too. Congress refuses do do much of anything (sane) regarding fiscal policy so the only tool we have in the bag right now is monetary policy which is significantly dictated by the Fed. We have the monetary policy we do because until congress actually does something, it is the best (and really only) option available. All the people who dislike the Fed really should be upset that congress has essentially abdicated their control of the economic policy of the US by their refusal to compromise and pass sane financial legislation.

  126. What risk? by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Most of the people with large bitcoin fortunes are early adopters, and frankly why shouldn't early adopters be rewarded for taking a risk on something that ultimately may not pan out.

    What risk? They "mined" some bitcoins by using some spare processor cycles on their PC and then convinced a bunch of folks that it was valuable currency. They exposed themselves to essentially zero financial risk aside from a bit of opportunity cost. At least to get a large pile of dollars you typically have to actually take some real risks unless you win the lottery.

  127. trustworthy by jgowen · · Score: 1

    Thu 2/27/14 8:56 am. A secret internet currency promoted by criminals? ... What's not to trust!

  128. The gold standard by sjbe · · Score: 1

    You don't have to transfer actual gold, you can transfer a note backed by a bank or government that guarantees a fixed amount of gold. Such a note can be exchanged physically, or electronically if it's held by a reputable 3rd party (such as a bank or a government) under an account in one's name.

    True but that causes problems with exchange rates over time and has a variety of significant and very real logistical problems.

    OH WAIT I JUST DESCRIBED UNITED STATES DOLLARS ON THE GOLD STANDARD

    Yes you did. What you did not describe is why it ultimately failed. The gold standard failed for some very good reasons. It limits economic growth because the supply of capital cannot grow (or shrink) with the economy. It eliminates monetary policy as a tool to mitigate recessions. It makes re-balancing exchange rates and currency devaluation problematic. There are all kinds of short term volatility problems. There are quite a few reasons why not a single country in the world uses the gold standard anymore.

  129. /. losing appeal as ignorant replies take over. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Today I learned the average slashdotter doesn't understand bitcoin.

    Which is weird because when I joined years ago I regarded /. as THE IT newssite.

    Adding a bit of argument here, bitcoin is save.

    Just like paper money is save.

    You own it, it has high tech verification marks on it.

    The moment you hand that money over to someone else, the question is wether or not that othe rperson is save, or if he stores it safely.

    An informed person would've asked: Do you still trust bitcoin exchanges?
    My answer is "I never did."

    Until the government starts laying out some demands towards bitcoin exchanges, bitcoin exchanges are as save as the effort the owner put into it.

    I hardly visit /. these days, and this post is another reminder why.

  130. Wrong comparison by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't transferring some bitcoins from your phone be more convenient than bringing a selection of gold and silver coins whenever you plan to buy something?

    Kind of a strawman argument. The real question is whether transferring bitcoins is more convenient than transferring dollars from my phone. Frankly I can't really think of any meaningful advantages to bitcoin compared with dollars especially once you account for all the costs and the risks.

    1. Re:Wrong comparison by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Kind of a strawman argument. The real question is whether transferring bitcoins is more convenient than transferring dollars from my phone.

      It's not more convenient. Anything you do on your phone will be more or less equally convenient. Actually the OP was talking about using gold and silver coins, so I was responding to that.

      Frankly I can't really think of any meaningful advantages to bitcoin compared with dollars especially once you account for all the costs and the risks.

      There is risk in putting your bitcoins in an exchange (i.e. permanently transferring your bitcoins to them with the promise that they will transfer them back when you request it). The same risk exists in putting cash in an unregulated bank. You can pay higher fees (either directly or indirectly) and put your bitcoins in a regulated bank. There is no reason that you couldn't have a government regulated bitcoin exchange.

      But my main point is that when you buy something in a store, you are drastically reducing the likelihood of fraud. You can see the item you are buying and you exchange money for goods at the checkout of the store in a way that doesn't really require escrow. You know where the store is and who was working in it. It would be difficult for them to disappear overnight.

      Bitcoin doesn't provide any fraud protection. Cash doesn't provide fraud protection either. Bitcoin is as safe as using cash. It is safe to by groceries with cash. It is not safe to put your cash in an unregulated bank. It is safe to buy groceries with bitcoin. It is not safe to put your bitcoins in an unregulated bank.

      The advantage to bitcoin over cash, is that it *can* be used online. It is not necessarily *safe* to use online, but this is better than not even having the option.

  131. Rubber Hose Cryptanalysis by Martin+S. · · Score: 0

    The biggest weakness with any crypto currency is not the Maths but the outside influences or side-channel attacks.

    c.f. Rubber-hose_cryptanalysis

  132. Don't be so sure by sjbe · · Score: 1

    The mathematics of bitcoin are sound enough.

    And you are a mathematician with an expertise in cryptography? You've looked at the code yourself to verify? You've examined peer reviewed literature which tests the encryption systems? You are somehow certain that the cryptography is immune from reasonably foreseeable technology and the math is bulletproof?

    The issue I have with it is the possibility of hacks.

    That is certainly the more immediate risk but hardly the only concern one ought to have with bitcoin.

    This issue--my inability to know that my coins are secure--has made me reluctant to buy them in the past.

    The reason I haven't bought any bitcoins is because I have no use for them. Bitcoin allows me to do nothing I can't already do, doesn't save me any money, nobody I know personally uses them, no companies I do business with accept them and I have little interest in speculating on something so unpredictably volatile. (I have the stock market for that) I also don't have any ideological issues with the dollar significant enough to make me want to use something else.

  133. In coin we trust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trust the coin, yeah sure, nothing has really changed with bitcoin itself, has it? Trust bitcoins value to be the same/smaller/larger as it were yesterday - you were a fool if you ever trusted that. Lack of price stability has always been the case with bitcoin - live with it. If the price is currently high, its pretty much guaranteed to plummet sometime in the future, if its currently low it will skyrocket before long enough. Welcome to the joyride that is bitcoin.

  134. It bitcoin we trust by davidwr · · Score: 1

    In the computers that manage the wallets, not so much.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  135. All currency is flawed by Rambo+Tribble · · Score: 1

    Barter is the way of the future. How many goats for that Lexus?

  136. still? by juenger1701 · · Score: 1

    still implies i ever did trust bitcoin

    governments aren't great but i know anyone will take a fiver if you hand it to them hand me a bitcoin token i'll laugh at you and probably keep it anyway

  137. begging the question! by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

    Do you still trust bitcoin? Do you still beat your wife? Bitcoin is just like 7 Up. Never had it, never will. I prefer the Real Thing.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  138. So where are they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I haven't seen the answer yet, but where are the bitcoin that were held by Mt Gox? Does Mt. Gox still have them? Were they stolen? If so, where did they go? There have to be transactions in the blockchain right?

    Seems to me it should be trivial to trace where the bitcoins went.

  139. How many banks have failed? by halfstop · · Score: 1

    How many banks have failed in the US in the last 30 years? Some of them very big banks. Yes, it's true that the government does cover some of those losses, but not all of them. We've had the Savings and Loan collapse, the hedge fund collapse, the 2008 meltdown and there will be more to come. I personally lost thousands of dollars in the 2008 collapse and have really never recovered from it and no one bailed me out. So do I trust bitcoin? As much as I trust any currency, which is not much. It's all a risk, pick your poison.

  140. OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You guys will understand what Bitcoin and cryptocurrencys is in a couple of years or so. Some people take way to long time to adapt.

  141. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  142. Just stop you jingoist neck beard. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Btc exists outside your "liberal" American bashing narrowpropaganda. Frame your arguments as a global currency/protocol.

  143. I can't still trust it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ....because I never trusted it in the first place!

    Too complicated system that doesn't seem to be based on any real world value.....?

  144. Dollars vs Bitcoins by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

    The big difference is FDIC. If my bank goes pfft, my money is insured. If Mt Gox goes pfft, my bitcoins go pfft. I don't consider banks to be inherently trustworthy either, but the government has a huge interest in keeping people happy, since a total economic collapse will screw them too. Nobody has an incentive to keep Mt Gox's victims happy, including Mt. Gox.

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  145. Bitcoin is math people are not by SinisterEVIL · · Score: 1

    see subject line

  146. Why is there even an argument? by SinisterEVIL · · Score: 1

    This is like saying Nike is bankrupt and closing. Do we still have faith that we should be using shoes?

  147. Re: There is an adage that if something appears to by sexconker · · Score: 1

    The problem here is that bilkcoin has no elasticity mechanism, because of its die-hard libertarian economic philosophy.

    Currencies like the dollar use elasticity (money creation) to deal with such crises.

    I wouldn't consider an exchange stealing money from idiots a crisis that would merit devaluing the currency for everyone (while letting the exchange keep their ill-gained profits). And guess what - no one else with a brain would either. That's why everyone fucking hated the bank bail outs.

  148. nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I put all my money in Linden dollars and ISK

  149. Manage your own Bitcoin security by Ofiesh · · Score: 1

    If you own Bitcoin and put your trust a third party to hold them, then you are missing point. Store your Bitcoins in an open source wallet like bitcoinarmory.com and you can be certain that offline cold storage and an m-of-n paper backup will keep your Bitcoin secure from theft, a house fire, or even forgetting your own pass phrase.

  150. "Do you still trust Bitcoin?" by z917183 · · Score: 1

    Even with the recent shenanigans, I still trust BitCoin more than I PayPal (well, a bit more anyways).

    1. Re:"Do you still trust Bitcoin?" by z917183 · · Score: 1

      Dammit - where's the edit button? "Even with the recent shenanigans, I still trust BitCoin more than I trust PayPal (well, a bit more anyways)." (Pun intended - after the fact.)

  151. duh by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    Do you still trust your credit card?

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  152. I never trust Bitcoin till by NewYork · · Score: 1
  153. Each Bitcoin has its own log - should be auditable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Assuming they were stolen, when someone tries to cash em in, they stand a fair chance of being caught.
    The detective work to backtrack has not been published.

    Is there a compromised list of coins?