Slashdot Mirror
Bitcoin Can Be Bought With Cash At Swiss Railway Ticket Machines (techweekeurope.co.uk)
In what is seen as a move that could help boost the spread of Bitcoin, the cryptocurrency will be available to purchase from Swiss railway ticket machines starting next month. Reader Mickeycaskill writes: Swiss Federal Railways (SBB) has more than 1,000 ticket machines and has partnered with regulated financial intermediary SweePay to distribute Bitcoin. Customers need to select mobile top up on the machines, scan the QR code on their Bitcoin digital wallet and enter the number of Swiss Francs, up to 500 CHF, in to the machine, confirm the offer of Bitcoins they receive then identify themselves using a mobile number and a security code sent to their smartphone. While the machine can pay out Bitcoin, for the time being, it will not accept payments made with the cryptocurrency. Furthermore, credit card cannot be used with the machines to buy Bitcoins, SBB is effectively providing a way to swap local currency for a digital version that can be used anywhere around the world, thereby bypassing unfavourable exchange rates"From 11 November 2016, customers will be able to obtain Bitcoin at all SBB ticket machines. Until now, there have only been limited opportunities to purchase Bitcoin in Switzerland," the company was quoted as saying.
If you have cash, why do you need bitcoin? I'd be more excited about a machine that accepts bitcoin and dispenses cash.
Switzerland has recently had problems with its currency being very highly valued. I'm not entirely sure how BitCoin solves this, but maybe consumer-level currency exchangers in neighboring countries have been charging very high rates to exchange it to Euros.
You were working towards a point and then undermined your argument with a bad example: Venezuela.
Yes, Venezuela is a shit hole. But in terms of economics it is plenty proximate to the wealthy nations because it has oil and that is easy enough to cart around. The reason Venezuela is a shit hole is not a matter of geography but its own self-inflicted politics (even if geography is part of the history that shaped those politics).
I would add that Norway, Canada, Australia are peculiar examples for the same reason. Their economies are significantly dependent on selling raw materials, and can okay on the world market as long as demand for their raw materials is growing in Asia.
I would further add that geography does not make the internal politics better automatically, e.g. Mexico, Italy.
Call me when they have machines that convert Bitcoins into Swiss Francs.
Actually.... I think it would be best just to have all retailers start accepting BTC and allowing you to pay extra BTC for up to 10% of your purchase back as cash at the time of purchase.
That way it's distributed.
Vending machines that dispense precious metals, bitcoins or whatever do so are usurious rates. You'd have to be fucking stupid to want to use them. Especially for bitcoin.
If you are happy handing over volumes of sensitive personal information to buy bitcoins online, sure. Usually the bitcoin seller will want all kinds of shit like copies of your passport, drivers license, banking details, fingerprints, proof of your address via a scan of a recent service bill which was mailed to your address. This is the main reason I've stayed away from bitcoin; the vendors basically want everything that can be used for identity theft.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Volatility is a negative for most things most people use money for. So when enthusiasts for bitcoin strays into hand waving arguments about bitcoin being a vastly superior form of money, then it is correct to bring up volatility as a counterargument. (I am not claiming that the topic is simple as any one or two factors, but that volatility is one of the several important factors.)
To make this argument more concrete, a typical non-rich person should hesitate to ever accept a large contract/employment for bitcoin. Here volatility can kill you both ways. If the bitcoin goes way down, you cannot live off your pay. If the bitcoin goes way up, suddenly there is a significant increased risk that your contract will not be fulfilled on the other side, because the other party is getting killed by the shift in bitcoin and might be going bankrupt.
I have yet to see one argument for crypto-currency that out weigh the risks. The usual arguments being "OMG! The government controls the money!" and "Its good for buying illegal shit."
Wont someone think of the children?
I'd rather people online didn't think of them.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Isn't is equally likely that you will gain or lose value due to volatility?
Doesn't work out well when you need a specific amount of Swiss Francs in the future.
Stocks are similar - when dollar cost averaging into stocks (e.g., buying $100 per week) volatility is your friend, you'll end up with more shares of a volatile stock than a stable one (with same average price) over time. When you need a fixed income out of stocks, you get screwed by volatility for exactly the same reason (the math works out to gains/(volatility^2)). This is why the common wisdom for financial planning is to invest in stocks to start with, but gradually shift into bonds as you near retirement (there are even "target date" mutual funds that work that way).
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The last time I looked at the costs of converting currency to bitcoin to another currency, it was a lot more than using the local currency exchange services though...
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Neither does Saudi Arabia.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
We all here agree adequately about the state of Venezuela and the failure of its policies. My point is the AC I responded to seems to be formulating a theory about physical proximity. While I so happen to believe there is a kernel of truth to that idea, as argued, he seems to be overreaching, and we merely have to peek at the provided data points to start seeing weaknesses in the theory.