It's quite a racket, if you think about it: 3% of the top of a huge chunk of all consumer transactions.
How much are you spending on your c/c per year? Let's say $20K. This is a large sum of money, fit for a family guy with several children. (I don't spend that much.) 2% of that (often you get 1% back) would be $400.
Would you agree to carry, count and spend $20K in cash over the year if I promise to pay you $400? You will be in danger of losing the money, of being robbed, of miscounting not in your favor, and of not having enough cash on hand. Cash is dirty, having been in hands of lowest castes of the society, and it may carry diseases. Most of US cash carries traces of drugs, and that can attract attention of police dogs; the police will then be happy to tear your car apart.
The banks may be charging too much for the service; but from the POV of the consumer, the convenience is worth the cost. Is it a nice racket for the banks? Probably yes, it is. They inserted themselves into the payment chain, and it's all but impossible to extract them out of there.
The many eWallet providers (that always come and go) are not aiming for saving the world from the onerous 3%. They are aiming to collect those 3%. The world will be still paying the payment tax, one way or another. Those companies are not saviors; they are just the new generation of thieves who are trying to replace the prededing generation of thieves.
Excuse me for asking, but what part of a cellphone or smartphone does NOT require you to supply your own terminal to run someone else's code and pay for your own bandwidth?
No part of my cell phone requires me to run anyone's code or to transfer someone's data. As matter of fact, my phone is not capable of running 3rd party code, and the data services (and SMS) on this account were blocked by AT&T by my request, from day zero, as a non-negotiable condition of purchase. I have no use for data on my cell phone. If someone needs me that desperately, they can always call and state their cause.
Come to think of it, it seems pretty clear that you didn't MAIL IN your post above, so you must have used your own terminal running Slashdot's javascript on your own bandwidth just to read and post here. So why get so up in arms about this?
Well, I personally wouldn't be too upset about using my bandwidth for accessing a service that I find beneficial. Credit card terminals do not communicate over hyperspace either - they are connected to something, be it telephone lines or the Internet, and I'm sure it's not the bank who pays those bills.
I would love not having to carry a wallet full of credit cards to get stolen, or even peeked at, and the numbers sent around the world in a text message...
What makes you think that the numbers are sent "around the world" in a text message? Those c/c readers do not leak the c/c information outside of their enclosure. It's banks' money, and banks know how to keep their money safe and secure. How many cases of intercept of the numbers off the wire can you recall?
With regard to "stolen or peeked at," anything can be stolen; and a robber will not forget to ask for your password. They do ask for the PIN number sometimes. But this is all a moot point because you are not responsible for the c/c theft. Banks just call it "cost of doing business," and in reality it's a drop in the ocean. The phone-based wallet, on the other hand, is probably a total loss. I don't use it, so I don't know, but what happens if someone somehow accesses your eWallet and spends the money? Will you get refund from Google or someone else who runs the service? If not, I will keep using my credit cards.
You go to restaurant. Get receipt. Create a one-off closed account with user ID and one-off GUID with exactly the amount of receipt+tip transferred from your actual bank account. Unlike with a card, you just hand the server the user ID+GUID. They never know your full name and credit card number.
Or, if you are not one of those thirty "odd employees," you just pay with cash. Or you use a temporary c/c number with limited funds - many banks offer this service for free. Or you walk with the server to the payment terminal. There are several ways to pay that do not involve a third party.
This whole thing is designed to appeal to geeks who enjoy fiddling with computers. However everyone else will find it bothersome. It is just another step where you can make a mistake. All those eWallet companies are solving a problem that does not exist for the vast majority of people - and even to some geeks. I, personally, have no need of that service. I also have no desire to include another set of crooks into the payment chain.
I'm sure Clinkle's service is more open so that restaurants/etc. don't have to buy new hardware/software; it's probably only a fraction safer than actually giving your plastic card.
Where would these numbers go that a patron hands over to the server? Do they just type it into a browser, in a place where thousands of patrons and workers come and go every single day? It only takes a record in the HOSTS file, and a self-signed certificate, to impersonate the service. Businesses pay for secure terminals because they are secure. A mere computer in a corner cannot be called secure, if all it takes to compromise is to insert a USB stick and run a script.
I think the volume of payments also matters. You cannot make regular $10/mo payments for a newspaper subscription and hope to get a $5M mortgage. Credit cards also give more information about your spending discipline. In your case you didn't need much. But who can say that it works for everyone, in every situation? A c/c is convenient way to pump a lot of money (all your day to day expenses!) through a facility that is directly affecting your credit rating. It costs you nothing, you risk nothing, and you don't need to pay for a whole month.
No, it doesn't. It prohibits California from recognizing ANYTHING other than gold or silver as legal payment for ANY debt within the state. It isn't just about taxes and fees. It says "make anything but gold or silver a tender in payment of debts". It doesn't just say State debts, or debts to the State.
It doesn't have to say that. The state is only entitled to collect taxes and fees, that's why the requirement only applies to that. In other words, you cannot pay your taxes in Euros. As I read, it cannot even force you to accept USD from me if our private contract explicitly says that I shall pay you in gold coins.
However recognition of the state is not required for any other financial activity, in any currency. If you want to buy a widget from me for Euros, or Yens, I will sell it to you. Not illegal. You can even send me those Yens from Japan, and I will receive them through an appropriate, registered and licensed financial services company (PayPal, or just my bank.) You cannot possibly claim that foreign currencies are outlawed in CA. It's just the state does not recognize them. I don't care what the state recognizes, and the state doesn't care what I barter with - chickens or colored papers. It only wants its share of the activity, expressed in the currency that it recognizes.
With regard to gold vs. fiat USD, that was discussed elsewhere. I do not know what the answer is to that.
As for foreign payments: legally they are supposed to go through a bank or exchange and converted to U.S money before they can be used for payments anyway. So that's not really relevant.
I doubt that. It would make it impossible for you to come to California and pay me with Euro coins. But you obviously can do that, and it is obviously legal. As I recall, the tax rules only require me to convert the value of the transaction to USD in order to calculate the tax, if one is appropriate.
Businesses do receive foreign payments into USD accounts, but that's primarily because USD is the universal worldwide money. You can have accounts in other currencies, and as matter of fact I do. You can even have accounts abroad, and it is also legal (but subject to reporting.) I can receive payments in CDN, and if they land into the CDN account they won't get converted into anything. I don't have to convert them into USD. I only need to calculate taxes correctly, and that involves the exchange rate on a certain date.
There is some question that BTC is a currency under existing law.
Perhaps. But I see it as a currency. BTC has enough flaws, no need to gratuitously add unearned ones:-)
But your claim was that there is a law against writing software to assist in unregulated money transfers and there is no existing law.
There is no need for a specific law when a general one works fine. For example, there is no law against jaywalking across 17th Street, 127.8 feet away from the traffic light, and at 2:37:08pm on Thursdays. But there is a law against jaywalking anywhere and at any time - and you can be sure that you can be cited for that if you get caught.
In this case there is no law against writing software to assist in unregulated money transfers. However there is a law against contributing to illegal activities. If unregulated money transfers are shown to be illegal, here you go. It would be equally illegal to write software to break into government networks, or to write software to steal money from banks, or to write software to blow up chemical plants... You can wiggle out only if you can clearly show that you acted in good faith. For example, a Fry's salesperson will not be prosecuted who sold a computer to a hacker who then hacked into a secure network and stole secret plans. But even that presupposes that the sales guy did not know about the criminal intent. If he did, too bad for him.
There are many laws that regulate the banking industry. The lawyers who sent that letter to BTC Foundation obviously found one that is relevant. I cannot debate the merits of their case, but sometimes the government doesn't need merits. It has power to arrest everyone involved and deny them bail for a year, while their trial is being prepared. Then they can say "Sorry, no case... you are free to go." But there will be *some* case - nobody knows what arcane laws are out there, in these books of codes and regulations. Nobody is innocent; but if you are, then a convenient crime will be manufactured for you. How about an unprotected sex in Sweden, for example? They'd only need a complaint from one party.
Someone already mentioned DMCA. Established rules permit outlawing something that does not have "sufficient non-infringing function." It is already illegal to possess lockpicks, unless you are a licensed locksmith; or certain drugs, unless you are a pharmacist, or if the drugs are prescribed personally to you. The society (I don't say "the law" here) is correct in shunning things that are hardly ever used for good, but are commonly used for unwelcome activities.
Courts and lawyers always use existing laws because that's all they have. Only the legislature can make new ones, and it takes a long time. Besides, why do we need a new law here if BTC is a currency exactly like GBP or CDN or RMB? BTC was itching to get into the "big boys' club" but suddenly discovered that membership comes with strings attached. As the popular wisdom says, "Be careful what you wish for..."
Orthogonal to all that: but does CA have authority to regulate flow of foreign money on its territory? For example, if you want to send 50,000 Euros to AQ, should the state have any say in that transaction?
What I'm pointing out here is that the constitutional requirement only prevents CA from collecting taxes and fees in other currencies. It does not require CA to ignore money flow in other currencies. If that were to be so, we'd be all paid and paying with foreign currency, and then no taxes would be necessary because our income in USD would be zero.
Do they know that the bitcoin network runs itself, independent of any controlling entity?
No, the network doesn't run itself. People run the network; millions of people. This only means that running bitcoind will be a small crime, for which any geek can be taken in at the pleasure of law enforcement.
There is no physicality in the packets being transmitted, therefore no "money" changes hands. It's just zeros and ones in a large and decentralised computer system.
This is a weak argument. Do you have a bank card, or a credit card? Most transactions are electronic, but you can hardly say that money doesn't change hands.
BC are doing nothing new, SETI@Home, Folding@Home et. al., have been running a community loose cluster situation for years. If SETI@Home "units completed" points were called "BitCoins" instead, would the Treasury be going after them?
Definition: Money is a good that acts as a medium of exchange in transactions. If your goods are usable primarily as a medium of exchange in transactions then they are money, and they will be regulated as money. I never heard that SETI@home credits could be used to buy coffee at Starbucks.
I think it's purely down to the fact that more and more people are using BitCoin and shucking the Dollar whenever they can, cutting out the Federal Reserve middleman and depriving them of tax revenue is what's got them upset.
Of course. When somebody does something, look for financial reasons first. I don't think, though, that BTC use reached a significant level yet. None of my acquaintances even heard about BTC, let alone used it. If told, they'd never touch it with a parsec long pole because they have no reason to. They are all adults, by the way, and have no desire to "stick it to the man." They just want "the man" to leave them alone; laying low is a good strategy for that. Painting oneself as a rebel... not so much.
I'll keep my Dollar in cash. I'll still use the Dollar, but your banks aren't getting a sniff.
It's your right to pay more for the same product. You know how that happens? Merchants are prohibited from asking a higher price for c/c transactions. So they bump up all prices for those few percent that Visa and others skim off the top of your purchases. If you pay that in cash, it's not the bank that receives the money, it's the merchant. The bank gives you a kickback in form of air miles, or points, or something to make it worthwhile for you to use the card. The local merchant gives you nothing.
There is also the problem of credit history. If you don't have any, you won't get a loan when you need one. I hope that works for you; but most people need a loan to buy a car, and a mortgage to buy a house. Otherwise they can buy these items only by the age when they don't need them. Credit card earns credit history for you. Cash does not.
BTC is not a commodity because there is no demand for numbers that comprise a Bitcoin. The USD is not a commodity either. But a gold coin is, and a bar of iron, and a chicken. The gold coin is a commodity money; a bar of iron is a commodity that is rarely a money; a chicken is a commodity that you can use for barter.
With regard to "they are not transmitting it," the laws are pretty clear on the subject of facilitating an illegal act. In other words, if the prosecution wants you convicted for that, it will happen.
As an example, you cannot give a gun to a known killer and then say "I didn't kill anyone." You'd be an accomplice right away. A gun dealer is prohibited from selling you a firearm if he believes that you are going to use it for illegal purposes. BTC has no other purpose than to facilitate money transfers bypassing the government-sanctioned banks and their reporting systems.
Bitcoin Foundation doesn't do the transfers, but they enable others to do the illegal thing. (As I said earlier, I don't necessarily agree that those things ought to be illegal, but that's what they are today.) Assistance in committing a crime is a crime in itself.
Take locks and lockpicks, for example. A manufacturer can sell them only to licensed locksmiths. The same applies to certain firearms (or all, if you are outside of the US.) In many countries even manufacturing a firearm without license is a crime.
Bitcoin is intended for worldwide transfers, but it lacks an interface for the government to insert their monitoring equipment into. This already violates a bunch of laws, like those against money transfers to terrorists. There are also laws about reporting transfers above $10K or some such limit. Is it legal to produce software, and to train people to use this software, if the primary mode of operation of that software is against the law?
I've heard that they essentially operate as a bank, but technically aren't classified as one.
The technicalities are all that matters here. If PayPal meets the requirements of the law then it's in the clear. PayPal survived quite a lot of due diligence when eBay, an entity with good knowledge of the relevant law and with money to hire competent lawyers and accountants, bought them.
If coining money is not allowed to the state, is it allowed to an individual? The Liberty Dollar shows that it is not. It may be not fair, but it is legal because courts say so.
In order for California to consider it as money, it would have to declare Bitcoin to be "money", but the Constitutional explicitly prohibits it from doing that.
Forign money always existed, but it was not made a legal tender in payment of debts. The Euro is certainly money (for now,) but CA neither prints Euros nor accepts them as payment. I personally do not question that BTC is money - it is that, just as shark's teeth may be money, and sea shells, and gold bars, and pieces of paper with pictures on them. However trading in BTC skips the taxes. Taxes may be unfair too, but they are written in the laws. By the book CA is correct by going after money transfer services that bypass a plethora of laws that control banks. Personally, I don't think taxation is a necessary evil, but that's a question for a different day. Right now the only question is whether BTC is used (or can be used) for illegal operations. I think the answer to that is "true" because it can be used for anything, and illegal operations are a subset of that.
Most cars (save a few meticulously maintained and barely used by collectors) are so fragile that they're buried in a junkyard by their 20th birthday.
As drinkypoo said above, we simply don't care to maintain older cars because there is no reason to do that. Cars that are worth of maintaining *are* maintained in showroom condition.
But in general you are overlooking the Theseus's paradox. Machines are infinitely maintainable, and they can, in theory, exist forever, even if all their components have been replaced hundreds or thousands of times. A biological brain has no backup connector that could be used to conveniently make a snapshot, or to restore the mind into another brain. A biological brain is a computer that is powered up once, runs without a backup, and can be used only while it is in good order. We cannot even repair most of its problems - and there are plenty, if you ask a practicing psychiatrist. A mere couple of minutes without oxygen can wipe the memory, and your personality, clean. How likely is that to happen? If you are a child, it's likely enough. If you are a diver, it's possible. If you are a firefighter, it's not out of question. There are many other jobs that endanger that fragile brain (football, for example.)
we don't even have a bare definition for intelligence never mind serious attempts to recreate it.
We may not be able to define intelligence, but we certainly can compare it in many aspects - ultimately, covering all areas of human activities. If a machine can multiply 4798237432 by 893479238472 faster than you can (that's true today) and if it can independently compose a poem that many find interesting (there were experiments,) and if it can sing a song that many listeners find pleasant, and if it can design a plan of a battle that is not worse than a human would produce, and so on... While we cannot say how to measure an ability to compose music, we know it when we hear it.
I don't expect a machine to get involved in love, though, but that's not required between different species. A machine that can do that will also pass the Turing test. This is not a requirement for an intelligent being. I would not expect an intelligent extraterrestrial visitor to pass the Turing test. Hell, most geeks can't pass it:-)
The humanity can, of course, ban all machines that are smarter than humans. But that only artificially impedes the progress. Given that there ought to be an approximately infinite number of civilizations in this Universe, all paths of development will be taken, including those that lead to mostly machine civilizations. (We are already machines, by the way, it's just we are biological machines, fragile, unreliable, and slow.)
Civilizations that became machines will have no problem with FTL because they can easily afford a million years in flight by just slowing the clock down. So they will come here, to Earth, armed with technologies that Earthlings were too afraid to even allow to develop. What will happen to Earth?
Well, of course the doom is not guaranteed; but I'm using this example to demonstrate that you cannot stop the flow of progress if you only have local control, even if that. (How many movies have we seen when mad geniuses break those barriers and, essentially, own the world?)
IMO, it would be far more practical to continue the development of everything. If humanity in the end appears to be unnecessary and worthless, it's just too bad for it. The laws of nature cannot be controlled by human wishes (unless magic is real.) Most likely some convergence is possible, with human minds in machine implementations of bodies. Plenty of older people will be happy to join, simply because the only other option for them is a comfortable grave.
If the largest exchange does not want to buy your BTC in the quantity that you are selling, what is the chance that a smaller exchange or two will do that? They are not the largest exchange for a reason.
A centralized system is cheaper to buy and easier to service. Otherwise why don't the banks run their credit card accounts on a thousand PCs on desks of their employees, in a cluster? A mainframe costs more than a thousand cookie-cutter Dell business PCs. But they opt for a mainframe because in the end it is cheaper and more reliable and more secure. In essence, it's a thousand PCs in one cabinet, with appropriate I/O channels and with contractually guaranteed reliability.
When you think of BTC you should also envision the massive data traffic that runs between nodes. Someone has to pay for delivery of those bits. Sometimes it's the end user's wallet; sometimes it's end user's access to other places on the Internet; sometimes it's just the costs that the provider has to bear and spread among every customer.
If BTC miraculously replaces the USD, don't you think that banks still will need computers to manage their BTC holdings? I don't think Wells Fargo will just open an account at Mt.Gox. If a bank sets up a computer that keeps track of money, you can be sure that they won't want to lose their BTC wallet to an accident or to a thief. The same computers will remain in the same building, and the same security team will be guarding it. The need for those measures comes not from the currency that is being counted, but just from the simple fact that there is a lot of money in one place.
But the front lights of modern Mercedes-Benz'es are horrible - I get sick right away after watching an MB coming towards me. I just can't stand them...
That's easy to fix. Just buy your own modern MB, and you will love every part of it.
hauling cash around in armoured vans, and credit card networks, are not exactly free and clean.
I don't know anyone these days who regularly uses cash. I think I have a hundred dollars at home, but the rest is electronic. That *is* ecologically clean. I don't even send paper checks in paper envelopes anymore. Most of my payments for goods and services are electronic.
Well, it just proves that I am not an expert on trailers and towing:-)
But my lawnmower, if left all alone for most of the year, will be tough to start again. The gas evaporates, and the dry fuel system doesn't develop enough vacuum. It can be overcome, but it's not easy. It's easier to make sure that there is always some amount of stabilized gasoline in the tank. Perhaps one even would start it every couple of months. Not that I ever have time for such things:-) Anyway, if you rent the trailer then it's not a problem.
some of these models are designed to help prevent jackknifing when backing, and you shouldn't be doing much of that given that you're only going to be using it(theoretically) on the highways.
It could be not so easy to get to some gas stations. On Saturday they are full, and you may need to back out if the vehicle in front of you is a large truck.
Another problem is occasional use. Most people drive around the town for most of the year. They will need the trailer only a few times per year - maybe even once or twice. (There is only so much vacation time, unless you are unemployed.) This leads to two problems.
First, their own skills in towing deteriorate. They may go too fast (but safe without a trailer,) or they may brake too hard (but still safe with a car alone.) These things are done automatically, without thinking, using presets that the driver calibrates in his mind during most of his driving time. In a changed configuration those presets are suddenly wrong.
Second, the trailer itself may be inoperative after so much idle time. It contains an engine, a battery perhaps, and a gas tank, and some fuel system... all that can easily fail after you leave the thing in the garage, unattended, for a year. Would it be safe to depend on such a system that is used so infrequently? Naturally, one could always pour the fuel out, and wash the system before putting the trailer away; and the battery can be put on trickle charging, and you can start the thing every two or three weeks to circulate the oil... but how many people will do that?
The main problem here is that today's EVs do not do (for many people) what machines are supposed to do, and that is to make our life easier. They require you to worry about the charge. What if there is only one supercharger that you can stop by, and that one gets damaged by some lightning, sent down personally by Zeus? We have no such problem with gas cars because gas stations are everywhere. Driving with a trailer is, of course, not that big of a deal (many people do that,) but it's something that a busy person just doesn't have any interest to learn. He just buys a machine that helps him, not a machine that needs help.
The price I found was $320 for a SUV from Enterprise, like I said. Your dates might have been bad, or the area expensive, etc... *shrug*, rental prices vary a lot.
I reran the quote at Enterprise just for the fun of it. Here you are:
Standard SUV: Jeep Grand Cherokee, or similar
Your Dates and Times
Start: Jun 24, 2013,Noon
End: Jun 29, 2013,Noon
Price Quote
1 Week @ $ 563.50 USD $ 563.50 USD
Subtotal $ 563.50 USD
SALES TAX $ 48.60 USD
* Total Estimated Charges $ 612.10 USD
I guess some things are cheaper in Alaska. However heating in winter is probably cheaper here, in California:-)
I like to read what is written. I'm sure Tesla would love to claim +50% in 20 minutes. However that would also mean that the car can be recharged from 0% to 100% in 40 minutes - and that is not what happens in reality. Initial charging is faster, and as you say the last 5% may be not even desirable.
I hear what you are proposing, and I wouldn't mind most of these ideas. However EVs cannot pull a trailer. Once the manufacturer installs the hitch, they cannot control what kind of a boat, or a horse carrier, or a heavy trailer will be connected there. They'd need to come up with some nonstandard interface, that is guaranteed to only support the charging trailer.
There is yet another issue. Most people do not know how to drive with a trailer - not just in reverse, but even forward. I guess they could learn, but the clientele that buys EVs is fairly demanding. A trucker or a farmer would have no issues here, but they are not the target audience. I have never driven anything with a trailer, and I am not entirely open to mastering yet another trade. I have other priorities in life, if I may channel Dick Cheney. I have no desire to pay more for a car that does less and that is more difficult to operate.
I calculated the cost of the week-long rental when I considered getting an SUV to go over some mountain passes in winter. A 2WD car requires chains, and they are a hassle to put on, and they are not a pleasure to drive with. A 4WD only needs to carry chains, not use them (unless needed.) I priced that rental online, and it was more than $500 for a week. I decided that for this money I'd rather wait for spring - and I did that, and went there in my own 2WD Prius. Perhaps 10% was too generous, but 5% is realistic - one can buy a well used car for that kind of money. It's still too expensive. But, I guess, everything is expensive with EVs; if you have to ask for the price you cannot afford it:-)
WiFi is an established standard with plenty of devices.
I would like to know how you are planning to enter the WPA key, or the SSID, into the light bulb.
To compare, Z-Wave devices are securely paired with the controller by the fact of physical presence of the controller - either near the device, or on the network and in a special mode. You have to activate a function of a device by hand, it won't join the network otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
It's quite a racket, if you think about it: 3% of the top of a huge chunk of all consumer transactions.
How much are you spending on your c/c per year? Let's say $20K. This is a large sum of money, fit for a family guy with several children. (I don't spend that much.) 2% of that (often you get 1% back) would be $400.
Would you agree to carry, count and spend $20K in cash over the year if I promise to pay you $400? You will be in danger of losing the money, of being robbed, of miscounting not in your favor, and of not having enough cash on hand. Cash is dirty, having been in hands of lowest castes of the society, and it may carry diseases. Most of US cash carries traces of drugs, and that can attract attention of police dogs; the police will then be happy to tear your car apart.
The banks may be charging too much for the service; but from the POV of the consumer, the convenience is worth the cost. Is it a nice racket for the banks? Probably yes, it is. They inserted themselves into the payment chain, and it's all but impossible to extract them out of there.
The many eWallet providers (that always come and go) are not aiming for saving the world from the onerous 3%. They are aiming to collect those 3%. The world will be still paying the payment tax, one way or another. Those companies are not saviors; they are just the new generation of thieves who are trying to replace the prededing generation of thieves.
Excuse me for asking, but what part of a cellphone or smartphone does NOT require you to supply your own terminal to run someone else's code and pay for your own bandwidth?
No part of my cell phone requires me to run anyone's code or to transfer someone's data. As matter of fact, my phone is not capable of running 3rd party code, and the data services (and SMS) on this account were blocked by AT&T by my request, from day zero, as a non-negotiable condition of purchase. I have no use for data on my cell phone. If someone needs me that desperately, they can always call and state their cause.
Come to think of it, it seems pretty clear that you didn't MAIL IN your post above, so you must have used your own terminal running Slashdot's javascript on your own bandwidth just to read and post here. So why get so up in arms about this?
Well, I personally wouldn't be too upset about using my bandwidth for accessing a service that I find beneficial. Credit card terminals do not communicate over hyperspace either - they are connected to something, be it telephone lines or the Internet, and I'm sure it's not the bank who pays those bills.
I would love not having to carry a wallet full of credit cards to get stolen, or even peeked at, and the numbers sent around the world in a text message...
What makes you think that the numbers are sent "around the world" in a text message? Those c/c readers do not leak the c/c information outside of their enclosure. It's banks' money, and banks know how to keep their money safe and secure. How many cases of intercept of the numbers off the wire can you recall?
With regard to "stolen or peeked at," anything can be stolen; and a robber will not forget to ask for your password. They do ask for the PIN number sometimes. But this is all a moot point because you are not responsible for the c/c theft. Banks just call it "cost of doing business," and in reality it's a drop in the ocean. The phone-based wallet, on the other hand, is probably a total loss. I don't use it, so I don't know, but what happens if someone somehow accesses your eWallet and spends the money? Will you get refund from Google or someone else who runs the service? If not, I will keep using my credit cards.
You go to restaurant. Get receipt. Create a one-off closed account with user ID and one-off GUID with exactly the amount of receipt+tip transferred from your actual bank account. Unlike with a card, you just hand the server the user ID+GUID. They never know your full name and credit card number.
Or, if you are not one of those thirty "odd employees," you just pay with cash. Or you use a temporary c/c number with limited funds - many banks offer this service for free. Or you walk with the server to the payment terminal. There are several ways to pay that do not involve a third party.
This whole thing is designed to appeal to geeks who enjoy fiddling with computers. However everyone else will find it bothersome. It is just another step where you can make a mistake. All those eWallet companies are solving a problem that does not exist for the vast majority of people - and even to some geeks. I, personally, have no need of that service. I also have no desire to include another set of crooks into the payment chain.
I'm sure Clinkle's service is more open so that restaurants/etc. don't have to buy new hardware/software; it's probably only a fraction safer than actually giving your plastic card.
Where would these numbers go that a patron hands over to the server? Do they just type it into a browser, in a place where thousands of patrons and workers come and go every single day? It only takes a record in the HOSTS file, and a self-signed certificate, to impersonate the service. Businesses pay for secure terminals because they are secure. A mere computer in a corner cannot be called secure, if all it takes to compromise is to insert a USB stick and run a script.
I think the volume of payments also matters. You cannot make regular $10/mo payments for a newspaper subscription and hope to get a $5M mortgage. Credit cards also give more information about your spending discipline. In your case you didn't need much. But who can say that it works for everyone, in every situation? A c/c is convenient way to pump a lot of money (all your day to day expenses!) through a facility that is directly affecting your credit rating. It costs you nothing, you risk nothing, and you don't need to pay for a whole month.
No, it doesn't. It prohibits California from recognizing ANYTHING other than gold or silver as legal payment for ANY debt within the state. It isn't just about taxes and fees. It says "make anything but gold or silver a tender in payment of debts". It doesn't just say State debts, or debts to the State.
It doesn't have to say that. The state is only entitled to collect taxes and fees, that's why the requirement only applies to that. In other words, you cannot pay your taxes in Euros. As I read, it cannot even force you to accept USD from me if our private contract explicitly says that I shall pay you in gold coins.
However recognition of the state is not required for any other financial activity, in any currency. If you want to buy a widget from me for Euros, or Yens, I will sell it to you. Not illegal. You can even send me those Yens from Japan, and I will receive them through an appropriate, registered and licensed financial services company (PayPal, or just my bank.) You cannot possibly claim that foreign currencies are outlawed in CA. It's just the state does not recognize them. I don't care what the state recognizes, and the state doesn't care what I barter with - chickens or colored papers. It only wants its share of the activity, expressed in the currency that it recognizes.
With regard to gold vs. fiat USD, that was discussed elsewhere. I do not know what the answer is to that.
As for foreign payments: legally they are supposed to go through a bank or exchange and converted to U.S money before they can be used for payments anyway. So that's not really relevant.
I doubt that. It would make it impossible for you to come to California and pay me with Euro coins. But you obviously can do that, and it is obviously legal. As I recall, the tax rules only require me to convert the value of the transaction to USD in order to calculate the tax, if one is appropriate.
Businesses do receive foreign payments into USD accounts, but that's primarily because USD is the universal worldwide money. You can have accounts in other currencies, and as matter of fact I do. You can even have accounts abroad, and it is also legal (but subject to reporting.) I can receive payments in CDN, and if they land into the CDN account they won't get converted into anything. I don't have to convert them into USD. I only need to calculate taxes correctly, and that involves the exchange rate on a certain date.
There is some question that BTC is a currency under existing law.
Perhaps. But I see it as a currency. BTC has enough flaws, no need to gratuitously add unearned ones :-)
But your claim was that there is a law against writing software to assist in unregulated money transfers and there is no existing law.
There is no need for a specific law when a general one works fine. For example, there is no law against jaywalking across 17th Street, 127.8 feet away from the traffic light, and at 2:37:08pm on Thursdays. But there is a law against jaywalking anywhere and at any time - and you can be sure that you can be cited for that if you get caught.
In this case there is no law against writing software to assist in unregulated money transfers. However there is a law against contributing to illegal activities. If unregulated money transfers are shown to be illegal, here you go. It would be equally illegal to write software to break into government networks, or to write software to steal money from banks, or to write software to blow up chemical plants... You can wiggle out only if you can clearly show that you acted in good faith. For example, a Fry's salesperson will not be prosecuted who sold a computer to a hacker who then hacked into a secure network and stole secret plans. But even that presupposes that the sales guy did not know about the criminal intent. If he did, too bad for him.
There are many laws that regulate the banking industry. The lawyers who sent that letter to BTC Foundation obviously found one that is relevant. I cannot debate the merits of their case, but sometimes the government doesn't need merits. It has power to arrest everyone involved and deny them bail for a year, while their trial is being prepared. Then they can say "Sorry, no case... you are free to go." But there will be *some* case - nobody knows what arcane laws are out there, in these books of codes and regulations. Nobody is innocent; but if you are, then a convenient crime will be manufactured for you. How about an unprotected sex in Sweden, for example? They'd only need a complaint from one party.
Someone already mentioned DMCA. Established rules permit outlawing something that does not have "sufficient non-infringing function." It is already illegal to possess lockpicks, unless you are a licensed locksmith; or certain drugs, unless you are a pharmacist, or if the drugs are prescribed personally to you. The society (I don't say "the law" here) is correct in shunning things that are hardly ever used for good, but are commonly used for unwelcome activities.
Courts and lawyers always use existing laws because that's all they have. Only the legislature can make new ones, and it takes a long time. Besides, why do we need a new law here if BTC is a currency exactly like GBP or CDN or RMB? BTC was itching to get into the "big boys' club" but suddenly discovered that membership comes with strings attached. As the popular wisdom says, "Be careful what you wish for..."
Orthogonal to all that: but does CA have authority to regulate flow of foreign money on its territory? For example, if you want to send 50,000 Euros to AQ, should the state have any say in that transaction?
What I'm pointing out here is that the constitutional requirement only prevents CA from collecting taxes and fees in other currencies. It does not require CA to ignore money flow in other currencies. If that were to be so, we'd be all paid and paying with foreign currency, and then no taxes would be necessary because our income in USD would be zero.
Do they know that the bitcoin network runs itself, independent of any controlling entity?
No, the network doesn't run itself. People run the network; millions of people. This only means that running bitcoind will be a small crime, for which any geek can be taken in at the pleasure of law enforcement.
There is no physicality in the packets being transmitted, therefore no "money" changes hands. It's just zeros and ones in a large and decentralised computer system.
This is a weak argument. Do you have a bank card, or a credit card? Most transactions are electronic, but you can hardly say that money doesn't change hands.
BC are doing nothing new, SETI@Home, Folding@Home et. al., have been running a community loose cluster situation for years. If SETI@Home "units completed" points were called "BitCoins" instead, would the Treasury be going after them?
Definition: Money is a good that acts as a medium of exchange in transactions. If your goods are usable primarily as a medium of exchange in transactions then they are money, and they will be regulated as money. I never heard that SETI@home credits could be used to buy coffee at Starbucks.
I think it's purely down to the fact that more and more people are using BitCoin and shucking the Dollar whenever they can, cutting out the Federal Reserve middleman and depriving them of tax revenue is what's got them upset.
Of course. When somebody does something, look for financial reasons first. I don't think, though, that BTC use reached a significant level yet. None of my acquaintances even heard about BTC, let alone used it. If told, they'd never touch it with a parsec long pole because they have no reason to. They are all adults, by the way, and have no desire to "stick it to the man." They just want "the man" to leave them alone; laying low is a good strategy for that. Painting oneself as a rebel ... not so much.
I'll keep my Dollar in cash. I'll still use the Dollar, but your banks aren't getting a sniff.
It's your right to pay more for the same product. You know how that happens? Merchants are prohibited from asking a higher price for c/c transactions. So they bump up all prices for those few percent that Visa and others skim off the top of your purchases. If you pay that in cash, it's not the bank that receives the money, it's the merchant. The bank gives you a kickback in form of air miles, or points, or something to make it worthwhile for you to use the card. The local merchant gives you nothing.
There is also the problem of credit history. If you don't have any, you won't get a loan when you need one. I hope that works for you; but most people need a loan to buy a car, and a mortgage to buy a house. Otherwise they can buy these items only by the age when they don't need them. Credit card earns credit history for you. Cash does not.
BTC is not a commodity because there is no demand for numbers that comprise a Bitcoin. The USD is not a commodity either. But a gold coin is, and a bar of iron, and a chicken. The gold coin is a commodity money; a bar of iron is a commodity that is rarely a money; a chicken is a commodity that you can use for barter.
With regard to "they are not transmitting it," the laws are pretty clear on the subject of facilitating an illegal act. In other words, if the prosecution wants you convicted for that, it will happen.
As an example, you cannot give a gun to a known killer and then say "I didn't kill anyone." You'd be an accomplice right away. A gun dealer is prohibited from selling you a firearm if he believes that you are going to use it for illegal purposes. BTC has no other purpose than to facilitate money transfers bypassing the government-sanctioned banks and their reporting systems.
Bitcoin Foundation doesn't do the transfers, but they enable others to do the illegal thing. (As I said earlier, I don't necessarily agree that those things ought to be illegal, but that's what they are today.) Assistance in committing a crime is a crime in itself.
Take locks and lockpicks, for example. A manufacturer can sell them only to licensed locksmiths. The same applies to certain firearms (or all, if you are outside of the US.) In many countries even manufacturing a firearm without license is a crime.
Bitcoin is intended for worldwide transfers, but it lacks an interface for the government to insert their monitoring equipment into. This already violates a bunch of laws, like those against money transfers to terrorists. There are also laws about reporting transfers above $10K or some such limit. Is it legal to produce software, and to train people to use this software, if the primary mode of operation of that software is against the law?
I've heard that they essentially operate as a bank, but technically aren't classified as one.
The technicalities are all that matters here. If PayPal meets the requirements of the law then it's in the clear. PayPal survived quite a lot of due diligence when eBay, an entity with good knowledge of the relevant law and with money to hire competent lawyers and accountants, bought them.
"No state shall [...] coin money;"
If coining money is not allowed to the state, is it allowed to an individual? The Liberty Dollar shows that it is not. It may be not fair, but it is legal because courts say so.
In order for California to consider it as money, it would have to declare Bitcoin to be "money", but the Constitutional explicitly prohibits it from doing that.
Forign money always existed, but it was not made a legal tender in payment of debts. The Euro is certainly money (for now,) but CA neither prints Euros nor accepts them as payment. I personally do not question that BTC is money - it is that, just as shark's teeth may be money, and sea shells, and gold bars, and pieces of paper with pictures on them. However trading in BTC skips the taxes. Taxes may be unfair too, but they are written in the laws. By the book CA is correct by going after money transfer services that bypass a plethora of laws that control banks. Personally, I don't think taxation is a necessary evil, but that's a question for a different day. Right now the only question is whether BTC is used (or can be used) for illegal operations. I think the answer to that is "true" because it can be used for anything, and illegal operations are a subset of that.
Most cars (save a few meticulously maintained and barely used by collectors) are so fragile that they're buried in a junkyard by their 20th birthday.
As drinkypoo said above, we simply don't care to maintain older cars because there is no reason to do that. Cars that are worth of maintaining *are* maintained in showroom condition.
But in general you are overlooking the Theseus's paradox. Machines are infinitely maintainable, and they can, in theory, exist forever, even if all their components have been replaced hundreds or thousands of times. A biological brain has no backup connector that could be used to conveniently make a snapshot, or to restore the mind into another brain. A biological brain is a computer that is powered up once, runs without a backup, and can be used only while it is in good order. We cannot even repair most of its problems - and there are plenty, if you ask a practicing psychiatrist. A mere couple of minutes without oxygen can wipe the memory, and your personality, clean. How likely is that to happen? If you are a child, it's likely enough. If you are a diver, it's possible. If you are a firefighter, it's not out of question. There are many other jobs that endanger that fragile brain (football, for example.)
we don't even have a bare definition for intelligence never mind serious attempts to recreate it.
We may not be able to define intelligence, but we certainly can compare it in many aspects - ultimately, covering all areas of human activities. If a machine can multiply 4798237432 by 893479238472 faster than you can (that's true today) and if it can independently compose a poem that many find interesting (there were experiments,) and if it can sing a song that many listeners find pleasant, and if it can design a plan of a battle that is not worse than a human would produce, and so on ... While we cannot say how to measure an ability to compose music, we know it when we hear it.
I don't expect a machine to get involved in love, though, but that's not required between different species. A machine that can do that will also pass the Turing test. This is not a requirement for an intelligent being. I would not expect an intelligent extraterrestrial visitor to pass the Turing test. Hell, most geeks can't pass it :-)
to try to avoid being outsmarted by technology.
The humanity can, of course, ban all machines that are smarter than humans. But that only artificially impedes the progress. Given that there ought to be an approximately infinite number of civilizations in this Universe, all paths of development will be taken, including those that lead to mostly machine civilizations. (We are already machines, by the way, it's just we are biological machines, fragile, unreliable, and slow.)
Civilizations that became machines will have no problem with FTL because they can easily afford a million years in flight by just slowing the clock down. So they will come here, to Earth, armed with technologies that Earthlings were too afraid to even allow to develop. What will happen to Earth?
Well, of course the doom is not guaranteed; but I'm using this example to demonstrate that you cannot stop the flow of progress if you only have local control, even if that. (How many movies have we seen when mad geniuses break those barriers and, essentially, own the world?)
IMO, it would be far more practical to continue the development of everything. If humanity in the end appears to be unnecessary and worthless, it's just too bad for it. The laws of nature cannot be controlled by human wishes (unless magic is real.) Most likely some convergence is possible, with human minds in machine implementations of bodies. Plenty of older people will be happy to join, simply because the only other option for them is a comfortable grave.
If the largest exchange does not want to buy your BTC in the quantity that you are selling, what is the chance that a smaller exchange or two will do that? They are not the largest exchange for a reason.
A centralized system is cheaper to buy and easier to service. Otherwise why don't the banks run their credit card accounts on a thousand PCs on desks of their employees, in a cluster? A mainframe costs more than a thousand cookie-cutter Dell business PCs. But they opt for a mainframe because in the end it is cheaper and more reliable and more secure. In essence, it's a thousand PCs in one cabinet, with appropriate I/O channels and with contractually guaranteed reliability.
When you think of BTC you should also envision the massive data traffic that runs between nodes. Someone has to pay for delivery of those bits. Sometimes it's the end user's wallet; sometimes it's end user's access to other places on the Internet; sometimes it's just the costs that the provider has to bear and spread among every customer.
If BTC miraculously replaces the USD, don't you think that banks still will need computers to manage their BTC holdings? I don't think Wells Fargo will just open an account at Mt.Gox. If a bank sets up a computer that keeps track of money, you can be sure that they won't want to lose their BTC wallet to an accident or to a thief. The same computers will remain in the same building, and the same security team will be guarding it. The need for those measures comes not from the currency that is being counted, but just from the simple fact that there is a lot of money in one place.
But the front lights of modern Mercedes-Benz'es are horrible - I get sick right away after watching an MB coming towards me. I just can't stand them...
That's easy to fix. Just buy your own modern MB, and you will love every part of it.
hauling cash around in armoured vans, and credit card networks, are not exactly free and clean.
I don't know anyone these days who regularly uses cash. I think I have a hundred dollars at home, but the rest is electronic. That *is* ecologically clean. I don't even send paper checks in paper envelopes anymore. Most of my payments for goods and services are electronic.
Well, it just proves that I am not an expert on trailers and towing :-)
But my lawnmower, if left all alone for most of the year, will be tough to start again. The gas evaporates, and the dry fuel system doesn't develop enough vacuum. It can be overcome, but it's not easy. It's easier to make sure that there is always some amount of stabilized gasoline in the tank. Perhaps one even would start it every couple of months. Not that I ever have time for such things :-) Anyway, if you rent the trailer then it's not a problem.
some of these models are designed to help prevent jackknifing when backing, and you shouldn't be doing much of that given that you're only going to be using it(theoretically) on the highways.
It could be not so easy to get to some gas stations. On Saturday they are full, and you may need to back out if the vehicle in front of you is a large truck.
Another problem is occasional use. Most people drive around the town for most of the year. They will need the trailer only a few times per year - maybe even once or twice. (There is only so much vacation time, unless you are unemployed.) This leads to two problems.
First, their own skills in towing deteriorate. They may go too fast (but safe without a trailer,) or they may brake too hard (but still safe with a car alone.) These things are done automatically, without thinking, using presets that the driver calibrates in his mind during most of his driving time. In a changed configuration those presets are suddenly wrong.
Second, the trailer itself may be inoperative after so much idle time. It contains an engine, a battery perhaps, and a gas tank, and some fuel system... all that can easily fail after you leave the thing in the garage, unattended, for a year. Would it be safe to depend on such a system that is used so infrequently? Naturally, one could always pour the fuel out, and wash the system before putting the trailer away; and the battery can be put on trickle charging, and you can start the thing every two or three weeks to circulate the oil... but how many people will do that?
The main problem here is that today's EVs do not do (for many people) what machines are supposed to do, and that is to make our life easier. They require you to worry about the charge. What if there is only one supercharger that you can stop by, and that one gets damaged by some lightning, sent down personally by Zeus? We have no such problem with gas cars because gas stations are everywhere. Driving with a trailer is, of course, not that big of a deal (many people do that,) but it's something that a busy person just doesn't have any interest to learn. He just buys a machine that helps him, not a machine that needs help.
The price I found was $320 for a SUV from Enterprise, like I said. Your dates might have been bad, or the area expensive, etc... *shrug*, rental prices vary a lot.
I reran the quote at Enterprise just for the fun of it. Here you are:
Standard SUV: Jeep Grand Cherokee, or similar
Your Dates and Times
Start: Jun 24, 2013,Noon
End: Jun 29, 2013,Noon
Price Quote
1 Week @ $ 563.50 USD $ 563.50 USD
Subtotal $ 563.50 USD
SALES TAX $ 48.60 USD
* Total Estimated Charges $ 612.10 USD
I guess some things are cheaper in Alaska. However heating in winter is probably cheaper here, in California :-)
I like to read what is written. I'm sure Tesla would love to claim +50% in 20 minutes. However that would also mean that the car can be recharged from 0% to 100% in 40 minutes - and that is not what happens in reality. Initial charging is faster, and as you say the last 5% may be not even desirable.
I hear what you are proposing, and I wouldn't mind most of these ideas. However EVs cannot pull a trailer. Once the manufacturer installs the hitch, they cannot control what kind of a boat, or a horse carrier, or a heavy trailer will be connected there. They'd need to come up with some nonstandard interface, that is guaranteed to only support the charging trailer.
There is yet another issue. Most people do not know how to drive with a trailer - not just in reverse, but even forward. I guess they could learn, but the clientele that buys EVs is fairly demanding. A trucker or a farmer would have no issues here, but they are not the target audience. I have never driven anything with a trailer, and I am not entirely open to mastering yet another trade. I have other priorities in life, if I may channel Dick Cheney. I have no desire to pay more for a car that does less and that is more difficult to operate.
I calculated the cost of the week-long rental when I considered getting an SUV to go over some mountain passes in winter. A 2WD car requires chains, and they are a hassle to put on, and they are not a pleasure to drive with. A 4WD only needs to carry chains, not use them (unless needed.) I priced that rental online, and it was more than $500 for a week. I decided that for this money I'd rather wait for spring - and I did that, and went there in my own 2WD Prius. Perhaps 10% was too generous, but 5% is realistic - one can buy a well used car for that kind of money. It's still too expensive. But, I guess, everything is expensive with EVs; if you have to ask for the price you cannot afford it :-)
WiFi is an established standard with plenty of devices.
I would like to know how you are planning to enter the WPA key, or the SSID, into the light bulb.
To compare, Z-Wave devices are securely paired with the controller by the fact of physical presence of the controller - either near the device, or on the network and in a special mode. You have to activate a function of a device by hand, it won't join the network otherwise.