10 ms·

Bitcoin starts to make more sense when you realise that it is an open protocol for transferring and manipulating wealth, in the same way that HTTP is an open pr

Bitcoin starts to make more sense when you realise that it is an open protocol for transferring and manipulating wealth, in the same way that HTTP is an open protocol for transferring and manipulating data.

ohashi 15y ago
Is it? It's incredibly unstable and has a tiny pool of buyers/sellers, that makes it a terrible characteristic for wealth transfer.
- weavejester 15y ago
  Why? The long term stability of the currency is irrelevant if you're just using bitcoins as a temporary intermediary, as the exchange rate only has to be remain constant for the time taken to verify a transaction.
  - ohashi 15y ago
    Because with such a tiny market you cannot actually move a lot of wealth without influencing the value of the currency itself.
    - weavejester 15y ago
      But that would only be a problem if you wanted to move large amounts of wealth infrequently. If you only wanted to move small amounts of wealth frequently (like Paypal), then there wouldn't be any problem.
      - ohashi 15y ago
        Your argument basically boils down to: it's a toy 'currency,' is that really the best argument you can make? If so, this really isn't worth discussing because it's a joke.
        weavejester 15y ago
        Huh? That's not my argument at all. Have you replied to the wrong comment by accident?
        ohashi 15y ago
        I did, and I stand by my statement. You are arguing that it's viable if you move small amounts of money. That means it only works with toy amounts, any large amount of money will influence the price because demand is shallow. Thus, you argue if you move small amounts frequently it would work, but then it is subject to the same volatility. This is why it's a toy 'currency' because it only works with tiny amounts of money.
        weavejester 15y ago
        So, in your opinion Paypal, credit cards, and physical cash are all toys because they're designed for moving small amounts of money? Or are you saying that the potential threat of a sudden market crash precludes using bitcoin as a reliable way of transferring wealth? Let's take a look at the economics of the latter. Let's assume that over the course of the year, a modest $1 million worth of money passes through my dollar-to-bitcoin and bitcoin-to-dollar gateways, and as I'm charging 1% on each (2% total), I'm making a $20,000 profit. Then bitcoin market suddenly crashes, and 99% of bitcoin's value is lost. What a disaster! I'll lose all of... well... assuming I wait 1 hour to confirm transactions, I'll lose $100 dollars on average. If I waited 10 minutes, then I'd lose only $16 dollars. So whilst bitcoin might be volatile, the odd market crash doesn't actually affect people who want to bitcoin as a protocol for transferring wealth, rather than storing it.
        ohashi 15y ago
        Paypal, credit cards and physical handle large amounts infinitely better than bitcoin. Look at mtgoxlive and see how much money it really takes to move the market a good amount. $10,000 would move it 20 cents on the buy side which is a 7% move because the demand is shallow. It's a toy currency. Paypal can handle 5 figure transactions without blinking (maybe even 6, havent heard of anyone try but I've seen 5 figure transactions). My point is, you can't even move a good chunk of money without influencing the value of the market. It doesn't help that you can't store value in it either because of its volatility.
xtracto 15y ago
I would like to use Bitcoin for micro-payment transactions in Mexico. The toy plan I drafted starts with a "broker" (my service) printing and selling "cards" for certain amount of money (say USD$50). Each card is linked to a specific account maintained by the "broker" which knows how much money has the individual spent. When a user wants to pay using bitcon, the amount of bitcoins are converted to USD$ and then reduced from the card's account, plus a small commission (the profit point). The user sees all the transactions in USD$ (or MXN$) while the transaction between the "broker" and the seller is done in Bitcoins. This will help "popularize" Bitcoins, and will allow people in Mexico to do payments without having a bank card, and use micropayments. One of the many issues is the distribution of such point cards. But on the other hand, sellers do not get tied to a closed payment system. Of course such type of plans have to be thought quite deeply as there will be a lot of issues to solve. But I think in Mexico it would be good business because currently the options to accept micropayments (e.g., SMS payment or by phone, etc) do not exist (or are not profitable for sellers) and credit cards are not really used by the majority of the population.

ohashi 15y ago

Is it? It's incredibly unstable and has a tiny pool of buyers/sellers, that makes it a terrible characteristic for wealth transfer.

weavejester 15y ago
Why? The long term stability of the currency is irrelevant if you're just using bitcoins as a temporary intermediary, as the exchange rate only has to be remain constant for the time taken to verify a transaction.
- ohashi 15y ago
  Because with such a tiny market you cannot actually move a lot of wealth without influencing the value of the currency itself.
  - weavejester 15y ago
    But that would only be a problem if you wanted to move large amounts of wealth infrequently. If you only wanted to move small amounts of wealth frequently (like Paypal), then there wouldn't be any problem.
    - ohashi 15y ago
      Your argument basically boils down to: it's a toy 'currency,' is that really the best argument you can make? If so, this really isn't worth discussing because it's a joke.
      - weavejester 15y ago
        Huh? That's not my argument at all. Have you replied to the wrong comment by accident?
        ohashi 15y ago
        I did, and I stand by my statement. You are arguing that it's viable if you move small amounts of money. That means it only works with toy amounts, any large amount of money will influence the price because demand is shallow. Thus, you argue if you move small amounts frequently it would work, but then it is subject to the same volatility. This is why it's a toy 'currency' because it only works with tiny amounts of money.
        weavejester 15y ago
        So, in your opinion Paypal, credit cards, and physical cash are all toys because they're designed for moving small amounts of money? Or are you saying that the potential threat of a sudden market crash precludes using bitcoin as a reliable way of transferring wealth? Let's take a look at the economics of the latter. Let's assume that over the course of the year, a modest $1 million worth of money passes through my dollar-to-bitcoin and bitcoin-to-dollar gateways, and as I'm charging 1% on each (2% total), I'm making a $20,000 profit. Then bitcoin market suddenly crashes, and 99% of bitcoin's value is lost. What a disaster! I'll lose all of... well... assuming I wait 1 hour to confirm transactions, I'll lose $100 dollars on average. If I waited 10 minutes, then I'd lose only $16 dollars. So whilst bitcoin might be volatile, the odd market crash doesn't actually affect people who want to bitcoin as a protocol for transferring wealth, rather than storing it.
        ohashi 15y ago
        Paypal, credit cards and physical handle large amounts infinitely better than bitcoin. Look at mtgoxlive and see how much money it really takes to move the market a good amount. $10,000 would move it 20 cents on the buy side which is a 7% move because the demand is shallow. It's a toy currency. Paypal can handle 5 figure transactions without blinking (maybe even 6, havent heard of anyone try but I've seen 5 figure transactions). My point is, you can't even move a good chunk of money without influencing the value of the market. It doesn't help that you can't store value in it either because of its volatility.

xtracto 15y ago

I would like to use Bitcoin for micro-payment transactions in Mexico. The toy plan I drafted starts with a "broker" (my service) printing and selling "cards" for certain amount of money (say USD$50). Each card is linked to a specific account maintained by the "broker" which knows how much money has the individual spent. When a user wants to pay using bitcon, the amount of bitcoins are converted to USD$ and then reduced from the card's account, plus a small commission (the profit point). The user sees all the transactions in USD$ (or MXN$) while the transaction between the "broker" and the seller is done in Bitcoins. This will help "popularize" Bitcoins, and will allow people in Mexico to do payments without having a bank card, and use micropayments. One of the many issues is the distribution of such point cards. But on the other hand, sellers do not get tied to a closed payment system. Of course such type of plans have to be thought quite deeply as there will be a lot of issues to solve. But I think in Mexico it would be good business because currently the options to accept micropayments (e.g., SMS payment or by phone, etc) do not exist (or are not profitable for sellers) and credit cards are not really used by the majority of the population.