4 ms·

Have you done any market fit research before diving into this? Honestly: Spending money like cash and using a secure wallet on my phone is already very very ea

by beders 4y ago

Have you done any market fit research before diving into this? Honestly: Spending money like cash and using a secure wallet on my phone is already very very easy. Why would I want to go through these extra steps? If the ONLY answer is "Because it is Bitcoin" then you might have a problem.

RickTM 4y ago
Theres also laws against minting private currency, as seen here: https://web.archive.org/web/20121205094219/http://www.fbi.gov/charlotte/press-releases/2011/defendant-convicted-of-minting-his-own-currency https://web.archive.org/web/20121205094219/http://www.fbi.go...
- quickthrower2 4y ago
  Three reasons why this is probably irrelevant. 1. > Von NotHaus designed the Liberty Dollar currency in 1998 and the Liberty coins were marked with the dollar sign ($); the words dollar, USA, Liberty, Trust in God (instead of In God We Trust) So that is not a great example, as it is currency designed to confuse people into thinking they are real dollars. 2. The USA is just one set of laws. Over the pond in the UK, it is fine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_community_currencies_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_community_currencies_i... 3. This isn't a new currency, it is a new key storage format for Bitcoin.
  - nybble41 4y ago
    > as it is currency designed to confuse people into thinking they are real dollars That was the government's argument. The defendant clearly disagreed. Arguably they were closer to "real dollars" (defined by the Coinage Act of 1792 to consist of 416 grains, or about 0.95 ounces, of standard silver) than anything the government has minted recently. A bit better, even. The dollar sign and the word "dollar" are not unique to US currency and in fact predate the US entirely. Likewise for the word "liberty" or the phrase "trust in God"—if anything that last would probably be deemed a blatant violation of the separation of Church and State if the government actually put it on their currency. These are just generic elements common to many currencies and US culture. Even the initials "USA" don't actually imply any endorsement by the US government; you can find them on just about everything these days. The intent was patriotism, not confusion. The same would have been true if they had spelled out "United States of America" like the official coins, though of course they didn't do that. Any actual confusion can more readily be blamed on the US Mint for making their coins too generic than on NORFED for making theirs too similar. At least NORFED put their name in their design; the US Mint did not.
    - woodruffw 4y ago
      The argument is not that "the dollar" is some kind of uniquely American concept, but that there is a legal object called the US dollar. There are laws applying to that object, including that you can't make a fake version of it. The fact that the liberty dollar happened to cost more than a real dollar doesn't make it not a counterfeit; it makes its manufacturer a fool.
      - nybble41 4y ago
        The Liberty Dollar was not a "fake version" of the US Dollar. It wasn't even a "fake version" of the Federal Reserve Notes (nominally denominated in US Dollars, but trading at a far lower value) which make up the vast majority of circulating currency and which too many people incorrectly refer to as the US Dollar. > The fact that the liberty dollar happened to cost more than a real dollar doesn't make it not a counterfeit… No, the fact that it was never intended as a counterfeit is what makes it not a counterfeit. The cost in materials is comparable to a real US Dollar (not to be confused with a Federal Reserve Note); the full cost could actually be lower due to technological advancements.
- nybble41 4y ago
  That press release does not name any actual laws which were violated. You might do better to link to the ruling itself[0]; it's hardly less biased than the DoJ's statement, but it is at least more specific about the charges. The government's argument was quite expansive in claiming novel exclusive powers for the federal government, but even so their success hinged on (besides a very sympathetic court and favorable jury instructions) the fact that the Liberty Dollars were not just any private currency but actual metal coins incorporating some phrases and imagery vaguely similar to official US coins. The key elements were the visual similarity for the charge of counterfeiting (they're round like most coins, and likewise silver in color, and contain design inspired by US history—though not any from actual US currency), and the constitutional prohibition on states minting metal coins, despite the fact that the defendant was a private individual and not acting on behalf of any state. There is no particular reason to think the same issues would apply to "minting" a private currency which did not consist of metallic coins or incorporate any "patriotic" imagery. [0] https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-von-nothaus?q=United%20States%20v.%20Von%20Nothaus&sort=date-ascending&p=9&type=case&startDate=946684800000 https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-von-nothaus?q=Unit...
- HWR_14 4y ago
  There are, in the US, no laws against printing a private currency. There are laws forbidding you from calling your currency "dollars" or looking similar enough to US currency.
ccamrobertson 4y ago
To gift Bitcoin to people who are not used to using wallets. To have small amounts of Bitcoin not tied your phone or other online device in the case of destruction/hacking/etc. To allow for immediate settlement of a Bitcoin transaction.
minsc_and_boo 4y ago
I feel like most of these crypto products boil down to "just because" hobby money, rather than being a part of any well thought out business model.
IAmGraydon 4y ago
My thoughts exactly. What percentage of the world population is really bothered by centralized currency, banks and credit cards? Crypto is a solution searching for a problem.
Kiro 4y ago
The only market fit research you can trust is launching your product and see the market's reaction. Everyone I know who has done an exit got told there would be no market for their product. Just follow your vision and ignore whatever people say.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  > Everyone I know who has done an exit Sounds like survivors bias in a few words. Presumably the folks who had no market fit never got anywhere near an exit? I'm not sure I'd use this metric as a guide telling me to ignore the market.
quickthrower2 4y ago
Not just that, but Bitcoin acceptance is already pretty thin. There would be a subset of people who accept bitcoin who would accept this in person. I see this only being used to buy beer at Bitcoin meetups. That said if they can find an initial group of super enthusiasts it might go well. Maybe Nayib Bukele would be interested in the technology to license it to El Salvador.

by beders 4y ago

RickTM 4y ago

Theres also laws against minting private currency, as seen here: https://web.archive.org/web/20121205094219/http://www.fbi.gov/charlotte/press-releases/2011/defendant-convicted-of-minting-his-own-currency https://web.archive.org/web/20121205094219/http://www.fbi.go...

quickthrower2 4y ago
Three reasons why this is probably irrelevant. 1. > Von NotHaus designed the Liberty Dollar currency in 1998 and the Liberty coins were marked with the dollar sign ($); the words dollar, USA, Liberty, Trust in God (instead of In God We Trust) So that is not a great example, as it is currency designed to confuse people into thinking they are real dollars. 2. The USA is just one set of laws. Over the pond in the UK, it is fine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_community_currencies_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_community_currencies_i... 3. This isn't a new currency, it is a new key storage format for Bitcoin.
- nybble41 4y ago
  > as it is currency designed to confuse people into thinking they are real dollars That was the government's argument. The defendant clearly disagreed. Arguably they were closer to "real dollars" (defined by the Coinage Act of 1792 to consist of 416 grains, or about 0.95 ounces, of standard silver) than anything the government has minted recently. A bit better, even. The dollar sign and the word "dollar" are not unique to US currency and in fact predate the US entirely. Likewise for the word "liberty" or the phrase "trust in God"—if anything that last would probably be deemed a blatant violation of the separation of Church and State if the government actually put it on their currency. These are just generic elements common to many currencies and US culture. Even the initials "USA" don't actually imply any endorsement by the US government; you can find them on just about everything these days. The intent was patriotism, not confusion. The same would have been true if they had spelled out "United States of America" like the official coins, though of course they didn't do that. Any actual confusion can more readily be blamed on the US Mint for making their coins too generic than on NORFED for making theirs too similar. At least NORFED put their name in their design; the US Mint did not.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    The argument is not that "the dollar" is some kind of uniquely American concept, but that there is a legal object called the US dollar. There are laws applying to that object, including that you can't make a fake version of it. The fact that the liberty dollar happened to cost more than a real dollar doesn't make it not a counterfeit; it makes its manufacturer a fool.
    - nybble41 4y ago
      The Liberty Dollar was not a "fake version" of the US Dollar. It wasn't even a "fake version" of the Federal Reserve Notes (nominally denominated in US Dollars, but trading at a far lower value) which make up the vast majority of circulating currency and which too many people incorrectly refer to as the US Dollar. > The fact that the liberty dollar happened to cost more than a real dollar doesn't make it not a counterfeit… No, the fact that it was never intended as a counterfeit is what makes it not a counterfeit. The cost in materials is comparable to a real US Dollar (not to be confused with a Federal Reserve Note); the full cost could actually be lower due to technological advancements.
nybble41 4y ago
That press release does not name any actual laws which were violated. You might do better to link to the ruling itself[0]; it's hardly less biased than the DoJ's statement, but it is at least more specific about the charges. The government's argument was quite expansive in claiming novel exclusive powers for the federal government, but even so their success hinged on (besides a very sympathetic court and favorable jury instructions) the fact that the Liberty Dollars were not just any private currency but actual metal coins incorporating some phrases and imagery vaguely similar to official US coins. The key elements were the visual similarity for the charge of counterfeiting (they're round like most coins, and likewise silver in color, and contain design inspired by US history—though not any from actual US currency), and the constitutional prohibition on states minting metal coins, despite the fact that the defendant was a private individual and not acting on behalf of any state. There is no particular reason to think the same issues would apply to "minting" a private currency which did not consist of metallic coins or incorporate any "patriotic" imagery. [0] https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-von-nothaus?q=United%20States%20v.%20Von%20Nothaus&sort=date-ascending&p=9&type=case&startDate=946684800000 https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-von-nothaus?q=Unit...
HWR_14 4y ago
There are, in the US, no laws against printing a private currency. There are laws forbidding you from calling your currency "dollars" or looking similar enough to US currency.

ccamrobertson 4y ago

To gift Bitcoin to people who are not used to using wallets. To have small amounts of Bitcoin not tied your phone or other online device in the case of destruction/hacking/etc. To allow for immediate settlement of a Bitcoin transaction.

minsc_and_boo 4y ago

I feel like most of these crypto products boil down to "just because" hobby money, rather than being a part of any well thought out business model.

IAmGraydon 4y ago

My thoughts exactly. What percentage of the world population is really bothered by centralized currency, banks and credit cards? Crypto is a solution searching for a problem.

Kiro 4y ago

The only market fit research you can trust is launching your product and see the market's reaction. Everyone I know who has done an exit got told there would be no market for their product. Just follow your vision and ignore whatever people say.

rootusrootus 4y ago
> Everyone I know who has done an exit Sounds like survivors bias in a few words. Presumably the folks who had no market fit never got anywhere near an exit? I'm not sure I'd use this metric as a guide telling me to ignore the market.

quickthrower2 4y ago

Not just that, but Bitcoin acceptance is already pretty thin. There would be a subset of people who accept bitcoin who would accept this in person. I see this only being used to buy beer at Bitcoin meetups. That said if they can find an initial group of super enthusiasts it might go well. Maybe Nayib Bukele would be interested in the technology to license it to El Salvador.