6 ms·

The importance of this news cannot be overstated. Overstock.com is the first "main stream" company (my mom shops there) that accepts bitcoin that I can think o

by blhack 13y ago

The importance of this news cannot be overstated. Overstock.com is the first "main stream" company (my mom shops there) that accepts bitcoin that I can think of. Wow. Good job, overstock.com team for getting this done so quickly!

eli 13y ago
I guess I just don't see it. To my cynical eye, it seems mostly like an easy way for Overstock to generate a bunch of positive press and perhaps make a few extra sales from bitcoin boosters. Sure, it's a nice milestone for bitcoin, but the importance seems, well, kinda overstated. I mean, a decade ago a bunch of big ecommerce sites took Flooz too, right? But hey, I thought the iPod was too expensive and Twitter was useless when they launched, so what do I know.
- thekaleb 13y ago
  I was listening to a podcast where the hosts claim that the CEO is a libertarian and loves the idea of BTC as opposed to Federal Reserve Notes. But in addition, it does give them press coverage as well.
  - ihsw 13y ago
    This is mentioned in the article: > Like so many others, he believes bitcoin can free the world from the control of big banks and big government. “It helps us fight the machine,” he says. I cringed reading this, mostly because normal people don't feel quite comfortable with sentiment like "fighting the machine."
    - VMG 13y ago
      Early movers are often ideologically inspired - Stallman is a radical hippie, Jimmy Wales an objectivist. The crazies make the big bets.
    - waterlesscloud 13y ago
      You might be surprised at what normal people actually think. Get outside and talk to some folks. Very few are friends of "the machine."
  - _delirium 13y ago
    He's a libertarian for certain strange senses of libertarian. For example he thinks naked short-selling should be banned, which seems more like a pro-regulatory position (not just a randomly chosen position... the campaign against naked short-selling has been his #1 political passion for years). Mostly I think he just dislikes the finance industry.
    - yapcguy 13y ago
      Naked short selling should be banned. It's not just a regulatory issue. When you short a stock, you have to borrow the stock first, and then sell it. Obviously at some point you will buy back the stock, hopefully at a lower price so you make a profit, and then return the stock to the original owner. When you naked short sell, you don't borrow the stock first, you just claim you do. Everybody trades pieces of paper without settling the trade. This might seem convenient but someone can abuse this. For example, sell a billion shares in a stock which you don't own / have not borrowed, at a fire-sale price, thereby causing the share price of a company to crash because people start panicking once they see huge volumes being traded at a low price.
      - paul_f 13y ago
        To naked short sell, someone has to be willing to buy from you a stock you neither own nor have borrowed. I think if they want to do that, they should be allowed to. Despite what a dumb idea that is.
        toast0 13y ago
        When you issue a buy order to an exchange, you don't get to specify that the seller needs to have the stock; you will only find out when the seller fails to deliver.
      - _delirium 13y ago
        If one is a libertarian, wouldn't the assumption be that the market will handle this scenario? When someone takes the other end of your short, it's up to them to do appropriate due diligence on the counterparty risk. Maybe they want to demand you own the underlying security; maybe they don't want to demand it. As long as it's free individuals entering into contracts, I don't see the case for banning them from a libertarian perspective specifically.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
chaz 13y ago
I'm not sure it's that big of a deal. I'm still looking for Bitcoin's killer app, and I don't think this is it. A killer app would take advantage of Bitcoin's unique properties and become preferred vs other payment methods. There isn't a clear reason for most consumers to go through the hassle/risk of BTC vs getting the consumer protection and rebates/rewards that credit cards offer.
- blhack 13y ago
  Have you ever used BTC to buy something? It's the ease of amazon's "one click buy", but everywhere. It's really, really awesome.
  - alste780 13y ago
    Will an awesome user experience be enough? :) Plus, merchants can reproduce this UX by integrating Paypal, or perhaps Venmo in the future. The user experience is not a fundamental advantage to bitcoin.
    - NhanH 13y ago
      I don't know about Venmo, but from a UX perspectives, paypal is hardly an improvement over just inputting credit card information.
      - aestra 13y ago
        For someone with a password manager and auto fill is most definitely is.
    - bdamm 13y ago
      It absolutely is. If I want to send money to my mother, who lives in a different country over 6000 km away, I have to go through absurd steps in order to do so. International money transfer. Western Union. Physically walking cash to some counter. If bitcoin is useful for her, I can just send her bitcoins. Paypal is frustrating; I have to make an account, she has to make an account, I have to fund my account, and to top it all off, Paypal can (and does!) refuse to transfer money sometimes. Absurd! This personal touch is the foundation of all that makes bitcoin worthwhile, in my opinion. The network is established and I can use it to send value to another individual or company, without going through any other intermediate. This is absolutely huge, in the same way that email is an easier way to send a message (instead of making a phone call) is absolutely huge (for email). People may choose to use services (like Coinbase) to make it easier, but they don't have to.

by blhack 13y ago

eli 13y ago

I guess I just don't see it. To my cynical eye, it seems mostly like an easy way for Overstock to generate a bunch of positive press and perhaps make a few extra sales from bitcoin boosters. Sure, it's a nice milestone for bitcoin, but the importance seems, well, kinda overstated. I mean, a decade ago a bunch of big ecommerce sites took Flooz too, right? But hey, I thought the iPod was too expensive and Twitter was useless when they launched, so what do I know.

thekaleb 13y ago
I was listening to a podcast where the hosts claim that the CEO is a libertarian and loves the idea of BTC as opposed to Federal Reserve Notes. But in addition, it does give them press coverage as well.
- ihsw 13y ago
  This is mentioned in the article: > Like so many others, he believes bitcoin can free the world from the control of big banks and big government. “It helps us fight the machine,” he says. I cringed reading this, mostly because normal people don't feel quite comfortable with sentiment like "fighting the machine."
  - VMG 13y ago
    Early movers are often ideologically inspired - Stallman is a radical hippie, Jimmy Wales an objectivist. The crazies make the big bets.
  - waterlesscloud 13y ago
    You might be surprised at what normal people actually think. Get outside and talk to some folks. Very few are friends of "the machine."
- _delirium 13y ago
  He's a libertarian for certain strange senses of libertarian. For example he thinks naked short-selling should be banned, which seems more like a pro-regulatory position (not just a randomly chosen position... the campaign against naked short-selling has been his #1 political passion for years). Mostly I think he just dislikes the finance industry.
  - yapcguy 13y ago
    Naked short selling should be banned. It's not just a regulatory issue. When you short a stock, you have to borrow the stock first, and then sell it. Obviously at some point you will buy back the stock, hopefully at a lower price so you make a profit, and then return the stock to the original owner. When you naked short sell, you don't borrow the stock first, you just claim you do. Everybody trades pieces of paper without settling the trade. This might seem convenient but someone can abuse this. For example, sell a billion shares in a stock which you don't own / have not borrowed, at a fire-sale price, thereby causing the share price of a company to crash because people start panicking once they see huge volumes being traded at a low price.
    - paul_f 13y ago
      To naked short sell, someone has to be willing to buy from you a stock you neither own nor have borrowed. I think if they want to do that, they should be allowed to. Despite what a dumb idea that is.
      - toast0 13y ago
        When you issue a buy order to an exchange, you don't get to specify that the seller needs to have the stock; you will only find out when the seller fails to deliver.
    - _delirium 13y ago
      If one is a libertarian, wouldn't the assumption be that the market will handle this scenario? When someone takes the other end of your short, it's up to them to do appropriate due diligence on the counterparty risk. Maybe they want to demand you own the underlying security; maybe they don't want to demand it. As long as it's free individuals entering into contracts, I don't see the case for banning them from a libertarian perspective specifically.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

chaz 13y ago

I'm not sure it's that big of a deal. I'm still looking for Bitcoin's killer app, and I don't think this is it. A killer app would take advantage of Bitcoin's unique properties and become preferred vs other payment methods. There isn't a clear reason for most consumers to go through the hassle/risk of BTC vs getting the consumer protection and rebates/rewards that credit cards offer.

blhack 13y ago
Have you ever used BTC to buy something? It's the ease of amazon's "one click buy", but everywhere. It's really, really awesome.
- alste780 13y ago
  Will an awesome user experience be enough? :) Plus, merchants can reproduce this UX by integrating Paypal, or perhaps Venmo in the future. The user experience is not a fundamental advantage to bitcoin.
  - NhanH 13y ago
    I don't know about Venmo, but from a UX perspectives, paypal is hardly an improvement over just inputting credit card information.
    - aestra 13y ago
      For someone with a password manager and auto fill is most definitely is.
  - bdamm 13y ago
    It absolutely is. If I want to send money to my mother, who lives in a different country over 6000 km away, I have to go through absurd steps in order to do so. International money transfer. Western Union. Physically walking cash to some counter. If bitcoin is useful for her, I can just send her bitcoins. Paypal is frustrating; I have to make an account, she has to make an account, I have to fund my account, and to top it all off, Paypal can (and does!) refuse to transfer money sometimes. Absurd! This personal touch is the foundation of all that makes bitcoin worthwhile, in my opinion. The network is established and I can use it to send value to another individual or company, without going through any other intermediate. This is absolutely huge, in the same way that email is an easier way to send a message (instead of making a phone call) is absolutely huge (for email). People may choose to use services (like Coinbase) to make it easier, but they don't have to.