Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I Spent A Coin (And I Liked It) — How I Bought Lunch in Manhattan with Bitcoins

starburst.hackerfriendly.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 139 posts

Re: I Spent A Coin (And I Liked It) — How I Bought Lunch in Manhattan with Bitcoins

#101

Post by baddox »

mmatants wrote: post #78
baddox wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ars obviously wasn't thinking critically in that comment. You're absolutely right: his proposed definition of "currency" isn't useful at all, because it would preclude talking about "the stability of a currency." A currency is simply a medium of exchange that is widely recognized, where "widely" is subjective. Most modern currency also is notable because it has no intrinsic value (gold coins, for example, have intrin…

Gold coins have no intrinsic value, either. Gold is just another divisible and non-perishable carrier of human-assigned value.

Your definition of "intrinsic value" is clearly different than mine. If no human-assigned value is intrinsic, then nothing has intrinsic value, and your definition becomes non-functional.

When I said that gold coins have intrinsic value (the same is true for copper coins, etc.), I mean that regardless of what nation minted the coin and what value appears on its face, it will always be worth at least its weight in gold.

Re: I Spent A Coin (And I Liked It) — How I Bought Lunch in Manhattan with Bitcoins

#102

Post by niklas_a »

ohashi wrote: post #94
niklas_a wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Giving someone coins is similar to Bitcoin. Still, Bitcoin is more practical than carrying around a bag of coins. You can send them instantly across the globe without fees and keep as many as you want in your pockets to name a few.

How about a credit card? It's simple. Those fees aren't just there to screw you (albeit, some places do, doesn't mean fees are inherently bad). They also help support the infrastructure required to create a stable and easy way to use money. People expect protection against fraud, bank runs, etc. That doesn't just happen magically, it happens with organization and processes. Look at some of the other comments coming f…

Definitely true. There is nothing stopping anyone building a credit card network on top of Bitcoin. Again, Bitcoin is still an experiment. It might even be the case that certain groups of people require such a scheme to use it.

Re: I Spent A Coin (And I Liked It) — How I Bought Lunch in Manhattan with Bitcoins

#103

Post by richcollins »

ignifero wrote: post #38
niklas_a wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are building a straw man. There are plenty of reasons why paperclips are unsuitable as money. They are easy to forge and there is no guarantee of how many will ever be in existence to name a few. Trading oil or gold directly is obviously impractical. But Bitcoins are not. You can store an unlimited amount of Bitcoins on your smartphone or USB stick and you can securely and anonymously transfer them to someone els…

How is it different from ordinary coins? (Obviously, in a hypothetical gold-coin economy credit cards would be in gold, too). Btw, practicality was not the reason the world abandoned the gold standard, political and economical needs obviated it. P.s. obviously, paperclips are not a good figurative example. The central banks might just give you a list of banknote numbers to exchange (and an API to verify their uniquen…

We abandoned the gold standard because governments wanted to spend money (usually on war) that they didn't have.

Re: I Spent A Coin (And I Liked It) — How I Bought Lunch in Manhattan with Bitcoins

#104

Post by jellicle »

gvsteve wrote: post #84
michaelochurch wrote: post #64

Bitcoin isn't a scam because it's "imaginary" (i.e. fiat) but because of how the currency is distributed: a proof-of-work system that is skewed heavily in favor of early adopters. There are a lot of good ideas in Bitcoin, but the truth is that its raison d'etre is to enrich early adopters-- the definition of a pyramid scheme. (It's not a Ponzi scheme; that has a technical definition and Bitcoin doesn't qualify.)

Then the stock of any company ever made is a scam because it is run with the intention to profit shareholders, of which early adopters will profit the most.

A scam as a currency, yes.

If FooCorp started trying to convince people to do all their buying and selling using FooCorp shares - of which the FooCorp owners naturally have a great many - then yes, obviously, it would be a scam intended primarily to enrich the FooCorp owners.

As a stock, FooCorp might be a perfectly fine investment.

Remind me again what the fundamentals for bitcoins are? What are their same store sales for last quarter?

Re: I Spent A Coin (And I Liked It) — How I Bought Lunch in Manhattan with Bitcoins

#105

Post by richcollins »

ars wrote: post #42
wedesoft wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cost of electricity per Bitcoin in turn depends on the computing power invested in the network. The strength of the next block is adjusted so that it takes approximately 10 minutes for the network to solve it. Also there are optional transaction fees.

Right, that's what I'm saying: As more people join the network it becomes uneconomic to mine bitcoins, because since it's harder now, it costs too much electricity. So those with the least efficient setups stop mining. So the price settles at the cost of electricity. Then they reduce the number of coins per block. So suddenly it comes even less worth it to mine. Until the value of each bitcoin rises to match, causing…

miners will just charge a fee to verify transactions

Re: I Spent A Coin (And I Liked It) — How I Bought Lunch in Manhattan with Bitcoins

#106

Post by niklas_a »

flatulent1 wrote: post #72
niklas_a wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Giving someone coins is similar to Bitcoin. Still, Bitcoin is more practical than carrying around a bag of coins. You can send them instantly across the globe without fees and keep as many as you want in your pockets to name a few.

"Giving someone coins is similar to Bitcoin." It is quite a stretch to compare bitcoin to gold or other useful metals. Gold has significant inherent value, bitcoin is inherently worthless. The value of gold can't fall to very low levels since it is scarce and is valuable for industrial uses (excellent conductor that doesn't corrode, etc.). It is unlikely that there could be much of a change in the scarcity of gold. (…

Value is ultimately determined by what people are willing to trade for - by supply and demand.

Obviously, Bitcoin is not worhtless to thousands of people. They are being traded at $14 at Mt Gox right now.

Why is gold valued at $50/gram today and was valued at $30 in 2007? Is it because we are creating more jewellery and need more for industrial applications and the supply cannot match the demand? It´s not - the value is increasing because people see gold as safe way to store money. To quote Wikipedia: "the price of gold is mainly affected by changes in sentiment" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_as_an_investment

You might also want to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value

Re: I Spent A Coin (And I Liked It) — How I Bought Lunch in Manhattan with Bitcoins

#107

Post by gvsteve »

jellicle wrote: post #104
gvsteve wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then the stock of any company ever made is a scam because it is run with the intention to profit shareholders, of which early adopters will profit the most.

A scam as a currency, yes. If FooCorp started trying to convince people to do all their buying and selling using FooCorp shares - of which the FooCorp owners naturally have a great many - then yes, obviously, it would be a scam intended primarily to enrich the FooCorp owners. As a stock, FooCorp might be a perfectly fine investment. Remind me again what the fundamentals for bitcoins are? What are their same store sal…

The purpose of my comment was to establish that 'enriches early adopters' is not enough to classify something as a scam.

And I don't think anyone is really trying to convince people to do all their buying and selling using Bitcoin. However it may be useful to do some of your buying and selling with Bitcoin.

If FooCorp's stock was stable and easily transferrable enough to use as a currency, why would it be a scam to advocate its use as currency? If your answer is only 'because holders profit' then I guess I'll agree to disagree.

Re: I Spent A Coin (And I Liked It) — How I Bought Lunch in Manhattan with Bitcoins

#108

Post by sgornick »

FeelsGoodMan wrote: post #58

It should be noted that the only reason Meze Grill is accepting bitcoins is because Bruce Wagner, host of the 24/7 Bitcoin show ( http://onlyonetv.com/?page_id=178 ), loves the restaurant and convinced the owner to accept bitcoins. The owner himself (on Bruce's show) has admitted it's basically a cute little gimmick and doesn't actually any real volume using bitcoins at his shop. Yes, the above is as ridiculous as it…

Quick question for you. Who was the second astronaut to set foot on the moon?

Re: I Spent A Coin (And I Liked It) — How I Bought Lunch in Manhattan with Bitcoins

#109

Post by [deleted] »

sgornick wrote: post #108
FeelsGoodMan wrote: post #58

It should be noted that the only reason Meze Grill is accepting bitcoins is because Bruce Wagner, host of the 24/7 Bitcoin show ( http://onlyonetv.com/?page_id=178 ), loves the restaurant and convinced the owner to accept bitcoins. The owner himself (on Bruce's show) has admitted it's basically a cute little gimmick and doesn't actually any real volume using bitcoins at his shop. Yes, the above is as ridiculous as it…

Quick question for you. Who was the second astronaut to set foot on the moon?

[deleted]

Re: I Spent A Coin (And I Liked It) — How I Bought Lunch in Manhattan with Bitcoins

#110

Post by sgornick »

mcantelon wrote: post #95

>It appears that their orders cost BTC 0.75 and his own meal cost BTC 0.7 and nobody has bought anything with Bitcoins at the Meze Grill since then. Or the grill owner periodically generates a new address with which to receive coins.

Probably has multiple laminated QR codes. That's not really the right way, or the best way. But it is a way that works.

With only one code, the restaurant can't know for sure who the payment was from. Though at these low volumes, the amount and/or the time would probably be adequate.

Even with a little more volume this method should still work fine, even if you get a second or third QR code to use.

Post reply on HN