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

Bitcoin's comeback: should Western Union be afraid?

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 80 posts

Re: Bitcoin's comeback: should Western Union be afraid?

#21

Post by joezydeco »

DTanner wrote: post #18
joezydeco wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why you're getting downvoted for this, especially since this is the main idea of the article. So what's to keep a loose network of independent merchants from popping up around the globe to undercut Western Union?

> Not sure why you're getting downvoted for this There's a portion of internet users who have decided that they really really hate Bitcoin and go out of their way to denigrate it and downvote anyone who doesn't share their views. I can understand the people who are skeptical, because Bitcoin definitely has its problems, but this seething hatred mystifies me...

Well, it did get a little crazy this summer with all of the articles and meta-observation about how viable the currency was vs "is HN being used to pump and dump the value".

It still was a fascinating thing to think about from a software point of view, IMO.

Re: Bitcoin's comeback: should Western Union be afraid?

#22

Post by daeken »

thinkcomp wrote: post #19

I think Western Union is probably more afraid of lawsuits that seek to invalidate its protectionist legislation. http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/5:2011cv0...

You've managed to post in nearly every thread related to money changing hands for the past couple months. While I applaud your persistence, the world does not center around you, your startup, your causes, etc. It's incredibly irritating, it's off-topic in effectively every case, and it does nothing to promote healthy conversation.

Re: Bitcoin's comeback: should Western Union be afraid?

#23

Post by thinkcomp »

daeken wrote: post #22
thinkcomp wrote: post #19

I think Western Union is probably more afraid of lawsuits that seek to invalidate its protectionist legislation. http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/5:2011cv0...

You've managed to post in nearly every thread related to money changing hands for the past couple months. While I applaud your persistence, the world does not center around you, your startup, your causes, etc. It's incredibly irritating, it's off-topic in effectively every case, and it does nothing to promote healthy conversation.

Sorry you feel that way. Obviously I don't think the world revolves around me. As for relevance and usefulness in terms of discussion, I clearly disagree on all counts, otherwise I wouldn't post.

According to the article, Bitcoin's significance is that it "allows low-cost and regulation-free transfer of wealth." I am seeking to achieve many of the same objectives in the context of a high-cost and poorly regulated environment, just in a different manner. As it so happens, that manner might impact the legality of some uses of Bitcoin.

Furthermore, behind the shadow of its lobbying group, Western Union is one of the main sponsors of the legislation directly in question that it and other companies use to maintain an oligopoly. No one else seems to be discussing that point, though it seems rather significant, both in terms of Bitcoin and other startups wishing to enter the market.

Re: Bitcoin's comeback: should Western Union be afraid?

#24

Post by freehunter »

DTanner wrote: post #8

I really like the concept of "metacurrency" that this article talks about. This is exactly the area I think Bitcoin will be most successful. I don't ever see it replacing the dollar, or even credit cards. The one thing that Bitcoin really excels at is the instantaneous transfer of unlimited amounts of money from one place in the world to another. Rick Falkvinge talks about this a bit in his "four drivers" series: htt…

Problem is, PayPal et al work in government-backed currencies. You can expect that when someone pays you $1 over PayPal, you'll get $1 worth from it (regardless of how many Euros you'd get for that dollar). However, with Bitcoins you'd be running into the issue of a double exchange. First you'd have to trade your dollars for Bitcoins, transfer the Bitcoins, then trade them back into dollars. You'll always get 1BC when someone sends you 1BC, but from the time that BC is bought to the time it's converted back to dollars, the currency could be worth a lot more (or a lot less).

Dollars are not inherently better, but at least I can immediately spend one and get a soda from the gas station. Until Bitcoin reaches that point, people will be sending dollars over Paypal.

Re: Bitcoin's comeback: should Western Union be afraid?

#25

Post by fennecfoxen »

gweinberg wrote: post #14
Helianthus wrote: post #3

>This presents a bit of a puzzle for Bitcoin skeptics. Uh, no, it presents absolutely no puzzle at all for those of us who believe Bitcoin will follow a boom-bust cycle without ever providing a truly stable currency.

If Bitcoin were nothing but the pyramid scheme its detractors say it is, it should not have recovered. Collapsed pyramids don't reassemble themselves.

My preferred quip is that Bitcoin isn't a pyramid scheme. Technically, it's a 'pump-and-dump'. ;)

Re: Bitcoin's comeback: should Western Union be afraid?

#26

Post by nextparadigms »

Helianthus wrote: post #3

>This presents a bit of a puzzle for Bitcoin skeptics. Uh, no, it presents absolutely no puzzle at all for those of us who believe Bitcoin will follow a boom-bust cycle without ever providing a truly stable currency.

I wouldn't say never, but I agree there will be smaller booms and busts for a while, at least until all 21 million Bitcoins are made so there is no more mining, and until Bitcoins starts to be used in regular stores.

Re: Bitcoin's comeback: should Western Union be afraid?

#27

Post by DTanner »

freehunter wrote: post #24
DTanner wrote: post #8

I really like the concept of "metacurrency" that this article talks about. This is exactly the area I think Bitcoin will be most successful. I don't ever see it replacing the dollar, or even credit cards. The one thing that Bitcoin really excels at is the instantaneous transfer of unlimited amounts of money from one place in the world to another. Rick Falkvinge talks about this a bit in his "four drivers" series: htt…

Problem is, PayPal et al work in government-backed currencies. You can expect that when someone pays you $1 over PayPal, you'll get $1 worth from it (regardless of how many Euros you'd get for that dollar). However, with Bitcoins you'd be running into the issue of a double exchange. First you'd have to trade your dollars for Bitcoins, transfer the Bitcoins, then trade them back into dollars. You'll always get 1BC whe…

That's why I said "eventually", the user-base isn't quite there yet. I could see people just keeping $50-$100 in Bitcoin permanently to use for small transactions, much like I always have $100-$200 in cash in my wallet for small purchases, or $1000-$3000 in my bank account just as a buffer.

I don't see that happening anytime soon though with the huge volatility.

Re: Bitcoin's comeback: should Western Union be afraid?

#28

Post by tptacek »

thinkcomp wrote: post #23
daeken wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've managed to post in nearly every thread related to money changing hands for the past couple months. While I applaud your persistence, the world does not center around you, your startup, your causes, etc. It's incredibly irritating, it's off-topic in effectively every case, and it does nothing to promote healthy conversation.

Sorry you feel that way. Obviously I don't think the world revolves around me. As for relevance and usefulness in terms of discussion, I clearly disagree on all counts, otherwise I wouldn't post. According to the article, Bitcoin's significance is that it "allows low-cost and regulation-free transfer of wealth." I am seeking to achieve many of the same objectives in the context of a high-cost and poorly regulated env…

There's a reason no-one else is discussing this angle; this thread isn't about you.

The tactic you're employing here and on every other money thread is so common that Wikipedia has a name for it: "coat-rack arguments".

You're using HN threads about money transactions as coat-racks for comments that are nominally germane (ie, "Bitcoin allows low-cost and regulation-free &c and ...") but really about your personal drama ("... and that's what I'm trying to do with my [totally unrelated scheme]").

I hope you're starting to notice that HN people aren't going to let you keep doing this without calling you on it, and that off-topic comments are therefore a poor promotional vehicle for your pet controversies. Either way, please stop.

Re: Bitcoin's comeback: should Western Union be afraid?

#29

Post by daeken »

thinkcomp wrote: post #23
daeken wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've managed to post in nearly every thread related to money changing hands for the past couple months. While I applaud your persistence, the world does not center around you, your startup, your causes, etc. It's incredibly irritating, it's off-topic in effectively every case, and it does nothing to promote healthy conversation.

Sorry you feel that way. Obviously I don't think the world revolves around me. As for relevance and usefulness in terms of discussion, I clearly disagree on all counts, otherwise I wouldn't post. According to the article, Bitcoin's significance is that it "allows low-cost and regulation-free transfer of wealth." I am seeking to achieve many of the same objectives in the context of a high-cost and poorly regulated env…

In that case, go write up an article about your viewpoint and post that to HN. Don't just comment on any semi-almost-kinda-related article.

Re: Bitcoin's comeback: should Western Union be afraid?

#30

Post by thinkcomp »

tptacek wrote: post #28
thinkcomp wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry you feel that way. Obviously I don't think the world revolves around me. As for relevance and usefulness in terms of discussion, I clearly disagree on all counts, otherwise I wouldn't post. According to the article, Bitcoin's significance is that it "allows low-cost and regulation-free transfer of wealth." I am seeking to achieve many of the same objectives in the context of a high-cost and poorly regulated env…

There's a reason no-one else is discussing this angle; this thread isn't about you. The tactic you're employing here and on every other money thread is so common that Wikipedia has a name for it: "coat-rack arguments". You're using HN threads about money transactions as coat-racks for comments that are nominally germane (ie, "Bitcoin allows low-cost and regulation-free &c and ...") but really about your personal dram…

First, I won't stop; certainly not because you and your colleague say I should.

Second, I didn't post an advertisement, or a job offer, or a discussion about a random topic. I posted a federal lawsuit about money transmission that is directly related to Bitcoin's purported goals and the title of this article.

Enough people have contacted me, some of whom read Hacker News, and some of whom do not, who fully support what I am doing, that I believe your viewpoint to be both in the minority and in this particular case, incorrect besides.

Post reply on HN