Earlier quoted context omitted.
You need to install propietary software to use it.
I use Dropbox as a glorified large email attachment distribution system, touching only the web interface. Edit: obviously not clear enough, I'll try again: Is it true that ' You need to install propietary software to use it '? No.
The first Bitcoin post on HN
111–120 of 302 posts
Re: The first Bitcoin post on HN
#112That four-year-old submission has just two comments: one expressing doubt, one expressing optimism. Interestingly, despite growing worldwide adoption of Bitcoin, comments about it on HN continue to be more or less evenly split between doubters and optimists. And I wouldn't be surprised if comments to this submission are evenly split between those same two camps. No amount of evidence or reasoning seems to persuade ei…
Re: The first Bitcoin post on HN
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hate when people use the tulips comparison. The basic protocol of bitcoin that allows people to send value anywhere in the world and solves the double spend problem must have some value unto itself. I don't know it's worth $0.10, $100, or $1000000 per bitcoin to use the protocol but to compare it to a plant seems kinda ridiculous.
The easiest way to refute the tulip argument is simply point out Bitcoins total money stock is fixed at 21 million units, wheras you can plant new tulips at will. (The skill/time required to do this is irrelevant to the point).
Re: The first Bitcoin post on HN
#114How much money would you have made if you'd bought $1000 worth of bitcoin on that day?
This was posted in May 2009. On October 5th, 2009, $1 = 1,309.03 BTC [1], so you'd have bought about 1.3 million bitcoin. Which means you'd have over $500M dollars in Bitcoin. I bet that spending $1000 back then would have considerably changed the exchange rate though, and selling $500M now would definitely aversely affect the economy. 1: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/History
There weren't even 1.3 million bitcoin in circulation at that point [1]. If you bought every bitcoin, you could have accumulated about 1.1 million BTC for $850.
[1] http://blockchain.info/charts/total-bitcoins?timespan=all&sh...
Re: The first Bitcoin post on HN
#115How much money would you have made if you'd bought $1000 worth of bitcoin on that day?
This was posted in May 2009. On October 5th, 2009, $1 = 1,309.03 BTC [1], so you'd have bought about 1.3 million bitcoin. Which means you'd have over $500M dollars in Bitcoin. I bet that spending $1000 back then would have considerably changed the exchange rate though, and selling $500M now would definitely aversely affect the economy. 1: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/History
Indeed, 1.3 million is over 10% of all bitcoins available at the moment.
Re: The first Bitcoin post on HN
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
The value of a currency lies entirely in the perception of that value. I don't consider bitcoin different from a traditional currency, except that its rate of production is known in advance. It will keep having value because by now enough people think it does.
Bitcoin is different in that is the purest form of a fiat currency in the sense that it is backed by nothing and thus has no intrinsic value whatsoever. Traditional currencies, on the other hand, are at least fractionally backed by (usually) gold and government bonds which in itself are backed by a government's ability to tax its citizens. There is also a second problem in that BTC is deflationary by design. Deflatio…
Re: The first Bitcoin post on HN
#117How much money would you have made if you'd bought $1000 worth of bitcoin on that day?
This was posted in May 2009. On October 5th, 2009, $1 = 1,309.03 BTC [1], so you'd have bought about 1.3 million bitcoin. Which means you'd have over $500M dollars in Bitcoin. I bet that spending $1000 back then would have considerably changed the exchange rate though, and selling $500M now would definitely aversely affect the economy. 1: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/History
Re: The first Bitcoin post on HN
#118Here's the first popular post (with 20+ comments) referencing Bitcoin on HN: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1532670 - Bitcoin P2P Cryptocurrency | 1217 days ago | 24 comments Some other early, popular posts about Bitcoin: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1942708 - Imagine your computer as a wallet full of Bitcoins| 1088 days ago | 36 comments http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1998144 - How to Get Started wi…
Thanks HN!
Re: The first Bitcoin post on HN
#119The absolute problem with bitcoin is, is that it cannot be used as a currency. If one bitcoin can buy you one "x" today, two "x" tomorrow and in a week only half an "x", what is the point of spending it? Its value fluctuates way too much and that's why so many people are getting on board. They want to be in the elevation towards another all time high.
I am not saying that Bitcoin does not have a future, but key in this future is that all those investors and startups on the get-rich-quick-with-a-very-high-potential-to-loose-a-lot-scheme have to abandon ship. The value of Bitcoin has to stabilize because at this point it is not a viable currency. Currently it is just an asset so many people are interested in, which drives the price only further up.
As soon as it stabilizes or drops we will see what it will d o with Bitcoin its popularity and acceptance for other goods and services.
Re: The first Bitcoin post on HN
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bitcoin is different in that is the purest form of a fiat currency in the sense that it is backed by nothing and thus has no intrinsic value whatsoever. Traditional currencies, on the other hand, are at least fractionally backed by (usually) gold and government bonds which in itself are backed by a government's ability to tax its citizens. There is also a second problem in that BTC is deflationary by design. Deflatio…
>> Bitcoin is different in that is the purest form of a fiat currency in the sense that it is backed by nothing and thus has no intrinsic value whatsoever. It's backed by the tremendous amount of electricity required to run the transaction processing network (ie. "mining"). Remember this is the world's largest distributed supercomputer. BTC is a proxy for electricity, that's why mining equipment ended up at ASICs so…
Obviously our debts exceed this, but that's a different issue. Say everyone cashed in at once - they'd get a percentage of our debts, not zero, since there's still material value.
You can't "undo" Bitcoin's power -> money exchange, though. There's no gold sitting in vaults providing some real, physical insurance. If I lift this brick, I've done work (but nobody cares) but even that has intrinsic value as it can be "redeemed" by lowering it, powering something. Bitcoin is different.