China Bans Financial Companies From Bitcoin Transactions

Post by pacofvf » Thu, Dec 05, 2013, 2:48 PM UTC

jval wrote: post #91

olalonde wrote: post #61

According to someone on Bitcointalk.org, it might not be as bad as it seems ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=358341.msg3832549#ms... ): No. You Western guys completely misunderstood the news. To me, this is actually BULLISH! TL;DR, the document says: 1. Bitcoin is a virtual commodity, not a real currency 2. People have the freedom to trade bitcoin, but they need to take their own risk 3. At this stage, finan…

I disagree. This is not good news for Bitcoin. >3. At this stage, financial institutions cannot denominate services and products in bitcoin, cannot trade bitcoin, cannot run bitcoin exchange, cannot provide bitcoin related services, cannot store bitcoin for clients, cannot establish bitcoin trust or fund, etc. I don't speak Chinese so I can't speculate too much, but by the sounds of the Reuters article this basically…

Post by XorNot » Thu, Dec 05, 2013, 3:09 PM UTC

wyager wrote: post #109

w0utert wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Physical money has intrinsic value equal to the metal or paper it's made of. Of course that is not what makes physical money valuable and I am equally confused by that quote. USD/EUR/JPY currency (either physical as bank notes and coins, or electronic) has intrinsic value because it is almost universally accepted, taxable, and backed by debt that (at least in theory) will have to be repaid at some point in time. B…

If you consider those things to bestow "intrinsic value" (a fallacious concept), the Bitcoin has "intrinsic value" because it is portable, divisible, fungible, scarce, and has all the other properties we want from a scarcity-based currency while having all the great benefits (and more) of digital fiat money.

Post by steveklabnik » Thu, Dec 05, 2013, 3:28 PM UTC

chrismorgan wrote: post #78

mwilcox wrote: post #4

BTCChina reaction: http://i.imgur.com/cNuESY7.png

So it went down from 6979 to 6200.01 quite quickly. That's about 11%, not the utter plummet that ignoring the scale on your picture would suggest.

Post by yapcguy » Thu, Dec 05, 2013, 3:46 PM UTC

rplnt wrote: post #73

olalonde wrote: post #61

According to someone on Bitcointalk.org, it might not be as bad as it seems ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=358341.msg3832549#ms... ): No. You Western guys completely misunderstood the news. To me, this is actually BULLISH! TL;DR, the document says: 1. Bitcoin is a virtual commodity, not a real currency 2. People have the freedom to trade bitcoin, but they need to take their own risk 3. At this stage, finan…

Similar what (some?) countries in EMU were saying. It's not a currency, you can use it at your own risk. Also you can't print/create physical representation IIRC, i.e. money.

Post by XorNot » Thu, Dec 05, 2013, 3:54 PM UTC

wavesounds wrote: post #46

yk wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The heating value of dollars is a lot lower than the economic value. Same for gold.

I was just pointing out Greenspan's statement was correct. Obviously dollars have a higher extrinsic then intrinsic value. I think Greenspan's point was that just like with stocks you have to be careful investing in things that have low intrinsic values, ie a company that is valued very high but doesn't make much money. This is why people view gold as a safer investment then dollars, it has a higher intrinsic value.