Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you do when the money is gone? With other payment technology you can get court orders to freeze funds, or judgments against current holders. Bitcoin, on the other hand, is irrevocable and pseudo-anonymous. In July 2011 the owner of MyBitcoin.com web wallet allegedly walked away with 50,000 btc of customer funds. We know where those funds are. You can see them on any block explorer. But it is not possible to f…
>But it is not possible to freeze or confiscate those funds. That is just a limitation of the Bitcoin protocol. One could build a protocol where communities could agree to freeze (not accept) or greatly devalue those funds.
Bitcoin Surges Past $400
211–220 of 260 posts
Re: Bitcoin Surges Past $400
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 9. If you don't own the keys, you don't own the bitcoins. Always the most important point. You need to hold your keys, and be the only person to do so (unencrypted). As for the rest, they can be summarized into this simple advice: If you're getting in, DO NOT spend more than you can afford to lose. You'll regret going into debt more than you'll regret not making a twice as big profit.
Interesting point. I have some BTC at Coinbase. Not sure how I proceed to own the keys?
Re: Bitcoin Surges Past $400
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that BTC is a currency that is not backed by a national treasury (and is, in fact, technologically not backable by printing more money), such insurance would be a prohibitively expensive percentage of a company's BTC resources. The same features of BTC that serve as its advantage and, arguably, goal make it more difficult to offer basic protections that other fiscal infrastructures have had for decades.
You can store $100m in bitcoin on a piece of paper in a vault. It reduces perfectly to the solved problem of securing $100m in $100 bills in a vault (which, yes, you can insure).
Many see this capacity of the US Treasury to fabricate money from nowhere as the very sort of flaw that BTC's coin-generation process is intended to avoid, but that protection does not come without a price.
Re: Bitcoin Surges Past $400
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your claim is really US-centric. Most of the exchange's volume right now is from China. China is driving this and I don't see how an american-bank-only exchange would be the main reason, if there is one.
I guess no one remembers MTGOX and the Willy bot. I'll take my down-votes in stride. Only the future will reveal the truth.
Re: Bitcoin Surges Past $400
#215Time to dust off the ol mining rig, LTC to the moon!
Re: Bitcoin Surges Past $400
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can store $100m in bitcoin on a piece of paper in a vault. It reduces perfectly to the solved problem of securing $100m in $100 bills in a vault (which, yes, you can insure).
While true, that does not offer the same protection as an FDIC-style insurance program (and restricts the storing entity's ability to compete and perform by preventing them from investing that $100m, so the market will tend ceteris parabus to punish companies that take such a step in good times with relatively-slower growth, acting as a disincentivizing counter-weight to offering insurance). In contrast, the FDIC has…
Sure, but whether that difference from "the same protection" is more or less protection depends on the number of people that $100 million is held on behalf of.
Re: Bitcoin Surges Past $400
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's why I used "probably". The thing is, transacting with bitcoin will not raise the price exponentially. BTC is already being exchanged in many millions of dollars a day. So unless MMM turns out to be a billion-dollar ponzi scheme I don't really think it'll affect the BTC price much.
> So unless MMM turns out to be a billion-dollar ponzi scheme While I don't know much about this incarnation of MMM, the original MMM ponzi scheme in the early 90s is thought to have taken in about $10bn (not adjusted for inflation).
Looks like Sergei is persistant with these pyramid schemes;
In January 2011, Mavrodi launched another pyramid scheme
called MMM-2011, asking investors to buy so-called Mavro
currency units. He frankly described it as a pyramid,
adding "It is a naked scheme, nothing more ... People
interact with each other and give each other money. For
no reason!"[13] Mavrodi said that his goal with MMM-2011
is to destroy the current financial system, which he
considers unfair, which would allow something new to take
its place. MMM-2011 was able to function openly as Ponzi
schemes and financial pyramids are not illegal under
Russian law.[14] In May 2012 he froze the operation and
announced that there would be no more payouts.[15]
In 2011 he launched a similar scheme in India, called MMM
India, again stating clearly that the vehicle is a
pyramid.[16] He has also launched MMM in China.[17] He
was reported to be trying to expand his operations into
Western Europe, Canada, and Latin America.[14] As of
September 2015 it had spread rapidly in South Africa with
a claimed 1% per day or 30% per month interest rate
scheme and warnings from both the South African and
Russian Communist Parties for people not to participate
in it.[18]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMM-2011Active thread talking about Sergei's current scheme: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3p4kuf/mmm_global_...
Re: Bitcoin Surges Past $400
#218Actually I don't think I've ever seen a local brick & mortar business advertise their ability or willingness to accept BTC.
Re: Bitcoin Surges Past $400
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'd need >50% of the miners to do that. It is precisely what I mean by building a protocol. Of course, without strong consensus (and a real algorithm/protocol) such attempts will likely just result in fractured blockchains (basically the state at the moment, with many competing implementations of the same basic idea).
Not really. you are talking about an attack. You'll need 100%, because if a single miner decided to include the transaction, then it is in!
Re: Bitcoin Surges Past $400
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that BTC is a currency that is not backed by a national treasury (and is, in fact, technologically not backable by printing more money), such insurance would be a prohibitively expensive percentage of a company's BTC resources. The same features of BTC that serve as its advantage and, arguably, goal make it more difficult to offer basic protections that other fiscal infrastructures have had for decades.
You can store $100m in bitcoin on a piece of paper in a vault. It reduces perfectly to the solved problem of securing $100m in $100 bills in a vault (which, yes, you can insure).
FDIC-style insurance is for when the security is breached, not if.