51–56 of 56 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why require verification? I don't want to give them all my info.
On reddit the site creator said that is what his lawyers advised. http://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/1xmfby/i_jus...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By that logic, racing Italian sports cars at track days is a low barrier to entry hobby. I mean, it obviously isn't, but if you are willing to ignore the "acquire an Italian sports car and know how to drive it" part...
You can do it from the convenience of your laptop - get bitcoins from Coinbase and send them to the dice site. With Instant Buy, you can get $1,000 instantly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The system is not flawed, merchants are flawed. Same with hosted wallets and exchanges. There's no PCI Compliance equivalents for them, so, you can expect much worse. And how can you trust them? They don't get audited and are not certified. How can you know for sure that they are not gonna manipulate the market or run away with your funds? Most of those don't even have a physical address (Bitstamp and BTC-e), no phon…
The system is not flawed, merchants are flawed. A system that forces you to trust (without being able to verify) every single merchant you do business with is flawed. Same with hosted wallets and exchanges. Not the same. For one, you only need to trust one exchange to use Bitcoin with N merchants, so the attack surface is much lower. Secondly, you only need to trust them for enough time to move the Bitcoins out - a f…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
where is this protection for bitcoin? every exchange has been hacked or ripped off by the owners.
Exchanges are only needed to buy and sell Bitcoins¹; after that, you can move them out permanently, whereas with CCs, you can never be sure that the merchant didn't record (maliciously or not) your CC info. You also only need to trust one exchange, not N merchants, so it's much easier to do proper evaluation. ¹ Technically, you never actually need an exchange at all, there are other ways of getting Bitcoins.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The system is not flawed, merchants are flawed. A system that forces you to trust (without being able to verify) every single merchant you do business with is flawed. Same with hosted wallets and exchanges. Not the same. For one, you only need to trust one exchange to use Bitcoin with N merchants, so the attack surface is much lower. Secondly, you only need to trust them for enough time to move the Bitcoins out - a f…
I've lead PCI Compliance and I know how it works, but large companies really try to do it right and implement the best practices and it costs them a lot. For example, you can't hire developers and assume they know OWASP guidelines - they need to pass formal training, get a certificate, etc. The SDLC also needs to accommodate for PCI Compliance, and so on. The self assessment questionnaire is for guidance. At the end…
No, with Bitcoin, you don't need PCI compliance, because there's no way fir the merchant or someone who hacks it to steal your wallet from the information they get. You only need to audit the exchanges / only wallets (the current equivalent of banks, which get audits anyway).
And by the way, the proof that those costs are not inevitable, is the fact that some countries like mine (Portugal) are already using sane push-based payment systems for decades now. and they are cheaper and easier for merchants than CCs. The advantage of Bitcoin is that it works internationally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
where is this protection for bitcoin? every exchange has been hacked or ripped off by the owners.
Exchanges are only needed to buy and sell Bitcoins¹; after that, you can move them out permanently, whereas with CCs, you can never be sure that the merchant didn't record (maliciously or not) your CC info. You also only need to trust one exchange, not N merchants, so it's much easier to do proper evaluation. ¹ Technically, you never actually need an exchange at all, there are other ways of getting Bitcoins.