●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
bymagic maverick ( 2615475 ) writes:
I love the idea of a decentralized, non-controllable, virtually anonymous (and truly anonymous with the use of proper laundries), non-government, non-corporation, currency. I love the idea that I can just send a few coins (or parts or whatever) as a tip to anyone else without an intermediary taking a cut. I love that I can use it for true micropayments, microdonations etc.
I support Bitcoins because, while it's not the best possible option, it's the best existing option.
But, I don't like that early adopters are massively rich. I don't like that the current chain is 2GB and rising (hard to download when your Internet connection is rubbish). And there are a few other minor issues with it.
But ultimately, I think that, as a tool to remove power from governments and corporations, it's a good one. It's a good currency to use to be paid in, and to spend, and to save for a rainy day. But, like any other store of wealth or capital, don't put all your eggs in one basket. Just like you don't put all your savings into stocks or gold, don't put them all into Bitcoins.
twitter
facebook
byfustakrakich ( 1673220 ) writes:
Without being truly anonymous, it is worthless, regardless of one's political viewpoint. It cannot remove any government/corporate (redundant term) power without being absolutely so. And anybody who wants to prohibit its use because it 'facilitates crime' can kindly fuck off. The biggest crime of the century right now is watching the EU mobsters directly steal from personal bank accounts to feed the bankers and fellow mobsters. It's one of the most crass things I've ever seen. If Bitcoin can prevent that, i
bymagic maverick ( 2615475 ) writes:
It's not quite anonymous, but it's incredibly easy to make it truly anonymous. And even if it's not truly anonymous, it's still worth an enormous amount.
It prevents corporations from blocking donations to undesirables (e.g. Wikileaks). It allows those who can't otherwise (e.g. if your poor in a third-world country, without a credit card or even a bank account) give microdonations, pay micro-amounts and receive donations and payments (through the use of an online wallet service, at an Internet cafe).
Just as
bylgw ( 121541 ) writes:
Bitcoin is far less anonymous than cash. You can't transfer it without the whole network knowing, and the government is part of the whole network. Because of that, the government (any government) can regulate or tax bitcoin transactions to its heart's content.
And even if governments start cracking down, or whatever, the situation remains: Bitcoins is still the best existing Internet currency.
Not yet - most people don't take it, which is the best measure of a currency. But it could easily become so, if the transaction fee stays lower than Paypal for small transactions.
bysteg0 ( 882875 ) writes:
The biggest crime of the century right now is watching the EU mobsters directly steal from personal bank accounts to feed the bankers and fellow mobsters. It's one of the most crass things I've ever seen.
If you're referring to Cyprus, you got your logic wrong. The alternative that wouldn't feed any bankers (and have all customers lose their savings) would be letting the banks crash.
byMadKeithV ( 102058 ) writes:
If you're referring to Cyprus, you got your logic wrong. The alternative that wouldn't feed any bankers (and have all customers lose their savings) would be letting the banks crash.
Propping the banks up with the people's own savings isn't the only possible solution, you know. It's just the easiest place to get money without pissing off people with a lot of money.
●rrent threshold.
bygeekoid ( 135745 ) writes:
" The biggest crime of the century right now is watching the EU mobsters directly steal from personal bank accounts to feed the bankers and fellow mobsters. "
That can be fixed, anonymous transfers of cash facilitate human trafficking, kidnapping, blackmail, extortion. If it's anonymous then it can't be fixed.
" It's one of the most crass things I've ever seen."
then you have lived in a very privileged world.
byfustakrakich ( 1673220 ) writes:
You know, I did say kindly...
bymeustrus ( 1588597 ) writes:
The only reason a pyramid scheme is bad is because when people realize it's a pyramid scheme, there isn't actually enough money to pay everyone back. Although it's possible to describe bitcoins as a pyramid scheme, the money doesn't disappear the moment people decide to take it back. Although it's also possible to describe Social Security as a pyramid scheme, everybody already knows how it works so there's no surprise and the beneficiaries are poor old people instead of a handful of already-rich bankers. A
byElectricity Likes Me ( 1098643 ) writes:
The only reason a pyramid scheme is bad is because when people realize it's a pyramid scheme, there isn't actually enough money to pay everyone back. Although it's possible to describe bitcoins as a pyramid scheme, the money doesn't disappear the moment people decide to take it back. Although it's also possible to describe Social Security as a pyramid scheme, everybody already knows how it works so there's no surprise and the beneficiaries are poor old people instead of a handful of already-rich bankers. A Ponzi scheme is only bad because it will inevitably come crashing down on the poor fools who fell for it.
This is not how social security works. Social security works on the observation that people should make long-term investments so we don't have the elderly dying in the streets. Social security savings are supposed to be responsibly invested in long term securities, and guaranteed by the government so they give a predictable return (and being the government it means you can negotiate deals which are impossible for any smaller player). The US has simply managed to fuck the concept up since for some reason scr
byTheCarp ( 96830 ) writes:
Hold up you said
1. "This is not how social security works."
2. "Social security savings are supposed to be responsibly invested in long term securities"
3. "The US has simply managed to fuck the concept up since for some reason screwing everyone on that investment has become politically popular,"
and then....
"A pyramid scheme is bad because there's no real investment. There's no creation of value - the returns are only created by bringing new people into the scheme and transferring their wealth to older invest
byAnonymous Coward writes:
3. "The US has simply managed to fuck the concept up since for some reason screwing everyone on that investment has become politically popular,"
it isn't SUPPOSED to be a pyramid scheme (#1 &2) but.... ACTUALLY IS A PYRAMID SCHEME (#3).
If I invest 100$ in Apple in 1990 and then in 2013, I go to get my money back and Steve Jobs kicks me in the nuts and says "Fuck you, I ain't givin' you shit!", that still doesn't make investing in Apple a pyramid scheme.
Search and replace "100$" = "payroll taxes", "1990" = "my working career", "2013" = "when I retire", "Steve Jobs" = "the Republican party", "Fuck you, I ain't givin' you shit" = "We need to solve our debt problem through entitlement reform"
● current threshold.
byAnonymous Coward writes:
I don't like that the current chain is 2GB and rising
That was last year. It's 6GB now. [blockchain.info]
byType44Q ( 1233630 ) writes:
It's a good currency to use to be paid in
Perhaps.
and to spend
Definitely!
and to save for a rainy day
Most assuredly not.
bymagic maverick ( 2615475 ) writes:
Why do you think that Bitcoins are not a good currency to save? I have an amount that, while the value against fiat currencies has varied, has generally increased in value. Sounds like a good investment to me. Better than certain stocks at least. And people do put their life savings into stocks. I've only got a small amount of capital in Bitcoins, but that's mainly because I don't want to hand over my details to an exchange. I would rather receive the BTC in exchange for labor done. Which is how I got most
byType44Q ( 1233630 ) writes:
Why do you think that Bitcoins are not a good currency to save?
Because it's yet another fiat currency not based on or backed by anything of actual, tangible value.
Sounds like a good investment to me. Better than certain stocks at least.
I realize that's what all the lemmings have been conditioned by the media and Wall Street to compare things to: "Sir, where would you like this hot poker inserted; down your throat or up your ass?" :p
As part of a varied bundle, I can't see anything wrong with investing in, and using BTC.
It's all relative. Yes, I suppose I'd rather keep my wealth in BTC form, if for no other reason than its deflationary nature, than in stocks or rapidly-dying government fiat... but this baby, [kitco.com] despite T.P.T.B. sup
byyurtinus ( 1590157 ) writes:
Because it's yet another fiat currency not based on or backed by anything of actual, tangible value.
I hear this a lot, but I've yet to be convinced that shiny metals themselves are of actual, tangible value. Speculation and perceived value is what keeps gold prices where they are.
byType44Q ( 1233630 ) writes:
I've yet to be convinced that shiny metals themselves are of actual, tangible value.
LOL! To tell you the truth, I wouldn't be convinced, either... unless, that is, I'd formed my opinions not on the insane silliness spouted by the media but rather on some actual knowledge of history... :p
byyurtinus ( 1590157 ) writes:
It's my knowledge of history that makes me critical of the value of metals like gold and silver. Yes, there was a time when your quantity of gold and silver determined your economic wealth, but pretty much since the industrial revolution that stopped mattering. Your wealth and power as a nation is dependent on your industrial output, not now much shiny your mines produce.
Gold and silver used to represent wealth is just as arbitrary as any form of fiat currency. It just has historical momentum millenia ol
byType44Q ( 1233630 ) writes:
It's my knowledge of history that makes me critical of the value of metals like gold and silver.
Arguing about this is entirely ridiculous. It's very much a case of what is(i.e. precious metals, are, in fact, precious) vs whether you think they should be or not. There's a damn good reason that the world's wealthiest are pushing the "precious metals are obsolete" line, all the while they're busy scrounging and hoarding physical metals like there's no tomorrow.
Their mantra should be "Do as I say, not as I do."
●eath your current threshold.
●eath your current threshold.
bygeekoid ( 135745 ) writes:
It's not back by a regulatory force, or a global forces, or a police force.
That's one of the problems with bitcoin.
bypaulsnx2 ( 453081 ) writes:
The value of a Bitcoin (unique to anything not patterned after Bitcoin) is the ability to engage in a transaction without the aid of any centralized third parties.
That is an intrinsic property of Bitcoin. And relatively unique to Bitcoin (and other crypto currencies).
You may not value that property, but it does exist, and some people do value it.
byarth1 ( 260657 ) writes:
The value of a Bitcoin (unique to anything not patterned after Bitcoin) is the ability to engage in a transaction without the aid of any centralized third parties.
Instead you depend on a network of decentralized parties. When they go away, you can't even use it. And go away, they will, when there's no longer a buck to be made, but the cost of verification continues to climb with every transaction.
byDanielRavenNest ( 107550 ) writes:
Because it's yet another fiat currency not based on or backed by anything of actual, tangible value
Its value is set by the real goods and services that people want to trade with each other. The accounts database (block chain) is just how we keep track of the trades people make. If people are confident they are able to use an account balance they have accumulated for a later trade, they are more willing to use those balances as temporary stores. The database has very strong features to prevent tampering, so people are, in fact, willing to use it. Think of bitcoin as a global distributed accounting ser
byrossdee ( 243626 ) writes:
Because it's yet another fiat currency not based on or backed by anything of actual, tangible value.
Are you suggesting we use cheap Italian cars as currency?
(Or expensive Italian cars - AFAIK FIAT still own Ferrari)
byType44Q ( 1233630 ) writes:
Italian cars, now that's a thought (Fix It Again, Tony)! But how about SEAT's? Hell, how about Portuguese, Greek, cars or even Cypriots cars? I don't suppose they make any; too bad, that'd be perfect.
(I'm going to assume from the totally-irrelevant strawman-nature of your post that my reply is going to zoom about twelve klicks above your head...) :)
byandyteleco ( 1090569 ) writes:
In Spain we used to say SEAT = "Siempre Estaras Apretando Tornillos" (you'll spend your time tightening screws). Anyway, that was before VW took over (they're pretty decent now).
byRogerborg ( 306625 ) writes:
The value is only what you can trade it for at the time when you're ready to deal.
National currencies are backed by the threat of force. Accept this, or else. Bitcoins are backed by a shared trust in their security.
When (not if) it becomes worthwhile for a mob to pay their crackers to perform a major bitcoin heist, it'll deflate faster than the Hindenburg. Make sure you predict that and cash out 5 minutes before the story breaks.
byColonel Panic ( 15235 ) writes:
The big problem with BitCoin is the massive amounts of electricity people are using to mine it. Not very ecologically friendly. I understand that they didn't want to make it too easy to "find" BitCoins as that could be inflationary. Still, perhaps they could have come up with a different scheme for "finding" coins? Maybe something that would solve actual problems like protein folding or something - at least then the electricity being used would be used to solve actual problems in the real world.
● your current threshold.
bymagic maverick ( 2615475 ) writes:
You don't know what is meant by laundry (aka mixers or mixing services) [bitcoin.it]. See also the Bitcoin Wiki article on anonymity [bitcoin.it]. See also this forum thread [bitcointalk.org].
A laundry allows you to send coins in, and then, a some interval, receive different coins, to different addresses. If done correctly, even with every single transaction being transparent, it allows true anonymity.
A well set up laundry could work like this:
1) A user visits the TOR hidden service webpage, and sets the options they want (including addresses to whi
●your current threshold.
bymagic maverick ( 2615475 ) writes:
The very early adopters had basically no risk. They used some electricity, thought about it a bit, and then mined some massive quantities of coins. Go and have a look at threads where people are buying pizza for hundreds of coins. The only real risk to them is that they'd be out $20.
The later early adopters had more risk. But that still doesn't justify the disparity.
I also don't like the argument that capitalists (i.e. those that own capital) should earn the majority of the profits, simply because of "risk"
bystanjo74 ( 922718 ) writes:
Bitcoin cannot be a real currency because there is no fiat demand for it. The reason why currencies exists is because governments will take payments in said currencies for settling mandatory debts (aka taxes and fees).
Right now Bitcoin has perceived value, but once the perception of value is eroded for whatever reason, there is no artificial bottom to its value like in the case of a fiat currency that is accepted by your government for taxes and fees.
Also, it takes a lot of resources to produce the Bitcoi
byTime_Ngler ( 564671 ) writes:
Paying taxes doesn't have anything to do with it.Fiat currency is valuable because you can transact with it for certain transactions more easily than anything else. It's easier for me to buy food with US dollars rather than Mexican Pesos in the USA, and buying food is a useful transaction to many people, so that's why USD has value. If the USA required you to convert everything into Pesos to pay your taxes, it wouldn't change anything if your neighborhood grocer still wanted dollars.
Similarly, Bitcoin also
●our current threshold.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
It is much harder to find a job than to keep one.
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...