Comments on: Why bitcoin won’t disrupt digital transactions A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: TFF Fri, 14 Feb 2014 22:16:10 +0000 Bitcoins stolen from Silk Road. Site manager is “really, really sorry”.

There are good reasons why most people use cash only for trivial transactions that are too small to be worth the bookkeeping required for other forms of payment.

By: GCGriswold Mon, 10 Feb 2014 23:54:15 +0000 B$!!

By: DonaldCoffin Mon, 10 Feb 2014 20:12:47 +0000 I’ve been reading way to much about bitcoin in my retirement, and I keep coming back to one primary issue. For it to succeed in the way in which its advocates seem to be hoping for, it’s going to have to become a medium of exchange, and maybe a unit of account, with a reasonably stable value relative to other media or exchange and units of account. If that does not happen, then bitcoin will be no more viable a transactions tool than any other highly volatile currency.

By: druce Sat, 08 Feb 2014 16:45:18 +0000 Sort of like Napster, Bitcoin will disrupt without triumphing or displacing.

The current payments system charges a pre-Internet vig.

Bitcoin is an existence proof that it can be done very cheaply.

Ultimately, payments is just moving bits around, with a more regulation, security, nonrepudiation, audit trail, etc.

The Fed etc. have a mandate to supervise a safe and efficient payments system. As Target as amply shown, the current system is both ludicrously expensive and unsafe.

Then there is the matter of overusing the payments system for political purposes, to the point you can’t pay people in certain countries or for certain activities, and HSBC won’t give you your cash unless you tell them what you plan to do with it.

Just the threat of Bitcoin is disruptive, like Napster and Gnutella and Bittorrent, it tells people, unless you move into the 21st century and give up some monopoly rents and exorbitant privilege, you’re going to be made a whole lot less relevant and have to resort to increasingly heavy-handed tactics to maintain an increasingly weak position..

By: spamvikktim Sat, 08 Feb 2014 06:37:18 +0000 In most applications, having a central authority to clear transactions is a feature, not a bug. That makes it possible to deal with fraud, either by blocking the transaction or unwinding it afterwards.

An acquaintance told me about a Bitcoin entrepreneur who was sure that there was a huge latent market for anonymous irrevocable transactions. Really? How often do you buy stuff with an envelope full of cash? The whole thing is a crock for people who don’t understand that they’re gold bugs, except that they don’t have the backup options of jewelry, circuit boards, and dental work.

By: rushramia Fri, 07 Feb 2014 18:49:18 +0000 great article, 2 counter points…

First.. keep in mind most retail traders require a 1 day holding period before the proceeds from a stock can be cleared and thus used for another trade. Large brokerages don’t have to wait because they have huge margin accounts. Thus it is the reputation of the traders that enable ‘instant trades’ not the underlying technology. So, while the transactions on the blockchain taking ~10 mins to clear seems slow, they post instantaneously which is not much different to what happens on any modern exchange.

Second… since the birth of bitcoin over 5 years ago, modern decentralized p2p networks have continued to evolve(take ethereum as an example). Thus your concern of the network being too ‘exclusive and rivalrous’, while partially true with bitcoin, will be addressed by newer implementations that will allow the exclusivity be dictated by fees and will all but eliminate ‘rivals’ as the base currency will be abstracted, and all ‘colored coins’ will share a common denominator. In other words users will have the choice to pay to use ‘exclusive’ services but all forms of payment will be accepted by all services. All automatically managed by the networked without the risk of corruption by a centralized authority.

I’ll bet you another pair of alpaca socks David wins this one. ;-)

By: StuartG Fri, 07 Feb 2014 18:05:10 +0000 Ben, don’t bogart that joint, my friend, pass it over to me.
How do I transfer my common shares of a publicly traded U.S. company via Bitcoin without going through DTCC?
How do I transfer my NYC co-op apartment shares via Bitcoin without going through the board, or my condo or house without going through the county clerk? And can I pay my flip tax and recording fees with Bitcoin?

By: MyLord Fri, 07 Feb 2014 18:00:11 +0000 If bitcoin becomes large enough to be co-opted by Goliath, the most optimistic scenario I foresee, does that count as a draw?

By: dsquared Fri, 07 Feb 2014 07:50:17 +0000 As I understand it, the ten-minute delay between being receiving a bitcoin and being able to spend it is really quite important to the protocol; it’s the period during which the transaction is distributed to the whole network and in which the block is found.

So, given that stock exchanges now operate on a basis where milliseconds matter, it seems to me that the laws of physics pretty much rule out a Bitcoin-protocol stock exchange; in a world where people are paying up for colocation, it doesn’t seem like they’re going to be going for a system which relies on global broadcasts and solution of computation problems for every transaction.

By: BidnisMan Fri, 07 Feb 2014 07:43:13 +0000 David and Goliath – what happened in the end? Please jog my memory. Virtual currencies are now a force in the world. In the early days of the internet vs. bricks and mortar it was ‘David and Goliath’ too – ditto for any new tech, cars, planes and printing press too.