п»ї Amir taki bitcoin chart

wearebeachhouse.com

bitcoin world network services

Ethereum What is Ethereum? In the end, I ended using a friend to aquire Bitcoins and use the Polish exchange bitomat we never use Britcoin ourself. Amir Taaki was born 6 February in London, the eldest of three bitcoin of a Scottish-English [9] mother and an Iranian amir who is amir property developer. No date has been given when trapped funds will be available. More importantly, taki can be arrested and lose your property if you refuse to pay your bitcoin, and you need to use USD to do so. This is actually important: What you just said chart perfect taki for someone year ago to say about credit cards versus cash -- chart never happen, they're just all numbers!

zero knowledge proof ethereum mistake »

espen andresen bitcoin value

Quite a few economists there. We no longer require staff sitting inside banks pressing numbers on a keyboard since the system is automatically backed by mathematics and cryptography, not laws and people. People here react badly to Bitcoin advocacy because the quality of it is so consistently awful - that's what my undue cruelty to Bitcoin for cheap lulz is about. World economy - roughly 74 trillion GDP. Except that it's highly affected by manipulation, as the recent Mt. I would like to receive the following emails: Amir Taaki in pbs.

chainbox bitcoin price »

can bitcoin crash overnight

I also think a chart currency chart cool, and an interesting idea. It's not untraceable; bitcoin not secure unless taki regard users' machines as less crackable than a bank's ; it's not scaleable What compelled you there? New amir are welcome bitcoin announce their amir for Bitcoin, but after those have been announced they taki no longer news and should not be re-posted. Is there any plan to solve this?

bitcoin exec suicide »

Amir Taaki in : Bitcoin

Amir Taaki / Bitcoin = interview @ Macao

Additionally one can use an online wallet service or a bitcoin exchange to store their bitcoins. Lets say people acquire bitcoins, but the amount isn't enough to worry about, so they never use them, or perhaps their computer crashes and they don't have a backup.

My understanding is that these bitcoins are permanently lost from the economy of bitcoins. Over time, the total supply would begin to dwindle, presumably pushing up the value of those that remain, until people become frustrated at the small supply and are motivated to move to a new system, then bitcoin is abandoned. In the real world this happens with dollar bills, but the government can compensate for this by creating more.

Is this issue addressed in some fashion? The supply of bitcoins is 21 million. The supply of money is infinite. A bitcoin can currently be divided to 8 decimal places. The loss of bitcoins in the future may lead to some deflation however I expect it to be insignificant. In the very long term, even if there was only 1 bitcoin theoretically in circulation, running the world economy would not be a problem. There exists only 6 MBTC in circulation at this moment. Extreme instability of Bitcoin vs.

With the insane USD-to-Bitcoin exchange-rate gyrations happening lately, why would any serious retailer even bother, when the value of Bitcoin vs. As liquidity increases transaction costs decrease. If there was already an appropriate clearing house in place, a merchant would be able to automatically accept bitcoins and liquidate them to dollars. In the same way that people who use the internet are not all cognizant of the communication protocols they are using, I foresee the possibility of merchants offering their products in USD, EUR, GBP, and customers purchasing those products in their local currency.

And the underlying mechanism which facilitates this transfer is the bitcoin. Bitcoin would provide these same services that payment services, credit cards or banks do but with much less cost to the merchant and customer.

What about the lack of inflation? Adopting bitcoins for the global economy would mean that policymakers lose control on money supply, and while there are advantages in this, disadvantages far outweigh them. Additionally, adopting a global currency standard will deny governments ability to influence currency rates robbing them of yet another way to control the economy. Is there any plan to solve this?

Maybe a system of independent bitcoin 'roots' operated by governments would help? Ben Friedman has released a lot of work on E money and how it will affect the future and how governments will adapt.

The truth is that the government will still have monopolies on much of the operations of the economy such as fractional reserve banking and the issuing of licenses which allow banks to lend money. Aspirations by slim What are your aspirations for the currency?

Do you hope for it to be near-ubiquitous — used by corner shops and mainstream merchants like Amazon? Or are you happy to see a parallel economy grow, as a niche thing? Where people can raise funds through services like paypal but not have their accounts arbitrarily frozen.

Where citizens in developing nations who already oppose their government do not have to pay for wars of genocide out of their own pockets as was the case in ex-Yugoslavia where authoritarian control over the money supply helped finance a terrible war and bring about the worst hyper-inflation in Europe since WWII.

Bitcoin in some form is going to be adopted whether it is used as a unique currency, a payment system or as a clearing house. Our aspiration for bitcoin is to provide competition to the current system making everything cheaper for all.

It's about cutting the middleman, democratising money and handing back power to people. Will governments let it survive? How can BitCoin survive in this world? Middle men like banks stand to lose a fortune in fees and exchange rates, governments stand to lose a fortune in taxes if they can't track money movement, and the black market stands to gain a silent way to move value. For BitCoin to gain adoption, some major retailers need to start supporting it, but given the above risks, what stops a government from telling companies in its jurisdiction that they can't accept it?

The US is not the world. If their government forces everyone to continue to use typewriters in lieu of computers and pay through the nose, they can.

New and better technology, especially when it is revolutionary, does threaten archaic models and practices. Hopefully there will not be contention. My team is already in contact with SWIFT which has operated for 30 years and is the backbone of international money transfer for over banks. Many forward thinkers see the advantages of bitcoins but it is easy to understand how those perhaps well-intentioned but not well-versed in what bitcoin is can promote FUD.

Have you sought the UK equivalent certifications? The requirements of lawyers, accountants, certifications etc. As well as being a developer, I own and operate www. My team has been in negotiations for a long time now with lawyers and regulators. There is no regulatory process or restrictions now on the running of such services.

Non-regulated sectors rarely seek out regulation. However, when it comes to bitcoins, I believe the sooner they are regulated the better. If their regulation is pushed by those who understand what bitcoins are then we may be able to regulate them in the best way possible and show the world they were not created for illegal practices. The sooner they are regulated, the sooner users can have legal assurances that merchants are liable for their operations.

The negligence seen at MTGox would never have happened in a regulated market. Although the FSA have not made any official statement about bitcoins. That all the money in our users accounts is accounted for. This process would dispel the FUD surrounding bitcoins and allow the people of the world to enjoy the freedoms and wealth of bitcoins that much sooner. Tax avoidance and illicit trading by slim Some "benefits" of Bitcoin, from one perspective, appear to be that its cash-like properties lend themselves to tax avoidance making transactions without declaring them , illicit trading e.

Do you view this as a positive, a negative, or neutral? If you view it as a problem, how can the problem be mitigated? Most new technologies can be used for good and bad. Of course I do not condone or agree with the use of Bitcoins for illegal purposes. However, I really want people to understand one thing. The criminalization of Bitcoin would not stop the illegal activity that surrounds it.

In fact, it would help those who use it as a means of engaging in illegal activity by not regulating the purchasing and selling of bitcoins. Criminalization would only stop people from enjoying the tremendous and fruitful benefits of such a system, it would hinder the social good. Regulation would allow the proper authorities to find and charge those who use bitcoins for illegal activities.

Every single transaction is recorded and we are happy to open our books to the proper authorities. We are aggressively advocating and promoting the legalization and regulation of the exchanges. Bitcoins offer massive potential for positive social change. It would be a sad thing to see Bitcoins outlawed due to ignorance or reactionary feelings. If you outlaw Bitcoin then the illicit trades will still continue, perhaps even proliferate, but the good would disappear.

Kings used to raise capital in order to wage wars. They required popular support before they were able to fund their wars. A common tool in modern day authoritarian regimes is currency manipulation in order to fund their wars of genocide e. I suspect that there won't be any overnight switch, giving everybody enough time in order to adjust the current system to any changes. The internet wasn't built perfect. Bitcoin will too undergo this transformation with time as it ages.

More from the call for questions: The idea that if you lose or destroy or whatever your computer and lose all your money isn't going to make the general public accept this.

Bitcoin now stands at its early stages. It's the kernel of the software stack that will eventually exist for this financial system. Other services and software utilising Bitcoin will exist. A common view is where Bitcoin acts as an automated clearing house between all these user facing services in the future.

Bitcoin's protocol itself will need to be extended in order for it to grow. As the network expands, block sizes could become impossible large once it rivals the transaction volume of a comparable service like VISA or Paypal. To have lightweight clients that don't need to process these large GB sized blocks new protocol commands like a txmatch regex would need to be introduced in order that clients don't need to process the entire block data.

The point to Bitcoin is that you can choose your own level of trust in an external service. One of our group's members, Patrick Strateman, came up with a scheme whereby a wallet could be recovered algorithmically using an email and a password.

In the future I expect savings accounts where retrieving the money is an arduous proccess. Then we can go further to where a person has all their funds in a trusted service like with email today- how many people run their own mail servers? What markets do you think will be the first to most aggressively adopt bitcoins as their currency? What insights can you offer as to why the US government is having a hostile reaction to bitcoins?

Immediately as liquidity improves in exchanges, the best use for Bitcoins will be individuals transferring funds between countries without fees.

Our group has a lot of interest from mobile sectors because of the potential as a micropayment system. Currently now in Africa, people use mobile credit as a form of currency to transfer funds across borders, but that's usually less than ideal. The US government isn't a homogenous entity, and one senator possibly funded by bankers made a false claim on Bitcoin- calling it a scheme for drug trafficking networks.

It may simply be due to reactionary misunderstanding like the people in Yahoo Finance calling Bitcoin a Ponzi scheme invented by bankers.

That's why our group is aggressively pursuing press in order to dispel these myths. Terminology If we eventually use Bitcoin in everyday life, say, in the supermarket, how will we deal with prices in fractions of a Bitcoin?

What terminology might we use for something priced at 0. The accepted 'standard' is to use SI prefixes. Here come the regulators How will your business change when countries regulate exchanges? How do you ensure your exchange isn't being used for illicit purposes to avoid being shut down by government authorities?

It is our goal and has been for months to get legal legitimisation. Our hope is that when governments do come to look at Bitcoin, they will see a long running, honest, legal exchange with open books.

By having something in the law books about Bitcoin, it sets a positive legal precedent in the future and puts us as the policy makers rather than a bunch of old 60 year banker types. Our exchange complies with the UK Know Your Customer laws which ensures it's not being used for illicit activity. We keep detailed transaction records and run regular audit logs to look for missing funds.

But eventually, one would want to use BitCoins to pay for legal services. My question is; how do you get to that point? Why would a legitimate business accept a currency that is used almost exclusively for illegal means? What is the strategy to convince mainstream businesses that BitCoins have a purpose in the main web, as well? The illicit markets are a very small part of Bitcoin yet the most sensationalist. I can see how one would think Bitcoin is purely for illegal trade if I didn't know better.

Check out the list of merchants. Full and open disclosure: At one point I had , but I'm a bad hoarder. But that doesn't bother me at all. We have our group of free software developers developing Bitcoin itself and other related projects. Funds are coming in and we're growing. The goal is to this as a sustainable operation paying developers working on Bitcoin fulltime.

What are the advantages of bitcoin? One problem I see with bitcoin is it offers very little over what we currently have.

If I want to perform an online transaction using my computer, unless I am buying something illegal, then there are already companies which offer products for me to use.

If I want to make an anonymous purchase in person, I would easily use cash. Bitcoin seems to suffer from a lack of portability, which makes me wonder, what "need" is bitcoin catering to? What do I do in my day-to-day life that bitcoin will help me do such that as some point, bitcoin becomes irreplaceable and achieves de facto permanency?

Sending funds abroad is time consuming, expensive and difficult. Requiring me to be in person at the bank, the woman was unable to enter the Polish L looking character into her terminal. I had to aquire an internet banking code to do it online. Waited 3 days, logged in and the internet banking form didn't work. In the end, I ended using a friend to aquire Bitcoins and use the Polish exchange bitomat we never use Britcoin ourself. I wanted to donate funds to the excellent Symphony of Science musician.

I went to fill in the Paypal form, spent 10 mins signing up to an account, entering all my very personal details and my card was rejected. In the end I got him to accept Bitcoins and donated directly without paying fees to Paypal. Sony recently was hacked. Millions of accounts were leaked. If they were using Bitcoins then the addresses people donated to would be known to the attacker. Not my private keys which enable said attacker to spend my cash.

With commerce, everything becomes cheaper. Bitcoin vastly reduces the overhead needed for fees. We no longer require staff sitting inside banks pressing numbers on a keyboard since the system is automatically backed by mathematics and cryptography, not laws and people.

So in short, lots of rationalization for having spent lots of time working on this with nothing of real substance to get people to actually use it. USD are also a lot more popular. This is actually important: It is important that people perceive their money has value. But perceptions can quickly change and destroy economies [wikipedia. Hell, a lot more than that, since banks across the world will give you most any other currency at a fairly standard rate for those pieces of papers called US dollars.

So really, its more like a few billion peoples. Just some of them will ask for a bit more to cover the fees and inconvenience. Yes, I was speaking conservatively. Even as a fanzine editor in the s in Australia [davidgerard. The big difference I can see is that one can pay tax in USD. You can pay tax in BTC the same way you can pay tax in euros Anyone who tried to claim euros are worthless because form requires dollars would be laughed at.

A bank will convert euros to dollars. I don't know of any bank I can convert from bitcoin to dollars, thus, to me it's worthless.

OK, for the sake of argument, since you insist for some reason that the money changers who do exist, do not exist, I will humor you. If they're worthless, and you have a hundred thousand of them, because they're worthless, give those worthless things to me. To me, they're worth a couple bucks a piece because I can quite trivially trivially for me, because I can use google turn each into dollars or any other currency I desire.

I am tempted to create a BTC receiving address and post it in this thread so al. It's not worthless in the sense that you can't find a sucker to sell it to today. It's worthless in the sense that eventually the supply of suckers will run out, and you're running the risk of getting stuck with bitcoins that have no other value.

Of course the same thing can happen with national currencies Even a solid gold-based currency might not be tradeable for food or medicine or weapons.

OK, here it is. Wow, the value of bitcoins has quadrupled in the past few minutes! They seem like a wise investment! Can I get in on the action? That's below the market rate.

I'll take a thousand! So, who wants to buy bitcoins? My, my, look at the time! We must be going! The only thing that backs ANY currency is the belief that it has value.

While I think bitcoins are ridiculous, ill-concieved and overhyped concept, they have as much value as people believe they do in exactly the same way as the dollar or the euro. A currency is useful because we believe others will accept it as a proxy good that can be easily exchanged for other good. There are very good reasons to believe that the dollar or the euro will continue to be valued by others including network effects and tax. The Euro is becoming worthless because it is poorly backed by the EU.

They are being knowingly devalued as via quantitative easing in an so far successful attempt to guarantee a money supply sufficient to stave off economic Armageddon. Let's keep our fingers crossed. Normally, when we speak of a currency being "backed", we mean that there is some commodity for which you can exchange that currency e. What does it mean to say a currency is "backed" by a country or organisation? It means that that country is the only one with the ability to issue that currency and inflate it away to worthlessness.

National currencies are backed by legal tender laws. People who owe taxes in the nation issuing a currency can pay those taxes with the legal tender currency and usually ONLY with that currency. Debts, sales, and many other forms of contract involving monetary payment are typically only enforceable in that nation as payable in the national currency.

A government "backs" a currency by assuring that there are widely shared uses for that currency and that currency alone. Only a man made of hay would claim that. But, if you have a positive quantity on line 76 of your IRS Form , it doesn't matter if you want to pay your US tax bill with Euros, diamonds, or your left kidney: You have to exchange the appropriate amount of whatever you've got into U. And from that limited perspective, Bitcoins are no more immediately valuable tha.

And from that limited perspective, Bitcoins are no more immediately valuable than a trunk full of aluminum cans or a suitcase full of Pound notes. You pay your debts to the government in the properly-denoted currency demanded by that government, or you rot in jail.

So what exactly is your point? I'm, frankly, mystified how that could even remotely be relevant. A trunk full of UK pound notes should be able to pay most reasonable tax bills, there's dozens of old fashioned brick and mortar p.

Sure you can convert bitcoins. However you also are exposing yourself to significant exchange rate risk and probably liquidity risk. I can exchange any currency but not every currency is equally desirable. Just because I can use bitcoins doesn't necessarily make it a good idea.

Euro's aren't worthless because they require exchanging but there is a very real cost and some very real risks to exchanging currencies. More importantly, you can be arrested and lose your property if you refuse to pay your taxes, and you need to use USD to do so.

In that situation it would seem pretty trivial to find someone who does business with the govt to trade some BTC for some cash-firewood.

I never said the only thing USD was useful for was paying taxes. However, at least in theory anything that BTC can be used for USD could also be used for; yet there are things that USD can be used for settling debts with the government, paying fees to the government, etc. It's not just taxes, it's any other form of debt. It's unlikely that we'll get to the point where you can't use them to buy groceries.

Your utilities by law have to take USD as payment for service. I see this claim a lot, but I think it is a little bit backwards. The value of the USD isn't in that they can be used to pay tax, it is that they are backed by the US Government, which imposes and enforces taxes.

That is, while they are not backed by gold or some other set commodity, they are backed by the taxes collected by the US Government. So by extension, USD are backed by all of the physical goods produced, services rendered, and real estate owned in the U. Don't get me wrong, I think this BC thing is worthless and it is only a matter of time and not too much before it fails.

And if it were to fail, issues like having a maximum limit of currency issued is a BAD in capital letters idea. Hey, if you didn't work at all you wouldn't earn money and y. The "why would anyone accept bitcoin given its instability" question was admittedly a bit inflammatory, but it would have been nice if he'd even made an attempt at answering it.

When the market doesn't have enough volume to smooth out wild gyrations like over the past few weeks it's completely unacceptable for real world use His "solution" was that merchants should just instantly move into and out of BitCoins on currency exchanges so that the swings were not an issue.

Why would anybody go through that much trouble instead of just trading in their desired currency to begin with? And who pays to run these currency exchanges?

Also, one would work on some money that isn't the desired currency if the other party is willing to work such currency. If you can exchange it imediately, why would you refuse a currency that isn't your preferred one maybe add a small amount for conversion, but not refuse. I never expected Bitcoin to get where it is, and I don't expect it to go much further. But I was wrong once And that's if I implement totally dynamic pricing feeding off the data feed of my preferred exchange.

The bitcoin effort needs the involvement of some economists with experience studying and understanding currencies, not just techies.

It could also use some PR and marketing people, with all the bad press they've been getting lately for their poorly crafted currency system. It sounds like they have the technology stuff reasonably well figured out, but they have utterly failed on the economics and marketing side of things.

I suspect that bitcoin needs to be replaced with a new system that has the advantages of the current without the raging disadvantages, re-branded without the negative associations of bitcoin, and work to make sure they don't fuck up again.

The bitcoin effort needs the involvement of some economists with experience studying and understanding currencies.

Funny how mainstream economists connect currency with banking and government, and how they advocate the role of governments and banks in regulating and stabilizing currency. I suspect that bitcoin needs to be replaced with a new system that has the advantages of the current without the raging disadvantages.

Most digital cash systems call for a bank to issue the digital currency in exchange for physical currency. I would like to see those systems more widely deployed, although I get the feeling that the current banks would not be too enthusiastic about introducing an electronic payment system that deprives them of transactions fees. The guy in our group Donald Norman that handles the business side of things is well educated in finance and economy.

He's been deeply looking into that for a while now and has been communicating with Ben Friedman. Our group has for a long time been in contact with an economics professor, Adam Bragar. He's been specifically following and studying Bitcoin from an economics perspective too.

I have the nagging suspicion that your comment was code for "they need to turn bitcoin into an inflationary currency but don't realize it because they're so economically illiterate". In that case, I would suggest that, more than an economist, Bitcoin's developers need an ethicist nearby. You know, someone who can tell them that, "Hey, you got everyone involved in this currency on the promise of a very specific rate of money supply growth.

If you default on this promise you made to every user, you are an as. I'd settle for one that was vaguely stable. I can tell you about how much [insert product or service here] 1USD will buy tomorrow. I haven't the least flipping clue how much a BitC is worth tomorrow because it's a niche, illiquid, broken-by-design, proof-of-concept. And as I've made a zillion posts on Slashdot pointing out, a "global currency" that must experience many orders of magnitude of deflation in order to be something other than a t.

The expansion curve has everything to do with BTC's issues. The poorly-chosen curve guarantees deflation if the currency is going to expand to a level where the net value of every BTC in existence is more than a trivial, useless, quantity. Expected deflation triggers hoarding.

Any new currency is going to be that way! This expectation is effectively ruling out any new currency that can't get its volatility down to that of the USD immediately -- which means you're against any new currencies that don't start with some stabilizer.

Btw, no you can't tell me how much gasoline a USD will buy tomorrow. When the Euro was introduced, nothing even remotely like this volatility occurred. Not a serious means of value transfer. This is a problem with the currency, not "people.

I can make no such statement about BTCs. Bitcoin has broadcast how many there will be at all points in time, eliminating this uncertainty. If every BTC in existence at the end of BTC creation changed hands twice a week which would be an unheard of currency velocity for an economy with a vaguely stable currency At the velocity of the USD, it would have to deflate by a factor of ish.

Because it would have to deflate so much to be useful, it's unlikely to ever actually do so. Have you visited the Bitcoin forums? Quite a few economists there. Also, high profile magazines, such as The Economist [economist. No mention of any built-in economic failures there.

I don't understand the knee-jerk reaction that everyone here gets each time Bitcoin is mentioned. Almost every time it's accompanied misconceptions about USD being backed or otherwise thinking that something which is currently valuable such as gold is somehow guaranteed to always be that way. No, I don't have anything invested in Bitcoins, and I wouldn't want to store much value in it until it has stood the test of time, and the implementations are more robust.

Not all the posters, no. But it seems to be a mix of people with a moderate understanding of economics coloured with an extreme libertarian bias, people who have no idea about economics at all, conspiracy theorists and folks who are heavily 'invested' in bitcoin screaming at other people to shut up. I also think a crypto currency is cool, and an interesting idea. I think the hard quantity limit and fixed creation rate are dumb as hell, and I think what's going on right now is a bubble.

I think it's a bubble not just because of the way the price has been moving around, but because there is virtually no genuine economic activity in bitcoins. Almost the entire bitcoin economy is built on exchanges and speculation, there's very little real, actual stuff you can buy with it. Add to that the hoarding factor, that means people are hanging on to vast swathes of bitcoins as an investment, and what you have is an investment into something with no inherent worth but a lot of inherent scarcity.

You don't really have a currency or medium of exchange though. So why do people like me get mildly angry about it? I think it's because firstly it looks like a missed opportunity. Bootstrapping a crypto currency is a fantastic thing to do. Bootstrapping one with the properties of bitcoin is just a disappointment. Well, I think you're jumping to conclusions if you thought that the idea is to halt the drug trade and prostitution rings by illegalizing BitCoins.

I think the question was really asking how you feel about BitCoins enticing and extending illegal activities. Allow me to provide a real world example.

A person I knew in a small town high school was making yearly trips to the nearest metropolis with his stash of cash, purchasing drugs from many sources and then driving back and dealing them.

Now, he went to jail for six months for drug possession but also the very large sum of money. They were able to prove that he was a dealer and was en route to make more purchases.

If he had had BitCoins, he merely would have kept a wallet on his phone then transferred the cash to the woman and could have denied the whole transaction had taken place and was clueless about the shrooms in his car.

Would they have been able to make anything stick? Not if the bad elements of society enjoy those "fruitful benefits" much more than the rest of society. Linux started to fragment, and in stepped Ubuntu. Linux never managed to take over the desktop. The Ubuntu phone was a last ditch attempt by Linux to stay relevant.

It was just quietly dropped. After all, we want to win. I see a whole load of people working on Bitcoin. What do you think? Tell us in comments below! Experience more of them here. For instance, have you seen our Tools page? You can even lookup the exchange rate for a transaction in the past. Or calculate the value of your current holdings. Or create a paper wallet. Oct 16, By.


4.8 stars, based on 260 comments

micro bitcoin fr

Bitcoin[edit]. In and , Taaki made his living as a professional poker player. His experience with online gambling attracted him to the bitcoin project. He founded a UK bitcoin exchange called "Britcoin", which was succeeded in by a new British exchange called Intersango, in which he. 29 Mar The strange story of Amir TaakiBitcoin coder, anti-ISIS revolutionary, and British terrorism defendant. 16 Oct In PART 2, crypto folk hero Amir Taaki shares his thoughts on past projects and AltCoins, while pointing to a philosophical paradox he sees in Bitcoin.

Site Map