Max keiser bitcoin 2012 honda civic
Even if it would, it needs to show ALL characteristics in order to be actually called "money". There is no definition in the article of what a "Bitcoin" actually is. What is a Bitcoin? The point of the Bitcoin according to Max Keiser almost certainly the creator of Bitcoin, although he used a another name to do so in order that he could position himself as an "independent" supporter of Bitcoin is that it is NOT a fiat currency, that it is NOT like the "Dollar".
What the answers to my question indicate is that there is no such thing as a Bitcoin - that the only fundamental difference between Bitcoin and, for example, the fiat "Dollar" is that Bitcoin is not legal tender and can not be used in payment of taxes. By the way, as I am typing this Mr Keiser is pushing Bitcoin on his show still without revealing that he is the creator of the scheme if he was not, the real creator would have proudly stepped forward by now.
To cut matters short - the true reply to my question "what is a Bitcoin" is that there is no such thing as a Bitcoin. How do folks feel about Coindesk as a reliable source? In real world futures markets provide the price discovery mechanism and futures trading seems to start gaining momentum in the BTC world too. I am not an autoconfirmed user yet so I can't do the change myself. Aleksey Bragin talk Can someone please provide one? If you choose to store your bitcoins yourself, then you could lose them to a hacker, a hard drive crash or a lost mobile device.
But if you choose to use a third party, you need to worry about that third party swindling you or becoming bankrupt. The Bitcoin market is largely unregulated, so there are few legal protections if you happen to choose the wrong online wallet service. Paper wallets avoid the pitfalls of other methods, but they're tricky to set up correctly, and of course you're out of luck if you lose the piece of paper.
Now it says "Theft of bitcoins has been covered extensively in the media. I can't find any reference to bitcoin. It presents itself as a front for coinbase. Should this be part of the known scams list? It should be clarified that a vendor-purchased paper wallet is probably the most insecure way to store BTC. Because at least the producer who prints the paper are know the private key. It is not the case only if it is you who print it. It is impossible to prove that the producer of a banknote or a coin had destroyed the private key after the end of a printing process and doesn't preserve it.
Though this sort of storage is unsecure. As Bitcoin goes more mainstream the use of physical tokens, i. Here's a recent link to this topic in case someone wants to add it to the article.
Probably the reason that disclosure of a credit card number doesn't make it junk, but that is because all money transactions can be traced. Bitcoins transaction can't be traced with the same ease and the producer of a coin like https: Please try to find a reference that addresses those two points. Chris Arnesen —Preceding undated comment added Huzzah, here's a perfect reference for Casacius coins http: I think we should mention these sorts of trinkets if only because so many news articles feature an image of physical coins.
Full consensus discussion can be found at Talk: Maybe I'll sell my bitcoins on a Bitcoin exchange. This recent edit improperly switched a bunch of "bitcoin"s for "Bitcoin"s. We're no longer able to automatically undo that changeset due to intervening edits, so we will have to redo those manually. I've added a definition to the main article - its a pretty important and oft miss-understood distinction. I'd love a better citation though. KyleLandas and I differ on the "Inflation rate" item in the infobox and I'd like to discuss it here.
Kyle said in his edit summary, "This is not comprehensive. It is a micro-view of the inflation-rate. I am restoring it to the original statement. Under "Exchanges", we have "A published research study showed that of 40 Bitcoin exchanges studied, 18 ended up closing over a period of 3 years.
The paper came out in January At least three more of the exchanges listed in that paper have tanked since then. The article probably should mention the cutoff date for their stats. A new item "value" was added to the infobox with the approximate current value of one bitcoin in US dollars. In my opinion, the current value of one bitcoin isn't a particularly interesting fact and shouldn't be included in the infobox. Furthermore, the volatility in bitcoin price means that whatever number we put there will almost immediately become inaccurate.
Most importantly, the current price of one bitcoin isn't really even discussed in the article. I feel strongly that we should try to keep the infobox as concise as possible. This post is similar to one in the talk page of a bitcoin article of another wiki I often hang out at here's a link to the heading in their talk page , as responses there might help the editors here come up with good responses true there are far fewer editors there than here, and the posts will likely be less, but still the possibility of a decent insight or more makes the link, in my view, warranted.
This article was of little help to me as was the article of the same name in the other smaller wiki. This is not to demean those who made it: I'm sure that the article works for many, but I can't figure it out; and if I can't, chances are many others can't.
Maybe if I check all the internal links and those in the footnotes I might figure it out, but the text in the article is largely unhelpful. So here's my understanding. A hunter exchanges a deer carcass for some flint arrows, or in a more modern times, a laptop. Aztecs used cacao beans in trade. I'm not sure what money is, but if you send some to the government, in what they call "taxes" they tend to leave you alone. Banks keep money for you, as do the credit card companies, or they lend it at interest.
When you spend some of it, perhaps some clerk gets a pen and marks off your balance and writes in a new balance, balance minus spent, and the does the same with a vendor's balance: These days a computer does it electronically. So when they say "electronic" or "digital" currency, they likely mean that some place is holding varying amounts in varying accounts and shifting things back and forth.
Those who do it honestly tend stay in business. The thoroughly at least dishonest ones tend to go out of business, and maybe get arrested. Oh yeah, and these transactions tend to be monitored lest the guv'mint doesn't get its cut and people trade in illegal things like contraband cigarettes or marihuana reefers, or engage in things like the hiring of prostitutes.
Now the way I figure it, if you're going to cheat on your taxes or engage in illegal trade, your best bet is probably to use cash, i. You want a colour TV, you could, say, sell a few "lids" of marihuana for money, or perform sexual favours for money, and you can use the money to buy that colour TV.
I suppose other items can be used for money: Now where does this bitcoin fit in? Is it a valuable, b portable, c hard to inflate, and d difficult for the guv'mint to trace? Okay, assuming it's just electrons or something-digital, I can accept it fulfills the portability requirement. As for value, I suppose that one can make people believe it's valuable—as some say such is the case with money-as-we-know it; but the important thing is, that issuers of our bills will take it back as payment.
If giving the guv'mint a few or 10 dollars, pounds, euros, whatever will keep you out of court or jail, then it has value. The guv'mint has a vast array of means of propaganda so they can also hype up the value of money. Also, the money we know today was based on bills that could be used to do things like get the gold or silver they once represented.
What does this bitcoin have? Maybe if someone redeemed it for "real" money while slowly inflating the currency—maybe. Maybe if someone printed the currency of some micronation and it looked like US money, except that instead of some US president, it had a picture of some celebrity, maybe it could be hawked. Where does bitcoin get its value?
But the thing that gets me is how can it be spent, not replicated, and done so digitally in a de-centralized manner? How is this done? What do they mean by "mining" and the use of supercomputers? Do they get a bunch of super-large prime numbers and multiply them and then have others figure out the original prime numbers—would these be the bitcoins?
How would such be spent and not multiplied? And how is it soo oooo superior to the aforementioned ways of cheating on taxes or illegal trade?
Also, how does it go unmonitored now that we have the National Security Agency , Five Eyes , and whatever else monitoring presumably , what do you call them, "entry" and "exit" "nodes. If you work for your money, does it matter if you spent it on bitcoins if your salary was taxed?
Ditto if you paid employees? Ditto if you bought supplies? Wouldn't places that deal not in money but in bitcoins arouse interest by guv'mint agencies? If someone is going to buy a carton of contraband smokes, a lid of weed, and hire a prostitute, doesn't that involve addresses?
And if one can fool the gov'mint with some trickery using bitcoins, couldn't that trickery also be used when using real money? Again, without clicking, the intro pretty much says nothing to me.
This morning I was driving to work and a report on National Public Radio stated in no uncertain words that Bitcoin is "anonymous". I cringed thinking that maybe the reporter reached that conclusion from reading this article.
You see, I've finally understood why people including Wikipedia editors whose edits I've undone: A Bitcoin transaction has inputs funds being sent and outputs addresses where funds are being received. The network confirms that every input is the output of a previous transaction and that the new payment message has been digitally signed by the owner of the address es from which funds are being sent.
Among other things, that means that the sender s of the funds would have a hard time repudiating the fact that it was she they that sent the funds. So it's possible, nay easy, to track funds through the blockchain, even with "mixers".
Imagine that every time you completed a cash transaction, you and the counterparty wrote down the serial numbers of all the bills that you were exchanging, and submitted them to a public ledger. Anytime things are centralized, like mixers, its relatively easy for law enforcement to take them down.
Publications stating mixers are anonymous is just an assumption. Silbtsc talk —Preceding undated comment added I wasn't talking about Satoshi. What I mean is that right now we have a section called "Lack of anonymity". I agree that Bitcoin is not anonymous. But if it's not anonymous, then what is it? That term is used all over the place in articles that discuss the anonymity of Bitcoin or lack thereof , and I think we should adopt it here too. In the Infobox, before reference [7] I see a square: It is inappropriate to insert any actual wallet address into the encyclopedia.
It is possible, even likely, that the intent is to hope readers of the article submit money to the address - and to that end, there has already been edit warring over which address is used, as different people vie to have their Bitcoin wallet address be "the" address which is seen.
Any such insertion should be removed. The concept of Bitcoin is, above all other things, a cryptocurrency, a fact which needs to be expressed much more clearly. Also Why in hell is this page protected? Lets get this page sorted; its only going to see MORE attention in the future.
I suggest pending changes instead of this. IMO that's best solution for Bitcoin article, it has been successfully introduced on WikiLeaks and has very good argument - it allows edit IP users and review them before making them visible. Chrisarnesen , Samwalton9 , Laser brain So, what now? Can we enable this? Samwalton9 , Laser brain , anyone? Someone not using his real name talk The following sentence links to the article on "intrinsic value", that article does not refer to any currency or commodity, but rather to the equity of a corporation.
Bitcoins have been described as lacking intrinsic value as an investment because their value depends only on the willingness of users to accept them. Bitcoin is neither a company nor a stock, therefore this article does not in any way relate to the topic at hand.
Secondly, every single thing in the world is only valuable if someone is willing to accept it. Regardless of what a person who is on TV or writes something on paper says, if they are inaccurate, I do not think that we should faithfully reproduce their errors, unless it is to point out that it was specifically their point of view.
As an example, if no one accepted dollars, dollars would not be valuable. If no one wanted to buy gold, gold would not have a market price. There are many examples of currencies and assets that have fallen out of use, and therefore no longer have value. If those items had "intrinsic value" which remember, according to wikipedia is related to a company or stock but as a definition means "necessary" or "belonging naturally" then they could not exist without the necessary attributes of having that value.
This sentence should be revised since the Chinese central bank has barred financial institutions from handling transactions in bitcoins; see http: This needs further revision and a few sets of eyes - the "news" is evolving and a lot of incorrect information being shared, much of which is shared in the media.
I've made a few changes but this will need to be watched. The nature of the business of Bitcoin is that it goes directly against and circumvents the banking and payment industry. On the other hand, pro-Bitcoin websites like Coindesk, overly show the positives and failings of main stream media.
So, in my opinion neither side are are currently showing a neutral point of view. However, I've found the following good sources:.
So at this point , main stream web media from big names that are commonly reliable are not so reliable for Bitcoin. So I'd be very careful in citing from mainstream web media for the core sections of the Bitcoin article. I'm looking to hear thoughts on what else should be considered for a reliable source for Bitcoin.
Please try to keep recent events in historical perspective. Since the whole Wikipedia phenomenon is, uh, recent, and speculation about its, get this, "historical perspective" somewhat premature, this is unusually dense, even for a Wikipedia editor. Further, the invention of the ugly "recentism" should perhaps qualify somebody for exclusion from that exalted calling.
David Lloyd-Jones talk Would somebod ies please increase the amount of page content devoted to cheap transaction fees? This appears to be the only benefit to Bitcoin, and it's woefully absent from the page.
Therefore Bitcoin will have lower transaction costs overall. Please support these proposed changes, or object with explanation. Thank you for your consideration. I removed some cited material mentioning that you could send millions of dollars with bitcoins very cheaply. The European Banking Authority recently put out a warning that virtual currencies like bitcoin lack consumer protections.
So, I'm not sure the best thing to publish is something that suggests a course of action that could very well result in the loss of large sums of money for those who act on it. These sections need to be merged. The too generic "history" section also duplicates some of that. A recent editor made changes to the lede because he or she felt that it was inaccessible for the average reader. I tend to agree that the first paragraph does seem to use inter-wiki links to the point where a reader might feel obliged to read all manner of other articles just to understand a few simple sentences.
Do you think there's any way to increase the accessibility of the lede while maintaining its brevity? The Bitcoin page gets viewed tens of thousands of times a day and there are a lot of opinions out there about it.
So we come here to iron things out. I can already tell you'll be a welcome addition to the team. As you can tell, we need all the help we can get. So tell your friends! Cheers, Chris Arnesen As long as I get good analytical view points. I'm happy to contribute. Here's the reason why I think its actually confusing in the long run to classify Bitcoin as 'open source'. Its because there is 'open source software' that goes along with it.
Ignore the practicality but technically, I'm free to write my own software that follows Bitcoin protocol and sell it without the need to open source it.
As long as my software prepares the data packets in the Bitcoin protocol, the transactions submitted by my software will be accepted by the Bitcoin network. Majority counts only when I want to change the protocol or erase a previously confirmed transaction. Wikipedia has many students and award winning journalists that absorb the concepts its good to expose them to the fundamentals. Put it another way, I'm proposing the following breakdown of Bitcoin: Open access because no one required to "login" to Bitcoin network This is different from password for your wallet.
They simply connect and discover peers like a regular peer to peer network. Compare this to closed networks such as Visa or Mastercard computer networks. Transaction Rules aka Bitcoin protocol define what is the format of the data packets and how to broadcast transactions over the network. Bitcoin is a digital unit of payment in an open access network and pre-defined system of rules that allows one to make payments across the internet without the need to trust any single central authority to validate the transaction [ref][ref].
To put in context, Bitcoin is the money in the open Bitcoin payment network. The system of rules are called the Bitcoin protocol that are applied on a peer-to-peer network.
When a trusted intermediary is removed and direct person to person transactions are allowed, it introduces a problem of double spend , wherein a malicious person can claim to have more money than they really have.
Bitcoin protocol solves the double spend problem by using an open ledger of all Bitcoin transactions ever since it inception and a method to prevent anyone from changing old entries in the ledger [ref]. The openness of the Bitcoin network allows anyone to transact in Bitcoin without registering with any central entity [ref paper]. There are always new idiots. The really surprising part is that people still care about Max Keiser.
I swear the bitcoin comminity need to get off it's obsession with the word "scam" No altcoin shows any promise of overtaking bitcoin. Not even Dark or Monero. So to speculate on them is a losing proposition. The only way to make money in altcoins is either luck or - you guessed it - an orchestrated pump and dump, i. You're basically saying that since any given altcoin is not bitcoin, any given altcoin is a scam.
You sound exactly like the people that call bitcoin a scam because it isn't the dollar. If I'm going to bet on crypto, I'm going to bet on the one that actually has a chance, the one that has all the attention, all the VC investing.
I didn't choose to go with Bitcoin for some arbitrary reason. I chose BTC because you can quantify its likelyhood of success over every other single altcoin that exists. So not all altcoins are scams, but all of them are a bad investment.
In either case altcoins are bad for your pocketbook, so why bother. If you want to bet on crypto, bet on Bitcoin, because it has the best chance of succeeding.
Pretty simple if you ask me. Altcoins won't have to overtake bitcoin to be a success. Stop calling every asset you don't hold a scam.
As time goes on, cryptocurrency will be more and more attractive to more and more people. Bitcoin is expensive and risky, altcoins are cheap and risky. People need lower entry barrier options.
There will be room for more than just Bitcoin. Bitcoin is the best known and most valuable of these digital assets. If you think it is the only one that will ever matter, well, you could be wrong. If you want dollards worth you get lets say 0. If you want dollars worth of doge then you get however many that buys. There are a total of 84 million coins, with a reward of 40 coins per block, halving every 12 months.
Wow this really has the bitcoin cult frothing. How dare these heretics make an unholy coin and turn their backs on their lord and savior satoshi and the only true coin! That's not what this is about. Check out Maxcoin which he gleefully promoted endlessly and now turns his back on.
If they were serious they would have just used bitcoin for this trews thing. You can't see that being able to hand whole coins to people is superior to handing them fractions of coins? Not now we have the decimal point.
I don't really see how handing out whole coins is superior? Which brings us back to: When all is said and done at least it will get people used to dealing with crypto. I just hope none of the noobs get their fingers burnt. Does not matter, altcoins are good to let people learn about Bitcoin. Pumpers of scamcoins will be forever tagged as "that guy" if people get rekt by buying into it. Well to be fair, it's a bit hypocrite to "Warn" about alt-coins while not applying the same logic to bitcoins.
I would be all fine with them getting into Bitcoin through alts with a real world purpose and there are tbh some decent once out there, but through useless scam coins is not the right way. If the wallet is not a trojan and one gets the coins for free, it's a good way to get to learn "Bitcoin" without having actual bitcoins litecoin, doge, etc.
Is litecoin or Dogecoin a scam you think, cause I own some just wondering if I should sell them? Bitcoiners view of alt coins is just pure ignorance.
They will be huge. Another fact from the future. Log in or sign up in seconds. Submit link NOT about price. Submit text NOT about price. Bitcoin subscribe unsubscribe , readers 10, users here now Bitcoin is the currency of the Internet: You can also explore the Bitcoin Wiki: Only requests for donations to large, recognized charities are allowed, and only if there is good reason to believe that the person accepting bitcoins on behalf of the charity is trustworthy.
News articles that do not contain the word "Bitcoin" are usually off-topic. This subreddit is not about general financial news. Submissions that are mostly about some other cryptocurrency belong elsewhere. Promotion of client software which attempts to alter the Bitcoin protocol without overwhelming consensus is not permitted. No referral links in submissions. No compilations of free Bitcoin sites.
New merchants are welcome to announce their services for Bitcoin, but after those have been announced they are no longer news and should not be re-posted. Aside from new merchant announcements, those interested in advertising to our audience should consider Reddit's self-serve advertising system. Do not post your Bitcoin address unless someone explicitly asks you to. Be aware that Twitter, etc. Related communities Sorted roughly by decreasing popularity.
Welcome to Reddit, the front page of the internet. Become a Redditor and subscribe to one of thousands of communities. This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.
Bitcoin submitted 2 years ago by w1nw1n. Want to add to the discussion? So he's the one pumping start now? He founded it, just like with Maxcoin.