Overstock.com Is Now Accepting Bitcoins(wired.com)
wired.com
Overstock.com Is Now Accepting Bitcoins
http://www.wired.com/business/2014/01/overstock-bitcoin-live/
271 comments
In what way is this different from any other retailer allowing me to pay in EUR, GBP, HKD or whatever while the only currency they manage is USD?
The vast majority of companies only manage a single currency and have the payment processor or the bank make the conversion (and take the risk).
So in what way is it different than if they were accepting EUR?
For a business to accept and truly manage multiple currencies, it needs to have a complex infrastructure, with an accounting system that allows for mutlicurrency management. On top of that, it has to manage the risk of fluctuating exchange rates between currencies.
I guess that unless their own suppliers start accepting bitcoins (or EUR or CNY, etc), it doesn't make sense for most companies to manage that risk.
The important point here, is that if I have bitcoins, I can use them to pay for tangibles from a well-known retailer.
Whether they go with Coinbase, VISA or Mastercard or Paypal to process their payment and get USD instead of BTC, EUR, JPY isn't really a disavowal of bitcoin.
The vast majority of companies only manage a single currency and have the payment processor or the bank make the conversion (and take the risk).
So in what way is it different than if they were accepting EUR?
For a business to accept and truly manage multiple currencies, it needs to have a complex infrastructure, with an accounting system that allows for mutlicurrency management. On top of that, it has to manage the risk of fluctuating exchange rates between currencies.
I guess that unless their own suppliers start accepting bitcoins (or EUR or CNY, etc), it doesn't make sense for most companies to manage that risk.
The important point here, is that if I have bitcoins, I can use them to pay for tangibles from a well-known retailer.
Whether they go with Coinbase, VISA or Mastercard or Paypal to process their payment and get USD instead of BTC, EUR, JPY isn't really a disavowal of bitcoin.
This is still great news in terms of Bitcoin adoption, however. I can now spend my Bitcoin on more things than I could before this announcement.
The more merchants that follow suit, the better.
Eventually there may be no need for Coinbase if a majority of merchants accepted Bitcoin.
The more merchants that follow suit, the better.
Eventually there may be no need for Coinbase if a majority of merchants accepted Bitcoin.
Except for the whole "you have no recourse as a consumer since there are no chargebacks" thing. And no, the better business bureau, ratings websites, etc don't count.
What does that have to do with the fact that Overstock.com accepting Bitcoin is literally increasing Bitcoin adoption and making more items available for purchase via Bitcoin, prompting other companies to follow suit?
Presumably Overstock.com is a reputable company, and they would honor their guarantees, so I would feel safe sending them Bitcoin.
I wouldn't give my credit card information out to some untrusted third party that I was unsure of their sending me the products.
Just because the credit card industry has created a massive protection racket in North America doesn't mean it must continue to exist.
There are plenty of business' who cannot take credit card purchases because of possible chargebacks.
Presumably Overstock.com is a reputable company, and they would honor their guarantees, so I would feel safe sending them Bitcoin.
I wouldn't give my credit card information out to some untrusted third party that I was unsure of their sending me the products.
Just because the credit card industry has created a massive protection racket in North America doesn't mean it must continue to exist.
There are plenty of business' who cannot take credit card purchases because of possible chargebacks.
We make all sorts of purchases from smaller merchants because we know they can't just take the money and run when we pay via credit card. I do it all the time. That way I don't have to just buy from Overstock.com or Amazon.com, but all kinds of merchants. I don't have to implicitly trust that a merchant will deliver the goods to me on time and in the fashion they say they will. I know they will or I can initiate a chargeback. And as far as "Presumably Overstock.com is a reputable company, and they would honor their guarantees"... I don't have to presume anything. I know I can get my money back if they fail to deliver.
I had to do this recently with a site that I expected would be reliable. One that I'd enjoyed the free services of for the past 5 years and had no problem placing a $40 order to download some premium content from. They never bothered to deliver it and wouldn't respond to email, voicemail or twitter. So, I initiated a dispute via PayPal and got my money back. If I'd paid with bitcoin, I couldn't get my money back.
I run my own small business, have worked with many other small businesses, and have friends running all kinds of other small businesses. I don't know of ANY legitimate business that "cannot take credit card purchases because of possible chargebacks".
I had to do this recently with a site that I expected would be reliable. One that I'd enjoyed the free services of for the past 5 years and had no problem placing a $40 order to download some premium content from. They never bothered to deliver it and wouldn't respond to email, voicemail or twitter. So, I initiated a dispute via PayPal and got my money back. If I'd paid with bitcoin, I couldn't get my money back.
I run my own small business, have worked with many other small businesses, and have friends running all kinds of other small businesses. I don't know of ANY legitimate business that "cannot take credit card purchases because of possible chargebacks".
I think you're overstating how often chargebacks are necessary (or you have terrible luck / judgement), I've never had to dispute a charge. Ever. I suspect the vast majority of chargebacks are related to cc fraud/theft.
Chargeback fraud is also a problem, especially for businesses selling digital goods who cannot present a tracking # or proof of delivery to Paypal.
Chargeback fraud is also a problem, especially for businesses selling digital goods who cannot present a tracking # or proof of delivery to Paypal.
You'd be surprised how often chargebacks are necessary when you're dealing with smaller businesses as a consumer. If you only ever deal with Amazon, Overstock.com, etc... then you, as a consumer, won't have much need for chargebacks. These are well-established public companies that care about their reputations. But when dealing with smaller businesses... the exact segment that bitcoin advocates keep saying that bitcoin is best for... you wind up with a much more frequent situation of people being unable or unwilling to deliver the goods you paid for. True, this was the only time I've ever had to do a PayPal dispute, but it was damned nice that it was there since I could get my $40 back. And, as I said, this is a company I'd been enjoying the freemium content of for for 5 years (actually, 7 I just looked it up) and I trusted to place an order from.
That is missing the point. Arrests are not that common either, but the mere possibility of them does change behaviour. The chargeback is an important part of credit card transactions - it makes the card-holder more likely to spend, and it makes it more likely that the payment recipient is going to deliver.
I have both issued chargebacks for non delivered goods, and had chargebacks raised against me as a merchant. Generally fraudulent chargebacks are easy to defeat if you run your business well. Generally chargebacks are easy to win if you are a sensible consumer. The costs of chargebacks on consumers and vendors alike are vastly outweighed by their benefits.
Going to a commerce system where that layer of trust is removed is going to be more difficult to do.
I have both issued chargebacks for non delivered goods, and had chargebacks raised against me as a merchant. Generally fraudulent chargebacks are easy to defeat if you run your business well. Generally chargebacks are easy to win if you are a sensible consumer. The costs of chargebacks on consumers and vendors alike are vastly outweighed by their benefits.
Going to a commerce system where that layer of trust is removed is going to be more difficult to do.
Who's to say coinbase won't add n-of-m escrow transactions in the future?
Certainly not me, perhaps they will - I'm merely observing that the presence of the chargeback system can be felt even if no chargebacks have been issued.
The OP was posting that chargebacks can't be that important because they had never done one. That's not the right way to look at it.
The OP was posting that chargebacks can't be that important because they had never done one. That's not the right way to look at it.
True. My point is that chargebacks are kind of a moot point, once someone implements a bitcoin payment processor that includes the option of n-of-m escrow transactions :)
Bitcoin has solutions to these issues, which will continue to grow and develop as the ecosystem matures. There is a built-in system for escrow that works will for this kind of transaction with a merchant of unknown repute.
For that, you pay a small surcharge to the escrow provider, and you are then protected against fraud:
https://www.bitrated.com/
But for all those transactions where you trust the merchant (ie, overstock.com), you don't have to pay for a service that you don't need.
For that, you pay a small surcharge to the escrow provider, and you are then protected against fraud:
https://www.bitrated.com/
But for all those transactions where you trust the merchant (ie, overstock.com), you don't have to pay for a service that you don't need.
One note about fees - because of the way this works with Bitcoin's multi-signature transactions, arbitrators don't have to intervene at all when there's no dispute so a lot of them choose to charge fees only for disputed transactions, meaning that most transactions should be free of charge.
That being said, I do see the rational behind charging for every transaction and think that its going to be a popular choice too. I wrote some of the reasons for that here: http://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinSerious/comments/1sqibz/bitra... (near the end, in the "Edit:")
(full disclosure: I'm Bitrated's creator)
That being said, I do see the rational behind charging for every transaction and think that its going to be a popular choice too. I wrote some of the reasons for that here: http://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinSerious/comments/1sqibz/bitra... (near the end, in the "Edit:")
(full disclosure: I'm Bitrated's creator)
I absolutely think the only feasible business model for arbitrators is to charge a fee for each transaction. Otherwise, how can they afford to spend the time and money to investigate a dispute properly?
People are not going to want to pay for more than the cost of an item when there is a dispute, yet it could cost many more times the value of the disputed item to conduct a proper investigation and produce a fair arbitration.
Great project, by the way. Thanks for releasing it open source!
People are not going to want to pay for more than the cost of an item when there is a dispute, yet it could cost many more times the value of the disputed item to conduct a proper investigation and produce a fair arbitration.
Great project, by the way. Thanks for releasing it open source!
Does this automatically work with all bitcoin accepters? Or do they have to option / decide if they want to accept it?
They have the option to accept it. Technically, if you figure out the merchant's public key, you could "force" them into being a part of the "escrow" [1], but unless they agreed to it (and agreed to the arbitrator being used) they won't consider the product paid until the payment is under their control.
[1] I'm using quotes because the way it works with multi-signature isn't an escrow, but escrow is commonly used when talking about something like this. There's some explanation about how multi-signature transactions works and why its not an escrow in Bitrated's FAQ, under "How does Bitcoin arbitration work?" and "Is this an escrow?" (https://www.bitrated.com/faq.html)
[1] I'm using quotes because the way it works with multi-signature isn't an escrow, but escrow is commonly used when talking about something like this. There's some explanation about how multi-signature transactions works and why its not an escrow in Bitrated's FAQ, under "How does Bitcoin arbitration work?" and "Is this an escrow?" (https://www.bitrated.com/faq.html)
Sure, and there's no reason this kind of consumer protection can't be worked into Bitcoin in the future.
This is just the first step... far from perfect but 99% of people will be happy to use Overstock and their purchases will most likely go well.
This is just the first step... far from perfect but 99% of people will be happy to use Overstock and their purchases will most likely go well.
> I don't know of ANY legitimate business that "cannot take credit card purchases because of possible chargebacks".
But a random person trying to sell something on their own cannot take paypal because of possible chargebacks. And we're all paying a premium on the prices because businesses have to cover chargebacks in their pricing.
It's a huge problem for example in trading online game items; the current solution is to have reputation threads, where you have your previous trading partners vouch that you did not chargeback your paypal transaction / did provide the item as promised. Taking paypal from an unknown party is a huge risk.
But a random person trying to sell something on their own cannot take paypal because of possible chargebacks. And we're all paying a premium on the prices because businesses have to cover chargebacks in their pricing.
It's a huge problem for example in trading online game items; the current solution is to have reputation threads, where you have your previous trading partners vouch that you did not chargeback your paypal transaction / did provide the item as promised. Taking paypal from an unknown party is a huge risk.
So, instead of having the possible risk to the seller that a buyer could do a chargeback (which the seller can fight on PayPal with proof of delivery, though I'm not claiming how well this works), bitcoin shifts all that risk to the buyer (with no recourse at all). It's as risky as sending a money order through the mail. How does this make bitcoin better than PayPal for the overall transaction (for BOTH buyer and seller)?
It gives them flexibility. (Additionally, multisig transactions cancel all the risk as long as they can find a 3rd party trusted to make the decision)
The seller can still go first, if he's prepared to shoulder the risk. Then the buyer can send the money once they receive the item. This is the same as using paypal.
If neither party is willing to go first, they have to either use a trusted middleman (seller gives item to middleman, buyer sends money, seller confirms to middleman, middleman releases item), or multisig transactions (the same, except the middleman can't run away with the money/item)
The seller can still go first, if he's prepared to shoulder the risk. Then the buyer can send the money once they receive the item. This is the same as using paypal.
If neither party is willing to go first, they have to either use a trusted middleman (seller gives item to middleman, buyer sends money, seller confirms to middleman, middleman releases item), or multisig transactions (the same, except the middleman can't run away with the money/item)
Isn't trusting your credit card number to small business you consider unreliable just as bad or worse than the alternative?
You can build services atop bitcoin that allow for chargebacks.
This is yet another attempt to hand-wave off bitcoin without thinking.
This is yet another attempt to hand-wave off bitcoin without thinking.
Right, a middleman service that could operate much like Coinbase, PayPal, credit cards, etc. Which you don't have access to if you are DIRECTLY making bitcoin payments from customer to merchant. Which is what the comment I was responding to was advocating. Hence my reply that you would lose the ability to to do chargebacks in that specific scenario.
Sure, but it is a lot easier for companies to proliferate and compete in the space we are talking about, than in the credit card/PayPal type arena. It's a simpler business to run with less regulatory capture and old-boys-club effects.
Plus, bitcoin gives customers the OPTION to not be able to do charge-backs (99% of the time you know you don't need it); that saves money for the merchants, which can be passed on to consumers.
Plus, bitcoin gives customers the OPTION to not be able to do charge-backs (99% of the time you know you don't need it); that saves money for the merchants, which can be passed on to consumers.
> Which you don't have access to if you are DIRECTLY making bitcoin payments from customer to merchant.
Sounds like how I can't chargeback dollar bills I use for a money order.
I don't imagine it will ever get to the point where people perform financial transactions with bitcoin using raw addresses. They will probably always use third party services like coinbase, which has a fractional commission, for the security, both in having a remote wallet (ie, bank) and providing chargebacks.
Sounds like how I can't chargeback dollar bills I use for a money order.
I don't imagine it will ever get to the point where people perform financial transactions with bitcoin using raw addresses. They will probably always use third party services like coinbase, which has a fractional commission, for the security, both in having a remote wallet (ie, bank) and providing chargebacks.
Right. That's one reason I'd never make a purchase from a site that requires a money order.
But the converse is also true, which is why I'd never sell anything to someone who wants to pay by paypal.
you've only had this kind of recourse for the past 50 years. before that, for 5-10,000 years, money in all its forms worked just like bitcoin.
> you've only had this kind of recourse for the past 50 years. before that, for 5-10,000 years, money in all its forms worked just like bitcoin.
To the extent its true (and, actually, money in most of its other historical forms doesn't work much like bitcoin, but yes there wasn't a widely used convenient equivalent to modern payment dispute resolution systems before credit cards), like computers and modern dentistry and all kinds of other modern developments, its not one of those things I'd like to give up having to go back to the way things used to work.
To the extent its true (and, actually, money in most of its other historical forms doesn't work much like bitcoin, but yes there wasn't a widely used convenient equivalent to modern payment dispute resolution systems before credit cards), like computers and modern dentistry and all kinds of other modern developments, its not one of those things I'd like to give up having to go back to the way things used to work.
Can we safely assume you never use physical cash because it doesn't support "charge backs"?
Also, what do you say to the populations of the ~40 countries that credit cards don't work in because charge back requests are too common there? Do you tell them to simply never make online purchases?
Also, what do you say to the populations of the ~40 countries that credit cards don't work in because charge back requests are too common there? Do you tell them to simply never make online purchases?
You've only had the range of goods you can buy today in the past 50 years(or less), made possible in large part by that very sort of mechanism.
But it worked in person. Not over the internet to someone you will never meet in a state/country you will never visit.
And for how long have we had distance selling? In particular over the internet?
Whether it's good news or not depends on what your hopes for Bitcoin are.
If you'd like to have an open and decentralized protocol for direct cash transactions in online commerce, then this is indeed fantastic news.
But if what you want from Bitcoin is a standalone currency that's immune to political manipulation, it's not such great news: in this and other similar recent stories, Bitcoin is being used merely as a proxy for dollar transactions. If this type of transaction ended up becoming dominant, Bitcoin would effectively be pegged to the dollar, nullifying its advantages as a non-fiat currency.
For Bitcoin to work as a standalone currency, there has to be a real economy with prices denominated in Bitcoin, not just a dollar-denominated economy with an instant spot exchange built into transactions.
If you'd like to have an open and decentralized protocol for direct cash transactions in online commerce, then this is indeed fantastic news.
But if what you want from Bitcoin is a standalone currency that's immune to political manipulation, it's not such great news: in this and other similar recent stories, Bitcoin is being used merely as a proxy for dollar transactions. If this type of transaction ended up becoming dominant, Bitcoin would effectively be pegged to the dollar, nullifying its advantages as a non-fiat currency.
For Bitcoin to work as a standalone currency, there has to be a real economy with prices denominated in Bitcoin, not just a dollar-denominated economy with an instant spot exchange built into transactions.
> no bitcoins are ever given to Overstock.com, they just get USD
Ah, that makes sense. I was wondering how Overstock could take such a risk bitcoin's volatility.
Ah, that makes sense. I was wondering how Overstock could take such a risk bitcoin's volatility.
Not really they've just replaced it with risk that coinbase goes bankrupt.
Exactly. Which IS a non-negligible risk as the bottom could fall out of the value of bitcoin at any time.
GigabyteCoin - That scenario wouldn't bottom out the dollar any more than previous attacks did. Bitcoin could bottom out all on its own with no real reason.
As a math nerd, I have lots of faith in numbers. Believing bitcoin to have value isn't about faith in numbers vs faith in governments. They're both about faith in people and what THEY choose to have faith in. If it's just about the numbers and the math, why do you and others have more "faith" and attach more value to bitcoin vs litecoin, etc? Did the others get the math wrong? Or is it about more than numbers?
As a math nerd, I have lots of faith in numbers. Believing bitcoin to have value isn't about faith in numbers vs faith in governments. They're both about faith in people and what THEY choose to have faith in. If it's just about the numbers and the math, why do you and others have more "faith" and attach more value to bitcoin vs litecoin, etc? Did the others get the math wrong? Or is it about more than numbers?
Of course it's about more than just faith in numbers but I'm not pandering to your straw man arguments any longer.
Edit/offtopic: I just realized I was debating with the creator of a website that i ABSOLUTELY LOVE! Thank you for making portableapps.com - if it wasn't for that website, I wouldn't be doing what I do now. Long story, but thanks!
Edit/offtopic: I just realized I was debating with the creator of a website that i ABSOLUTELY LOVE! Thank you for making portableapps.com - if it wasn't for that website, I wouldn't be doing what I do now. Long story, but thanks!
You're welcome. And you'll note that PortableApps.com accepts Bitcoin and Litecoin for donations: http://portableapps.com/donate
A handful of users asked for it, so I implemented it. It's only netted us $4 and I don't really expect it to go anywhere. But I do fire up the Bitcoin and Litecoin beta clients every few days and see where they're at. They're pretty resource hungry while syncing a few days backlog, so I only bring up em when I'm heading away from the PC.
And, for what it's worth, these are not strawman arguments. These are legitimate concerns I have as a businessman and as a consumer. Scan through my comment threads. My issues can be summed up as:
1. Chargebacks. Chargebacks are a biggy, I've had to use them in the last 2 months, and are a big reason why bitcoin (raw, sans a 3rd party allowing you to get your money back) are bad idea for consumers with respect to small businesses. Bitcoin advocates keep claiming that it can be the salvation of small businesses, but, as a consumer, it's these small businesses that are the MOST likely to not fulfill on the product I paid for. Not having any recourse would make me less likely to purchase.
2. Volatility/Risk. Risk of volatility is a big one, and why Overstock.com isn't taking it on themselves (they've pushed that risk to Coinbase). I'd never agree to sell a physical good at a given bitcoin price as it could be 50% of the value within hours on any day. And, yes, it is a risk that Coinbase could go out of business suddenly. The regularity with which bitcoin players get hacked and go under as a percentage of the players in the space has been a bit frightening the last year. True, it is due to poor security on their own systems, but this is a new space and folks haven't had to worry about money being stolen directly from an internet-connected server before. I'd wager a couple players will get it sorted.
3. Perceived Value. I understand the math behind bitcoin, but the value appears to be based on pure speculation and a dash of wishful thinking. Lots of bitcoin players say they have faith in the numbers, but then why does bitcoin have more value than litecoin, dogecoin, or the 100 other cryptocurrencies that have popped up, since those are based on the same or similar numbers. So, it's obviously not just faith in the numbers, it's something else. For some, it seems to be a bit of libertarian gung ho we can do it. For others, it seems to be a bit of technology can solve everything. For others, it seems to be about not having faith in governments. But none of those are really something to base a system of currency around. It needs to be numbers plus something else for me, and it's just not there. At least right now.
A handful of users asked for it, so I implemented it. It's only netted us $4 and I don't really expect it to go anywhere. But I do fire up the Bitcoin and Litecoin beta clients every few days and see where they're at. They're pretty resource hungry while syncing a few days backlog, so I only bring up em when I'm heading away from the PC.
And, for what it's worth, these are not strawman arguments. These are legitimate concerns I have as a businessman and as a consumer. Scan through my comment threads. My issues can be summed up as:
1. Chargebacks. Chargebacks are a biggy, I've had to use them in the last 2 months, and are a big reason why bitcoin (raw, sans a 3rd party allowing you to get your money back) are bad idea for consumers with respect to small businesses. Bitcoin advocates keep claiming that it can be the salvation of small businesses, but, as a consumer, it's these small businesses that are the MOST likely to not fulfill on the product I paid for. Not having any recourse would make me less likely to purchase.
2. Volatility/Risk. Risk of volatility is a big one, and why Overstock.com isn't taking it on themselves (they've pushed that risk to Coinbase). I'd never agree to sell a physical good at a given bitcoin price as it could be 50% of the value within hours on any day. And, yes, it is a risk that Coinbase could go out of business suddenly. The regularity with which bitcoin players get hacked and go under as a percentage of the players in the space has been a bit frightening the last year. True, it is due to poor security on their own systems, but this is a new space and folks haven't had to worry about money being stolen directly from an internet-connected server before. I'd wager a couple players will get it sorted.
3. Perceived Value. I understand the math behind bitcoin, but the value appears to be based on pure speculation and a dash of wishful thinking. Lots of bitcoin players say they have faith in the numbers, but then why does bitcoin have more value than litecoin, dogecoin, or the 100 other cryptocurrencies that have popped up, since those are based on the same or similar numbers. So, it's obviously not just faith in the numbers, it's something else. For some, it seems to be a bit of libertarian gung ho we can do it. For others, it seems to be a bit of technology can solve everything. For others, it seems to be about not having faith in governments. But none of those are really something to base a system of currency around. It needs to be numbers plus something else for me, and it's just not there. At least right now.
Use Electrum as your Bitcoin client. Doesn't need to sync entire blockchains, it's super-fast and also can generate a wallet based on a passphrase so you can recover a wallet if your hard drive crashes.
http://electrum.org
http://electrum.org
Ah, nice. Open source and lighter weight. This could be a good candidate for the PortableApps.com app store as you wouldn't need the 15.4GB and climbing full bitcoin blockchain on your portable device.
Contrarily, the bottom could fall out of the U.S. dollar at any given time. A dirty-bomb could detonate above The Whitehouse tomorrow.
We all have to place our faith somewhere. Some of us choose to place faith in numbers, some of us choose to place faith in governement. I prefer numbers.
We all have to place our faith somewhere. Some of us choose to place faith in numbers, some of us choose to place faith in governement. I prefer numbers.
I'm not sure that would cause the bottom to fall out of the dollar. c.f. http://www.economist.com/node/21551492
If people had to carry around a wheelbarrow full of U.S. dollars to pay for something, I would consider that to be "the bottom falling out".
I realize I am throwing myself in the fire by offering up the whitehouse/nuke scenario. However, nobody has proposed a reason as to why the value could fall out from under Bitcoin completely tomorrow which I assume would be an equally unplausible scenario as a nuke hitting the whitehouse.
I realize I am throwing myself in the fire by offering up the whitehouse/nuke scenario. However, nobody has proposed a reason as to why the value could fall out from under Bitcoin completely tomorrow which I assume would be an equally unplausible scenario as a nuke hitting the whitehouse.
I bought into BTC when it was $30. It fell to $1 very shortly thereafter. It can happen.
I'm still long on BTC, but please have no illusions. Don't put anything in that you can't afford to lose.
I'm still long on BTC, but please have no illusions. Don't put anything in that you can't afford to lose.
I think you misinterpreted the image. It's currency traders with a pile of currency on a table.
Somali currency is not worth much, but it was never worth much. What is interesting is that the government basically going away did not lead to worthless currency.
The bottom would fall out of bitcoin if X% of the users decided they didn't want to use bitcoin anymore. If that's the same X% as the dollar, that's far fewer people, and thus correspondingly more likely.
Somali currency is not worth much, but it was never worth much. What is interesting is that the government basically going away did not lead to worthless currency.
The bottom would fall out of bitcoin if X% of the users decided they didn't want to use bitcoin anymore. If that's the same X% as the dollar, that's far fewer people, and thus correspondingly more likely.
Is there a tax guide that would explain the consequences of me using some of the bitcoin I bought in 2013 to buy an item on overstock this month?
As I understand it I would have to record the value I paid for the bitcoin in 2013, calculate the value it appreciated between when I bought it and the amount I am using to buy the item. And then report this as capital gains on my 2014 tax return?
This sucks, this makes using bitcoin a lot more work than just paying with a credit card. Plus, it might mean having to hire an accountant instead of just using turbo tax?
As I understand it I would have to record the value I paid for the bitcoin in 2013, calculate the value it appreciated between when I bought it and the amount I am using to buy the item. And then report this as capital gains on my 2014 tax return?
This sucks, this makes using bitcoin a lot more work than just paying with a credit card. Plus, it might mean having to hire an accountant instead of just using turbo tax?
The best and most complete thread on this topic is over @ Reddit written by a tax attorney:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1uccfz/i_am_a_tax_a...
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1uccfz/i_am_a_tax_a...
Here's another document on the topic: http://www.bitcointax.info/
So basically: Yes, you must calculate your capital gain when you buy something with Bitcoin.
If you are a US citizen or live in the US, where you pay taxes for breathing.
Right, because the US is the only country with a capital gains tax.
If you're trying to imply that the US isn't completely crazy town about tax, you seem to have missed the enforced citizen tax returns for salaried employees and the fact that citizenship makes you liable for US tax regardless of residence and income origin.
> the fact that citizenship makes you liable for US tax regardless of residence and income origin
Without which, evasion becomes trivial for the wealthy.
You can offset taxes paid in foreign jurisdictions through a deduction or credit. You just can't set up a mailing address in a no tax jurisdiction to launder your earnings.
Without which, evasion becomes trivial for the wealthy.
You can offset taxes paid in foreign jurisdictions through a deduction or credit. You just can't set up a mailing address in a no tax jurisdiction to launder your earnings.
No, I'm merely stating that the US is not even remotely special in requiring you to pay taxes on your Bitcoin appreciation.
I'm just saying the answer is not "basically yes" as the comment I replied to said. Unless you are a US citizen (even if you don't live in the US), where yes, the answer is always "yes, you have to pay".
I offer no actual reply, only a thought experiment, keeping in mind that the USD is another floating currency that fluctuates in value:
...
" Is there a tax guide that would explain the consequences of me using some of the US Dollars I traded for in 2013 to buy an item on overstock this month?
As I understand it I would have to record the value I paid for the US Dollars in 2013, calculate the value it appreciated between when I bought it and the amount I am using to buy the item. And then report this as capital gains on my 2014 tax return?
This sucks, this makes using US Dollars a lot more work than just paying with a credit card. Plus, it might mean having to hire an accountant instead of just using turbo tax? "
...
" Is there a tax guide that would explain the consequences of me using some of the US Dollars I traded for in 2013 to buy an item on overstock this month?
As I understand it I would have to record the value I paid for the US Dollars in 2013, calculate the value it appreciated between when I bought it and the amount I am using to buy the item. And then report this as capital gains on my 2014 tax return?
This sucks, this makes using US Dollars a lot more work than just paying with a credit card. Plus, it might mean having to hire an accountant instead of just using turbo tax? "
Except there are many statutes that give the dollar special tax treatment.
This. People keep thinking that bitcoin is a currency. It's not. It's best thought of as a commodity, in the same way that all foreign currencies are essentially commodities, and using them to pay for things is bartering and capital gains laws apply.
Sort of. The US tax code provides some special provisions[1] that are meant to make life easier for people making smaller transactions in foreign currency. IANAL, but if I had to hazard a wild guess, for the purposes of the statute in question "foreign currency" is defined as the official currency of a sovereign nation that is not the USA. With BTC not being controlled by any country that would imply that for the purposes of tax law it is just another commodity - but something like the Euro is not.
[1]: See section (e) at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/988
[1]: See section (e) at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/988
Would this change if a small, minimally developed sovereign nation adopted Bitcoin as its official currency, as opposed to the US Dollar or the Euro or a local currency that is not capable of earning much seigniorage per year?
Just like how Sealand's hosting of the Pirate Bay made copyright infringement globally palatable? No, probably not.
But thanks for reminding me of the word seigniorage, I'd been looking for it actually.
But thanks for reminding me of the word seigniorage, I'd been looking for it actually.
[deleted]
What others have replied to you. Also, if you are trading USD, then another currency must be involved. For example, if you live in the US and trade USD for the Euro and back, then any time you get more USD back you do pay capital gains tax. Except, you pay the IRS and Overstock.com in USD, so the purchase there does not automatically trigger a trade of international currency.
Another possibility is that you live in let's say France and you are trading Euro to USD and back. Now you don't owe any taxes to the US, but you do owe French taxes (whatever the laws are there for capital gains).
In either case you owe someone taxes.
Another possibility is that you live in let's say France and you are trading Euro to USD and back. Now you don't owe any taxes to the US, but you do owe French taxes (whatever the laws are there for capital gains).
In either case you owe someone taxes.
Big advantage of the dollar is you can use it to keep the IRS from throwing you in jail.
You seriously think the IRS is going to go after you for an order on Overstock?
Perhaps if you are a political enemy of $political_party_in_power.
Good point.
I'm a political enemy of anybody who habitually doesn't pay their taxes, and thus by extension, raises mine.
Are you, by extension, raising the taxes for everybody else by ideologically supporting the current system?
Do you feel responsible for all negative consequences caused by your tax dollars?
Do you feel responsible for all negative consequences caused by your tax dollars?
> Do you feel responsible for all negative consequences caused by your tax dollars?
I've got other political enemies as well. If by "negative consequences of my tax dollars", you mean "things our governments spend money on that I disagree with"...no, I don't feel wholly responsible for them, since I fight the proponents of those things, too.
I've got other political enemies as well. If by "negative consequences of my tax dollars", you mean "things our governments spend money on that I disagree with"...no, I don't feel wholly responsible for them, since I fight the proponents of those things, too.
So are those who avoid paying taxes but fight for lower taxes also your political enemies?
You must boycott a lot of corporations.
I don't see how being a political enemy implies that an individual would boycott a corporation. If my "enemy" is offering me a deal that is beneficial to me, then I make that deal.
I don't buy things from the vast majority of corporations in existence.
There's a difference between using legal tax structures to reduce (or eliminate) your bill, and simply not paying your taxes.
The end result is the other guy has to pay your fair share of the taxes.
So how do you define "fair share" if it is not defined by following the tax laws as written?
Fairness is defined by law? Interesting idea. By "fair share" I mean, unsurprisingly, a share that is fair. Corporations are subject to taxation. A corporation that makes healthy profits, in part driven by publicly funded infrastructure, should be required to give back to maintain said infrastructure.
Typically corps accused of avoiding tax earn no profits after their myriad coats are applied, that's how they avoid taxes. While governments could probably do more to charge corps tax, this is a complex grey area and there is no simple way to define fair or collect taxes as accounting rules are so complex. If you tax revenue you penalise new companies, if you tax profit it is easy for corps to find costs or transfer funds to shield profits.
They play lots of shell games to hide the profits, yes, and it is complex. I'm more talking more about the big picture than specifics because, as you point out, this is an involved topic which involves a great deal of money. A lot of effort has gone into creating arguments to justify the idea that workers should have to pay all costs of public infrastructure.
I would say "intent" of law, rather than what actually happens. e.g., the reason we call tax loopholes, "loopholes", is because the consensus is that they're being used to defeat the intent of law.
Megacorp with a shell company of zero employees in Ireland using the double irish[1] I think means the company isn't paying their "fair share".
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement
Do you pay sales tax on all of your internet purchases?
In New York, we can opt pay a flat yearly "Use tax" for an unlimited number items purchased over the Internet from outside of NYS that cost less than $1,000 each. For me, it's about $100, and yes I pay it.
Items purchased online in NYS are subject to sales tax at the time of the transaction, and the burden is on the vendor to collect it.
Items purchased online in NYS are subject to sales tax at the time of the transaction, and the burden is on the vendor to collect it.
Thank you.
The IRS thinking might be: (a) People who order on Overstock using Bitcoin are likely to be dodging a small amount of tax. (b) People who dodge a small amount of tax in one transaction are more likely to be dodging a large amount of tax on another transaction.
Therefore, an Overstock order in Bitcoins could be a 'red flag' that causes the IRS to look into your other tax arrangements.
Therefore, an Overstock order in Bitcoins could be a 'red flag' that causes the IRS to look into your other tax arrangements.
Good point. This seems to be the killer argument against Bitcoin.
Why would someone choose to significantly complicate their tax return (or break the law by not declaring the capital gain) when they could simply pay in dollars?
Why would someone choose to significantly complicate their tax return (or break the law by not declaring the capital gain) when they could simply pay in dollars?
[deleted]
I wonder if at some point Coinbase will have to start filing 1099s (or forex equivalent) any time someone pays for an item with Bitcoin.
Treating Bitcoin as an asset that has a basis and carries capital gains is a good way to make buying things with Bitcoin unpalatable. It would be like having to send your credit card statements to the IRS. (As if they don't already have those)
Credit card processors must report proceeds paid to merchant accounts, but with Bitcoin I could see someone like Coinbase eventually having to report both sides.
Treating Bitcoin as an asset that has a basis and carries capital gains is a good way to make buying things with Bitcoin unpalatable. It would be like having to send your credit card statements to the IRS. (As if they don't already have those)
Credit card processors must report proceeds paid to merchant accounts, but with Bitcoin I could see someone like Coinbase eventually having to report both sides.
Hopefully bitcoin is another straw on the camel's back moving the US towards consumption based taxation.
> moving the US towards consumption based taxation
Why would we want such an unfair regressive tax that hurts the poor and middle class?
Why would we want such an unfair regressive tax that hurts the poor and middle class?
A consumption tax doesn't need to be regressive. There are already exemptions in state sales taxes for some "necessities" (i.e. food, internet, electricity). If the basket of exemptions is large enough, then the poor would pay basically no sales tax.
That doesn't make it not regressive, it simply makes it easier on the bottom few. A consumption tax by its very nature is regressive, you pay taxes only on what you spend and rich people by definition spend far less than they earn while non rich people spend far more of their earnings. A consumption tax is a huge massive tax cut for the people who need it least, the rich, no thanks.
" rich people by definition spend far less than they earn"
This is not necessarily true, and it's certainly not "by definition".
This is not necessarily true, and it's certainly not "by definition".
It's absolutely true, you aren't rich if you spend more than you make, unless of course you're getting pedantic about "earn" but I include wealth and holdings in earnings as well. I didn't mean "earn" in the wage sense, just in the amount of money you make/inherit/whatever regardless of how.
You can be rich if you spend as much as you make.
The idea that you have no money in the bank doesn't mean you're not wealthy. Maybe you spend it all on antique Ferraris.
The idea that you have no money in the bank doesn't mean you're not wealthy. Maybe you spend it all on antique Ferraris.
That's not spending, that's investing, you still have the wealth; you can resell those antique Ferraris. Money is not wealth, it's a medium of exchange, assets are wealth and converting money into assets isn't spending, it's wise money management.
If poor people are paying no sales tax and rich people are paying some sales tax, then the tax can be classified as regressive. The more money you make, the more you spend on non-necessities, the higher your tax rate will be.
> The more money you make, the more you spend on non-necessities, the higher your tax rate will be.
Wrong measure; the correct question is on what percentage of your income will you pay taxes and by definition being rich means you're spending far less than you make so your taxes go down, massively. That they go up a tiny little bit when you spend some money on non-necessities is meaningless compared to tax free money you're now allowed to save which being rich means most of your money.
Wrong measure; the correct question is on what percentage of your income will you pay taxes and by definition being rich means you're spending far less than you make so your taxes go down, massively. That they go up a tiny little bit when you spend some money on non-necessities is meaningless compared to tax free money you're now allowed to save which being rich means most of your money.
1) If you consume the same amount of resources/services I do, and you happen to make more money than me, how come is it "fair" for you to pay more taxes?
2) What is the point of being rich and not use that wealth? Percentage-wise, a consumption-based tax could take more from the "poor and middle class". In absolute terms, not so much.
3) Incentives to saving - economically debatable for a government, but I'd guess that debt hurts "poor and middle class" more than any tax.
4) Good for the environment. Imagine if China actually had to start paying for things like carbon credits.
2) What is the point of being rich and not use that wealth? Percentage-wise, a consumption-based tax could take more from the "poor and middle class". In absolute terms, not so much.
3) Incentives to saving - economically debatable for a government, but I'd guess that debt hurts "poor and middle class" more than any tax.
4) Good for the environment. Imagine if China actually had to start paying for things like carbon credits.
> If you consume the same amount of resources/services I do, and you happen to make more money than me, how come is it "fair" for you to pay more taxes?
Because of the marginal utility of money and the burden of taxation. A 10% tax hurts someone living on the margin far more than someone living with excess and thus the burden is not shared fairly. Taxation of income is more fair than taxation of consumption because the burden is shared more equally. Not the "amount", the "burden".
> Percentage-wise, a consumption-based tax could take more from the "poor and middle class".
Which is what matters.
> In absolute terms, not so much.
Irrelevant, see above.
> Incentives to saving - economically debatable for a government
Not their job.
> Good for the environment. Imagine if China actually had to start paying for things like carbon credits.
Not on topic, this doesn't require consumption taxes.
Because of the marginal utility of money and the burden of taxation. A 10% tax hurts someone living on the margin far more than someone living with excess and thus the burden is not shared fairly. Taxation of income is more fair than taxation of consumption because the burden is shared more equally. Not the "amount", the "burden".
> Percentage-wise, a consumption-based tax could take more from the "poor and middle class".
Which is what matters.
> In absolute terms, not so much.
Irrelevant, see above.
> Incentives to saving - economically debatable for a government
Not their job.
> Good for the environment. Imagine if China actually had to start paying for things like carbon credits.
Not on topic, this doesn't require consumption taxes.
The problem with changing "amount" for "burden" like you do is that we stop talking about something objective and start thinking in subjective terms. And I really don't want governments to be subjective, especially when there is a better measure available and can be used.
I think you will find that it will be in addition to income and all the other taxes.
It's not an addition. Capital gains taxes already exist. But the more complicated calculating your taxes gets, the more incentive there is for tax reform.
[deleted]
I just bought a watch using their bitcoin checkout. Since I was already logged in to Coinbase it a single screen to approve the payment. Then back to a page saying my order was complete. Couldn't be easier.
This is a win for bitcoin but its a huge win for Coinbase. Their payment flow works well and I am sure Overstock accepting it will make it an easier sell for other merchants.
This is a win for bitcoin but its a huge win for Coinbase. Their payment flow works well and I am sure Overstock accepting it will make it an easier sell for other merchants.
Here's a potential scenario as some food for thought:
Apparently, the process was so simple for you because both you (the buyer) and Overstock (the seller) operate via Coinbase. Clearly, the process would have been less smooth if you had had to use your own wallet.
Now suppose that for this reason, Coinbase (as a placeholder for any service like it) manages to establish itself as the go-to payment provider via BTC.
Then, one day, they decide that since they always have to convert back to USD for the merchant, maybe it would be interesting to allow their customers to just keep a USD balance with them. It reduces their exchange rate risk, and they could pass some of the savings on to you, making this a tempting offer.
Suddenly, BTC is not in the loop any more, though in the end all parties would still be better off (lower fees than in the current credit card system).
Such scenarios are why I'm doubtful that BTC will "take over the world" in the sense that many proponents think. I doubt it will become a predominant means of payment in any industrial nation, and there won't be a Bitcoin-standard (analogous to a gold standard) either.
Let me explicitly clarify: That does not mean that I believe BTC's value will necessarily drop to zero within the next 100 years. It might, but it might not.
Apparently, the process was so simple for you because both you (the buyer) and Overstock (the seller) operate via Coinbase. Clearly, the process would have been less smooth if you had had to use your own wallet.
Now suppose that for this reason, Coinbase (as a placeholder for any service like it) manages to establish itself as the go-to payment provider via BTC.
Then, one day, they decide that since they always have to convert back to USD for the merchant, maybe it would be interesting to allow their customers to just keep a USD balance with them. It reduces their exchange rate risk, and they could pass some of the savings on to you, making this a tempting offer.
Suddenly, BTC is not in the loop any more, though in the end all parties would still be better off (lower fees than in the current credit card system).
Such scenarios are why I'm doubtful that BTC will "take over the world" in the sense that many proponents think. I doubt it will become a predominant means of payment in any industrial nation, and there won't be a Bitcoin-standard (analogous to a gold standard) either.
Let me explicitly clarify: That does not mean that I believe BTC's value will necessarily drop to zero within the next 100 years. It might, but it might not.
That's why I always have to laugh when I hear about such-and-such a company "now accepting bitcoin!". They don't get bitcoin, they get USD, so they don't care. Want to buy something from Overstock? Take your USD, buy some bitcoin, put it into your Coinbase account, Coinbase sends USD to Overstock. It's like buying an Amazon giftcard for yourself--just an extraneous step between your original USD and the USD that go to the merchant's account.
Astute observers will note that this is very similar to the credit card situation: Overstock does not accept USD, they accept Visa. (and MasterCard. etc.)
If I go to Europe and buy something with my Visa debit card, my account is denominated in USD, but they do some forex and the merchant gets Euro.
If I go to Overstock and buy something with my Coinbase wallte, my account is denominated in BTC, but they do some trading and the merchant gets USD.
If I go to Europe and buy something with my Visa debit card, my account is denominated in USD, but they do some forex and the merchant gets Euro.
If I go to Overstock and buy something with my Coinbase wallte, my account is denominated in BTC, but they do some trading and the merchant gets USD.
Overstock might as well say "We now accept Coinbase!"
Except you can use any bitcoin wallet so they accept bitcoin not coinbase. As absurd as it sounds when snapCard (a site that orders from other sites for you) first started they would only work with Coinbase. Enough customers complained that they had to offer a second option to accept bitcoin payments from anywhere.
Not necessarily. You can chose to receive Bitcoin directly although most companies opt to convert to USD instantly given Bitcoin's high volatility. If the volatility goes down, more companies will decide to keep their balance in Bitcoin.
As a fully decentralized service, bitcoin won't take off until people put central layers on top of it.
Sure, anybody can run a web server and host their own site, but in reality millions of teenagers just use tumblr instead. Same with email.
The commoners will never be "decentralized." You'll always have Powerful Central Thing in the middle.
Sure, anybody can run a web server and host their own site, but in reality millions of teenagers just use tumblr instead. Same with email.
The commoners will never be "decentralized." You'll always have Powerful Central Thing in the middle.
Not so!
Please justify your exclamation, as so far it is utterly devoid of content.
It ain't true.
It's just as simple to use a variety of other services to pay.
With any BTC payment service (including Coinbase), you also get the option to pay by QR code (if using a mobile wallet is easiest) or copy/pasting an address (if you're using a desktop/web client) which is at least as easy as redirecting to Coinbase, signing in (if you aren't already), and then redirecting back to the merchant's site.
With any BTC payment service (including Coinbase), you also get the option to pay by QR code (if using a mobile wallet is easiest) or copy/pasting an address (if you're using a desktop/web client) which is at least as easy as redirecting to Coinbase, signing in (if you aren't already), and then redirecting back to the merchant's site.
The difference is that USD is inflationary while bitcoin is deflationary. If you have $10k in spending money sitting around would you rather it be appreciating by 2% every year or depreciating by 2% every year? Right now bitcoin is too volatile for this use case, but eventually adoption might settle the price down to the point where this makes sense.
That's only possible if the economy stops growing, the population stops growing, no new people use bitcoin, and no one loses any bitcoins, otherwise bitcoin will always be deflationary.
Deflation is better for holders of a currency. Price deflation means that the value of your currency is rising as compared with goods you want to buy.
The world is naturally deflationary. The price of things falls over time with increases in production efficiency, economies of scale and return on investment from capital stock.
It's only with persistent antics of rulers and governments that the current case of persistent inflation is the lived experience of most people. Going back through history, many generations on earth lived in a time when 'things weren't cheaper back then', but then all the other generations have suffered through a time when rulers/governments have granted themselves a monopoly on the monetary system, usually for the purposes of waging war or building grand monuments to themselves.
What is different about bitcoin is that it is essentially un-monopolisable like gold, but much more suited to high frequency, remote transactions. I don't have a dog in the fight but I set fascinated on the sidelines.
The world is naturally deflationary. The price of things falls over time with increases in production efficiency, economies of scale and return on investment from capital stock.
It's only with persistent antics of rulers and governments that the current case of persistent inflation is the lived experience of most people. Going back through history, many generations on earth lived in a time when 'things weren't cheaper back then', but then all the other generations have suffered through a time when rulers/governments have granted themselves a monopoly on the monetary system, usually for the purposes of waging war or building grand monuments to themselves.
What is different about bitcoin is that it is essentially un-monopolisable like gold, but much more suited to high frequency, remote transactions. I don't have a dog in the fight but I set fascinated on the sidelines.
> Deflation is better for holders of a currency.
No it isn't, you're forgetting that with deflation comes less wages as well. Deflation is the whole economy, not just a few sectors.
> Price deflation means that the value of your currency is rising as compared with goods you want to buy.
Which is meaningless when you're getting paid less as well.
> It's only with persistent antics of rulers and governments
Alright, tinfoil hat guy, we're done. I need no lessons in Bitcoin from you, I hold them and actively trade them, you don't know anything about them I don't already know.
No it isn't, you're forgetting that with deflation comes less wages as well. Deflation is the whole economy, not just a few sectors.
> Price deflation means that the value of your currency is rising as compared with goods you want to buy.
Which is meaningless when you're getting paid less as well.
> It's only with persistent antics of rulers and governments
Alright, tinfoil hat guy, we're done. I need no lessons in Bitcoin from you, I hold them and actively trade them, you don't know anything about them I don't already know.
>> It's only with persistent antics of rulers and governments
>Alright, tinfoil hat guy, we're done. I need no lessons in Bitcoin from you, I hold them and actively trade them, you don't know anything about them I don't already know.
A strange comment. I read a lot on the history of monetary systems and currencies, and I'm yet to come across an instance where widespread inflation (and a severe decline in economic activity and living standards) wasn't caused by a ruler or a government deciding to debase a currency to either fight a war or an attempt to fix mistakes they had already made with public spending. That was true 2,000 years ago, it's been true in most centuries since, and it's certainly true now. It would take a particularly odd view of history to conclude that rulers and governments manipulate currencies to help out their citizens, rather than to appropriate from them.
Note that I am interested in Bitcoin precisely because of this history, because it represents something genuinely new.
A strange comment. I read a lot on the history of monetary systems and currencies, and I'm yet to come across an instance where widespread inflation (and a severe decline in economic activity and living standards) wasn't caused by a ruler or a government deciding to debase a currency to either fight a war or an attempt to fix mistakes they had already made with public spending. That was true 2,000 years ago, it's been true in most centuries since, and it's certainly true now. It would take a particularly odd view of history to conclude that rulers and governments manipulate currencies to help out their citizens, rather than to appropriate from them.
Note that I am interested in Bitcoin precisely because of this history, because it represents something genuinely new.
Inflation isn't the devil, severe inflation is; predictable mild inflation is stimulative to an economy. The devil you should be paying more attention to is deflation, even mild deflation makes the economy sluggish. People might like cheaper things, but they don't like lower wages and retailers certainly don't like lowering prices continually.
Your comment leads me to believe you confuse money with wealth. If inflation is stealing your savings, you're saving wrong. Cash is not for saving, it's for spending. Save assets, not cash.
Your comment leads me to believe you confuse money with wealth. If inflation is stealing your savings, you're saving wrong. Cash is not for saving, it's for spending. Save assets, not cash.
Umm, what?
Wages denominated in USD become less with inflation.
Wages denominated in BTC become MORE with deflation.
Why would you get paid less? Deflation means the wage you get paid is worth more. Inflation means the wage you get paid is worth less.
Why would you get paid less? Deflation means the wage you get paid is worth more. Inflation means the wage you get paid is worth less.
Well first off, no one has wages denominated in BTC, it's far too unstable to do that yet. People are being paid their USD equivalent in BTC, but their salaries in still denominated in USD.
> Why would you get paid less?
Because you are not an island, when an economy suffers from deflation the prices of goods and services have to be dropped and salaries get dropped as well because that's how business works. Your employer isn't going to sell his stuff for less but keep paying you more.
> Deflation means the wage you get paid is worth more. Inflation means the wage you get paid is worth less.
Yes, I know what the words mean. But the effects of inflation and deflation are far more complicated than just the meaning of the words.
> Why would you get paid less?
Because you are not an island, when an economy suffers from deflation the prices of goods and services have to be dropped and salaries get dropped as well because that's how business works. Your employer isn't going to sell his stuff for less but keep paying you more.
> Deflation means the wage you get paid is worth more. Inflation means the wage you get paid is worth less.
Yes, I know what the words mean. But the effects of inflation and deflation are far more complicated than just the meaning of the words.
Read my post again. I expect perpetual deflation with bitcoin. That's why I say that it will appreciate at 2% a year.
I purchased off of cheapair.com using bitcoin yesterday and they use CoinBase as well for the merchant account. Extremely beautiful and seamless way to purchase, although I was a bit worried that it was actually just 1 button click to pay. I wasn't aware it was coinbase at first (I didn't read anything so partially my fault), but clicking the button made the payment and there was no verification. I would expect this to be a 2 step process. (I may have remembered this wrong, but I thought it was only 1 click to purchase)
Does Overstock.com have to wait at all for the transaction to be verified by the hashing network? Or do they consider it immediately verified?
There's no actual bitcoin transaction going on that needs to be verified. When he purchased his watch, Coinbase decremented his balance in its database, and incremented Overstock's balance in the same database. No currency (crypto- or fiat) is involved until someone wants to make a deposit or a withdrawal.
Dunno about overstock but when i'm buying humble indie bundles with bitcoin, they use coinbase too and i have no coinbase account. I just scan the QR code using my android bitcoin wallet (called mycelium) and tap 'send'. No confirmations needed, beause it's small ammounts. Maybe overstock will need some confirmations for larger purchases.
So yes, there is actual bitcoin transaction going on if you don't have coinbase account.
So yes, there is actual bitcoin transaction going on if you don't have coinbase account.
For this customer specifically, yes. However, anyone that doesn't use a Coinbase account will be sending actual Bitcoin.
No one will be sending Bitcoins to Overstock.com. All of the Bitcoin payments will be processed through Coinbase.
That's the half of the transaction the grandparent comment didn't talk about. He was talking about the fact the customer in question paid using his Coinbase account so no crypto currency was technically moved as a result of that transaction.
...Not that I think it's a bad thing if a bunch of Bitcoin transactions (especially microtransactions) go off the blockchain, I just wanted to point out that off-blockchain transactions weren't inherent to accepting Bitcoin through Coinbase.
...Not that I think it's a bad thing if a bunch of Bitcoin transactions (especially microtransactions) go off the blockchain, I just wanted to point out that off-blockchain transactions weren't inherent to accepting Bitcoin through Coinbase.
So... sort of like a bank?
Coinbase is the PayPal of Bitcoin.
For Aaron: Aside from the 53 money transmission agent licenses both are required to hold, but only PayPal actually has.
For Aaron: Aside from the 53 money transmission agent licenses both are required to hold, but only PayPal actually has.
Considering they aren't charging a 20% transaction fee, I like them better already.
Yes, just like a bank. Is that a bad thing?
Having a Bitcoin bank as a middleman is probably the best model for the majority of payments. But Bitcoin's appeal lies in its flexibility. Bitcoin is just a protocol: payments can go through a bank, but they don't have to.
Having a Bitcoin bank as a middleman is probably the best model for the majority of payments. But Bitcoin's appeal lies in its flexibility. Bitcoin is just a protocol: payments can go through a bank, but they don't have to.
An open source currency if you will.
I think you're reading too much into my comment.
One of the primary advantages of Bitcoin is its decentralization. I realize that Bitcoin != Coinbase and that Bitcoin provides a foundation for many potential services, but if everybody starts using Coinbase/<insert third-party name here> to handle their transactions, what's the difference? Where is the decentralization?
One of the primary advantages of Bitcoin is its decentralization. I realize that Bitcoin != Coinbase and that Bitcoin provides a foundation for many potential services, but if everybody starts using Coinbase/<insert third-party name here> to handle their transactions, what's the difference? Where is the decentralization?
Just because overstock is using coinbase doesn't make it any less decentralized. Either party on both ends of the transaction can be using coinbase, or they can use another service, or they can just send things manually via the commandline (bitcoind, et al). If they were using something like dwolla, then as a consumer, I too would have to use dwolla ... but bitcoin is open.
I would think that most merchants who asynchronously fulfill will assume the transaction was successful, then have a callback to validate before shipment and handle failure scenarios.
Completely agree. Was just curious if it showed up in the UX at all.
For a transaction that either isn't shipped immediately (any retailer of physical goods) or that you can rescind (digital item with DRM), it's perfectly safe to accept a transaction that has been propagated to the network but that hasn't been 'confirmed' yet.
However, you wouldn't want to, for example, run a gambling site that accepts and pays out bets immediately after they show up as 'unconfirmed' because you wouldn't have recourse if they managed to double spend.
However, you wouldn't want to, for example, run a gambling site that accepts and pays out bets immediately after they show up as 'unconfirmed' because you wouldn't have recourse if they managed to double spend.
I used the Bitcoin client on my phone, after the transaction went through I clicked "Confirm transaction" and it has already accepted it. I'm guessing with smaller transactions they just assume it went through, otherwise they don't ship it within the hour you get the order, so they have some protection against doublespends.
I'm guessing that Coinbase monitors the Bitcoin network to detect double spends. A malicious double spender has to broadcast the second transaction very soon after the first. If you're processing Bitcoin transactions, you can just look for a second one. I think the chances of a second transaction succeeding if it's issued 30 seconds or more after the first are pretty low.
You can't spend Bitcoin without the public knowing, and that goes for double spending as well.
You can't spend Bitcoin without the public knowing, and that goes for double spending as well.
The importance of this news cannot be overstated. Overstock.com is the first "main stream" company (my mom shops there) that accepts bitcoin that I can think of.
Wow. Good job, overstock.com team for getting this done so quickly!
Wow. Good job, overstock.com team for getting this done so quickly!
I guess I just don't see it. To my cynical eye, it seems mostly like an easy way for Overstock to generate a bunch of positive press and perhaps make a few extra sales from bitcoin boosters.
Sure, it's a nice milestone for bitcoin, but the importance seems, well, kinda overstated. I mean, a decade ago a bunch of big ecommerce sites took Flooz too, right?
But hey, I thought the iPod was too expensive and Twitter was useless when they launched, so what do I know.
Sure, it's a nice milestone for bitcoin, but the importance seems, well, kinda overstated. I mean, a decade ago a bunch of big ecommerce sites took Flooz too, right?
But hey, I thought the iPod was too expensive and Twitter was useless when they launched, so what do I know.
I was listening to a podcast where the hosts claim that the CEO is a libertarian and loves the idea of BTC as opposed to Federal Reserve Notes. But in addition, it does give them press coverage as well.
This is mentioned in the article:
> Like so many others, he believes bitcoin can free the world from the control of big banks and big government. “It helps us fight the machine,” he says.
I cringed reading this, mostly because normal people don't feel quite comfortable with sentiment like "fighting the machine."
> Like so many others, he believes bitcoin can free the world from the control of big banks and big government. “It helps us fight the machine,” he says.
I cringed reading this, mostly because normal people don't feel quite comfortable with sentiment like "fighting the machine."
You might be surprised at what normal people actually think.
Get outside and talk to some folks. Very few are friends of "the machine."
Get outside and talk to some folks. Very few are friends of "the machine."
Early movers are often ideologically inspired - Stallman is a radical hippie, Jimmy Wales an objectivist. The crazies make the big bets.
He's a libertarian for certain strange senses of libertarian. For example he thinks naked short-selling should be banned, which seems more like a pro-regulatory position (not just a randomly chosen position... the campaign against naked short-selling has been his #1 political passion for years). Mostly I think he just dislikes the finance industry.
Naked short selling should be banned. It's not just a regulatory issue.
When you short a stock, you have to borrow the stock first, and then sell it. Obviously at some point you will buy back the stock, hopefully at a lower price so you make a profit, and then return the stock to the original owner.
When you naked short sell, you don't borrow the stock first, you just claim you do. Everybody trades pieces of paper without settling the trade. This might seem convenient but someone can abuse this.
For example, sell a billion shares in a stock which you don't own / have not borrowed, at a fire-sale price, thereby causing the share price of a company to crash because people start panicking once they see huge volumes being traded at a low price.
When you short a stock, you have to borrow the stock first, and then sell it. Obviously at some point you will buy back the stock, hopefully at a lower price so you make a profit, and then return the stock to the original owner.
When you naked short sell, you don't borrow the stock first, you just claim you do. Everybody trades pieces of paper without settling the trade. This might seem convenient but someone can abuse this.
For example, sell a billion shares in a stock which you don't own / have not borrowed, at a fire-sale price, thereby causing the share price of a company to crash because people start panicking once they see huge volumes being traded at a low price.
If one is a libertarian, wouldn't the assumption be that the market will handle this scenario? When someone takes the other end of your short, it's up to them to do appropriate due diligence on the counterparty risk. Maybe they want to demand you own the underlying security; maybe they don't want to demand it. As long as it's free individuals entering into contracts, I don't see the case for banning them from a libertarian perspective specifically.
Somebody would own the stock market, and they could choose not to allow this.
To naked short sell, someone has to be willing to buy from you a stock you neither own nor have borrowed. I think if they want to do that, they should be allowed to. Despite what a dumb idea that is.
When you issue a buy order to an exchange, you don't get to specify that the seller needs to have the stock; you will only find out when the seller fails to deliver.
[deleted]
I'm not sure it's that big of a deal. I'm still looking for Bitcoin's killer app, and I don't think this is it. A killer app would take advantage of Bitcoin's unique properties and become preferred vs other payment methods. There isn't a clear reason for most consumers to go through the hassle/risk of BTC vs getting the consumer protection and rebates/rewards that credit cards offer.
Have you ever used BTC to buy something? It's the ease of amazon's "one click buy", but everywhere.
It's really, really awesome.
It's really, really awesome.
Will an awesome user experience be enough? :) Plus, merchants can reproduce this UX by integrating Paypal, or perhaps Venmo in the future. The user experience is not a fundamental advantage to bitcoin.
It absolutely is. If I want to send money to my mother, who lives in a different country over 6000 km away, I have to go through absurd steps in order to do so. International money transfer. Western Union. Physically walking cash to some counter. If bitcoin is useful for her, I can just send her bitcoins.
Paypal is frustrating; I have to make an account, she has to make an account, I have to fund my account, and to top it all off, Paypal can (and does!) refuse to transfer money sometimes. Absurd!
This personal touch is the foundation of all that makes bitcoin worthwhile, in my opinion. The network is established and I can use it to send value to another individual or company, without going through any other intermediate. This is absolutely huge, in the same way that email is an easier way to send a message (instead of making a phone call) is absolutely huge (for email).
People may choose to use services (like Coinbase) to make it easier, but they don't have to.
Paypal is frustrating; I have to make an account, she has to make an account, I have to fund my account, and to top it all off, Paypal can (and does!) refuse to transfer money sometimes. Absurd!
This personal touch is the foundation of all that makes bitcoin worthwhile, in my opinion. The network is established and I can use it to send value to another individual or company, without going through any other intermediate. This is absolutely huge, in the same way that email is an easier way to send a message (instead of making a phone call) is absolutely huge (for email).
People may choose to use services (like Coinbase) to make it easier, but they don't have to.
There's the additional benefit that nobody owns BitCoin, so every corporation that doesn't own a payment system can collectively back it as a standard.
Think the Internet, vs. all the proprietary networks at the same time (Microsoft, Compuserve...)
Think the Internet, vs. all the proprietary networks at the same time (Microsoft, Compuserve...)
Using Bitcoin-Qt is neither easy nor awesome. I hear some of the newer software is better but still not close to one click.
I am waiting for an insured bitcoin bank. One that is as easy to use or easier to use as debit credit or even better paypal. I only use paypal because it is just so friggin easy. Login, done. No sharing through third party, no typing numbers, no getting my physical wallet out, just easy.
The average consumer would use an online wallet -- like coinbase. Especially to get started.
There are other issues that make it less convenient than amazon one-click (like funding that wallet). But Bitcoin-Qt really isn't the problem.
There are other issues that make it less convenient than amazon one-click (like funding that wallet). But Bitcoin-Qt really isn't the problem.
Unless the buyer and seller are using the same online wallet, won't the user still end up copying and pasting base58 strings between browser tabs and clicking on "confirm transaction" buttons? This is a very unusual UX.
It's simpler than give me all your personal information and credit card number.
In the context of e-commerce, I already have to provide a lot of personal information. So now it's credit card number (which may be autofilled + CVV2) vs string pasting into wallet. Based on current UIs, I think it's a coin flip on that one. Maybe browsers can improve cross-wallet management.
That depends entirely on what you're buying; if my product is electronic in nature, you don't need to know who I am, only that I paid.
I was speaking about this article and the root comment. Overstock is almost entirely physical goods, and I'm skeptical that this has a meaningful impact on Bitcoin as a whole.
But your point stands re: digital goods. One use case I was thinking Bitcoin might be good for is micropayments of content. Replacing paywalls with a one-time fee to view the article or get access to the whole site for an hour/day/week. Cookie the browser with no registration. May be ideal for porn.
The challenge, aside from the lack of users that have Bitcoin, is that people don't like getting nickel and dimed. Sites may not adopt it because they can get more money from fewer users paying more on monthly subscriptions, versus more users paying less for one-time transactions.
But your point stands re: digital goods. One use case I was thinking Bitcoin might be good for is micropayments of content. Replacing paywalls with a one-time fee to view the article or get access to the whole site for an hour/day/week. Cookie the browser with no registration. May be ideal for porn.
The challenge, aside from the lack of users that have Bitcoin, is that people don't like getting nickel and dimed. Sites may not adopt it because they can get more money from fewer users paying more on monthly subscriptions, versus more users paying less for one-time transactions.
I still don't think it's a killer app.
Amazon's one-click is brilliantly easy because I've already done the work of adding my name, physical address, and credit card information into my Amazon profile, and I'm already logged-in. My browser (via LastPass/1Password) is saving my password, so the login page is almost no friction at all. With Amazon Payments, I can re-use this to quickly checkout at any number of places. Google and PayPal work similarly.
With Bitcoin everywhere as a 1-click, I still need to have my name and physical address put in, plus I probably need to create an account. Bitcoin doesn't make this process easier.
Maybe Coinbase can take this on and store my info. But isn't this just making Coinbase Checkout and almost identical to the other competing platforms? What makes it compelling to use Bitcoin? Keep in mind I'm no longer getting 1% cash back (which can be worth hundreds a year), and I'm SOL if the vendor screws me over. Plus, I might need to do the stored-value dance as Coinbase needs to ETF some additional funds from my checking account, and is just one more thing to keep track of.
Amazon's one-click is brilliantly easy because I've already done the work of adding my name, physical address, and credit card information into my Amazon profile, and I'm already logged-in. My browser (via LastPass/1Password) is saving my password, so the login page is almost no friction at all. With Amazon Payments, I can re-use this to quickly checkout at any number of places. Google and PayPal work similarly.
With Bitcoin everywhere as a 1-click, I still need to have my name and physical address put in, plus I probably need to create an account. Bitcoin doesn't make this process easier.
Maybe Coinbase can take this on and store my info. But isn't this just making Coinbase Checkout and almost identical to the other competing platforms? What makes it compelling to use Bitcoin? Keep in mind I'm no longer getting 1% cash back (which can be worth hundreds a year), and I'm SOL if the vendor screws me over. Plus, I might need to do the stored-value dance as Coinbase needs to ETF some additional funds from my checking account, and is just one more thing to keep track of.
Just ordered a mini-helicopter on Overstock using Bitcoins. The checkout process was flawless. I used the Bitcoin client on my phone to send the amount by snapping a shot of the QR code on the website. Went right through, hit confirm, and the deal was done!
Couldn't have been an easier process and can't wait to get my helicopter.
Couldn't have been an easier process and can't wait to get my helicopter.
As a European, I have never heard of Overstock. Though they actually do ship here and prices can be displayed in Euro's.
How big is this site? What is their angle? Are they just like a smaller amazon.com? Overstock sounds a little like lower priced articles from left over stocks or something...
How big is this site? What is their angle? Are they just like a smaller amazon.com? Overstock sounds a little like lower priced articles from left over stocks or something...
While I know Alexa is far from accurate, it does show overstock.com to be the 621 largest universal site and 160th in the USA. That should show you scale.
In 2010 (Fiscal Year) they has $1.1 billion in revenue with 1600 employees. They are publicly traded with a market cap just under $750 million.
In 2010 (Fiscal Year) they has $1.1 billion in revenue with 1600 employees. They are publicly traded with a market cap just under $750 million.
That is actually many times bigger than I would have guessed. That they're accepting Bitcoin is pretty huge for the Bitcoin movement then.
"Bitcoins are only accepted on the domestic (US) version of Overstock.com. Currently they will not be accepted for any orders shipped internationally."
https://help.overstock.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/5794
https://help.overstock.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/5794
I wonder why this is. One of the benefits of bitcoin is that once you send it it's gone so there if you wait for enough confirmations there is no chance of charge back fraud. I'm not sure what they are worried about happening with international orders. Stolen bitcoin?
The site is pretty big. Been around for a while. I just watched a documentary from many years back about stocks and they talk about overstock.com being a victim of naked short selling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overstock.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overstock.com
Is there any evidence that the naked short selling was a real thing beyond the insistence of the CEO?
I didn't look into it further. A lot of counter suing going on.
Pop over to deepcapture.com and see for yourself. (It's maintained by Overstock's CEO as a side project, but it seems to me that the endless stream of scathing accusations would have brought swaths of libel suits if the stuff had no basis in reality -- enough for them to defend themselves against a court shutting them down anyway.)
"Hasn't been sued for libel yet" isn't quite the quality of evidence I was looking for.
Think of it as a proxy… Follow the links and the references on that site, and see for yourself. The site has tons of them.
Overstock is pretty awesome. One of their big marketing angles is free shipping over $50. I've purchased large furniture, rugs, desks and other very heavy things from them and have always had free shipping. Often that "free shipping" meant "local delivery and bringing it into your house for free" which is pretty amazing.
They are big. For short they also own o.co which directs to overstock. They currently sponsor a multi purpose stadium named 0.com. the MLB, NFL, and MLS have a team that play there. side note: noticeable brands that sponser a American stadium: BofA, Gillette, Qualcomm,FedEx, AT&T, Mercedes-Benz.
Overstock is great I've bought a lot of things from them in the past including my bed and mattress. I like going to them equal to Amazon. Good prices, good selection, $2.29 shipping on all all orders. One of my favorite online places to shop.
I have a few thousand usd in coinbase if I needed anything I'd buy something from Overstock in principle!!! I like Bitcoin
They also have TV commercials in the US they used to at least.
I have a few thousand usd in coinbase if I needed anything I'd buy something from Overstock in principle!!! I like Bitcoin
They also have TV commercials in the US they used to at least.
I think the left over stock is how they originally started. Based on where they are now, I'd categorize them as a smaller Amazon.
We recently began accepting it on our typing education websites http://www.Typing.com and http://www.NitroType.com, though to an unfortunately meager response. Hopefully between Zynga and Overstock Bitcoin begins to be accepted as a true medium of exchange.
The initial reaction was simply confusion and a lot of "what the heck is bitcoin??? is it paypal??", so the rollout really was more of a educational session than anything else.
The initial reaction was simply confusion and a lot of "what the heck is bitcoin??? is it paypal??", so the rollout really was more of a educational session than anything else.
Users of Bitcoin are likely to be proficient keyboard users. People that aren't proficient keyboard users are not likely to be users of Bitcoin.
Well no, basically our audience is mostly made up of kids in school. That's the main problem.
But you see, it's not a problem at all ... at least, in the grand scheme of things. Every person that sees bitcoin in that checkout screen is going to say, "what the heck is bitcoin?"
Then the next time they hear about bitcoin (like say, on the hit TV show Almost Human http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8LqlMzEe-I), they'll say, "oh, I've heard of that before, I wonder what it's about". And so on and so on. You're doing a service :)
Then the next time they hear about bitcoin (like say, on the hit TV show Almost Human http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8LqlMzEe-I), they'll say, "oh, I've heard of that before, I wonder what it's about". And so on and so on. You're doing a service :)
Ah yes, agreed. I meant purely related to the previous comment implying that keyboard literate users are the only audience for bitcoins. And so I meant that my uses are not knowledge about bitcoin regardless of their keyboarding skills, being that they are for the most part quite young.
But I'm definitely pleased to be educating millions of children about bitcoin. Actually it's all I expected when we began accepting it, but that is my way of showing my support. Just doing my part!
But I'm definitely pleased to be educating millions of children about bitcoin. Actually it's all I expected when we began accepting it, but that is my way of showing my support. Just doing my part!
How much volume are they actually going to get though? I'm excited to see more outlets accepting bitcoin, but to this point it still feels more like a marketing gimmick.
They are not accepting Bitcoin. Coinbase is selling your bitcoins and giving the dollars to them.
Right, which from the consumer perspective is accepting bitcoins. There's no need to be a smart ass.
Not really. The price isn't in BTC.
But they are accepting payments in bitcoins.
You don't get it, do you? One of the rules in e-commerce is to limit the path to the "submit order" button and remove any decisioning in the checkout process - otherwise you may lose the sale. Given Bitcoin rate greatly varies, if it Bitcoin is dropping, I won't buy as then I will have to spend more coins. If it's on the rise, I will wait more to spend less. In general, too much wondering to get the best deal. If price is in BTC and I own BTC, I buy when I need something without having to worry about it. Anyway, they don't accept Bitcoin as they: a) don't have a Bitcoin wallet; b) they don't have stable prices in BTC.
Not only are you a smart ass, but you are just flat out wrong. Nobody said anything about them having a BTC wallet. It was always clearly stated that they were using Coinbase. We are clearly stating that from a consumer perspective, they now accept bitcoin. Just look at their checkout page: Bitcoin Accepted Here.
http://i.imgur.com/ALRdAAj.png
http://i.imgur.com/ALRdAAj.png
@james33 I very well know what they did and how they did it. My point was pretty clear though. Consumers don't use Bitcoin yet and won't - if any consumer is interested in Bitcoin, it's to make money by hoarding, not to spend it.
I'm impressed they followed through with this so quickly. Great to see the adoption starting to flow in places that non crypto nerds and tech enthusiasts visit.
So I wonder if anyone from the US could let me know, i'm from the UK and just tried to make a purchase it bitcoin, but I only get the option for CC, debit cards and paypal, no bitcoin.
So is this US only?
So is this US only?
[deleted](2)
So does anyone sell FX forwards (etc.) on Bitcoin yet? It seems everything now prices their items in, say, USD, and then calculates the Bitcoin price at purchase time. This makes the economy very unstable as the prices are never consistent. If Bitcoin prices were stable, then people would start accepting salary in Bitcoins, leading to even more stability, and so on. Or is Bitcoin too young for that?
The Internet Archive pays some of its employees in Bitcoin.
It's refreshing that now I can spend my bitcoin on things I want! They got it working much faster than expected. Does anybody have any idea how returns would work? Do they just send the original amount of bitcoin to the payer's wallet? Or are returns even possible at this point in time?
From their site:
"Returns and refunds on orders purchased with Bitcoins are eligible only for in-store credit, except in the case of cancelled or unfulfilled orders. Bitcoins can only be used for orders shipped to the United States."
"Returns and refunds on orders purchased with Bitcoins are eligible only for in-store credit, except in the case of cancelled or unfulfilled orders. Bitcoins can only be used for orders shipped to the United States."
Cool. Thanks!
Best guess is that you will receive the current USD value in coins back.
This is pretty huge. I'd be interested to know what overstock's strategy is for converting bitcoins back to fiat. I also wonder if there will be any tax implications here for purchases made in countries such as Norway that don't consider bitcoin real currency.
Bitcoin is automatically exchanged to USD for them by coinbase at the time of the transaction.
Why would Overstock want a bunch of tiny cars? http://www.fiatusa.com/en/
Could be interesting that they can tie physical shipping addresses to specific wallets.
*addresses
which are free and disposable
which are free and disposable
Wish people would stop using the term "bitcoins" as if they're singular metal entities, it seems to be where the perception that they are "too expensive" comes from.
Bitcoin. Divisible to 8 decimal places.
Bitcoin. Divisible to 8 decimal places.
Isn't the same as accepting dollars? Or Euros? Or pesos? Plural seems right to me.
I think it's a pedantic point, as I believe that language is as language does.... however, there's no reason why it couldn't be like "gold", which is also highly divisible. You need the "s" plural for things that can't be divided (like dollar bills). Thus, we don't get paid in "golds".
That said, semantically, coins aren't usually thought of as divisible things in a modern context-- they are pluralized, so bitcoin will probably be pluralized in the same way.
That said, semantically, coins aren't usually thought of as divisible things in a modern context-- they are pluralized, so bitcoin will probably be pluralized in the same way.
That's my thinking. Bitcoin is an outlier because "coin" is usually indivisible, where as "bitcoin" certainly is. You're never likely to see a price of more than one anyway, making the plural almost completely redundant.
> Thus, we don't get paid in "golds".
in case of gold it is in "kilograms" - still plural, even though it is divisible.
in case of gold it is in "kilograms" - still plural, even though it is divisible.
nwh has a point though. Bitcoins aren't things. It's not just that they don't have physical form. For example, you can record the serial number from a dollar bill and find it again later. You can't do that with "a bitcoin" because there is no bitcoin-thing that can be tracked, even digitally speaking. Each address has a balance, and each transaction deals with amounts of bitcoin. There is no owning or transferring of identifiable "bitcoins".
I think this gets into the non-standard definitions of money vs currency. I think that the headline refers to money, not currency.
Good luck with that. Overstock and Coinbase both link to this weusecoins YouTube video to explain the currency, which says "bitcoins" about a million times: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um63OQz3bjo
Great for publicity value. Not that useful for their business in any other respect (at the moment). This is a great time for ecommerce sites to start accepting Bitcoin to leverage it for publicity.
US only, ffs there are countries outside the US
Seems like these companies are rushing into this without fully understanding how the technology works or where it's going.
If someone like Coinbase takes away 95% of the risk, then who cares? They just branded themselves as "forward thinking" and now have a potentially larger customer base (although they don't accept bitcoins if you're shipping internationally).
Also, where is the technology going? Seems to me it's already there. If there are any fatal flaws that pop up, it's a matter of flipping the "accept bitcoin" switch to "off" and calling it a day. I don't see the issue here.
Also, where is the technology going? Seems to me it's already there. If there are any fatal flaws that pop up, it's a matter of flipping the "accept bitcoin" switch to "off" and calling it a day. I don't see the issue here.
And taking such risks impulsively yields big rewards, from time to time.
Overstock isn't taking a risk here: they are getting the same exact USD they got before.
It's a win win for Overstock.com, really, since they don't need to worry about the volatility and instability of bitcoin and only deal in USD but get to look forward-thinking by accepting bitcoin. Yes, they are accepting more risk because Coinbase.com could disappear overnight (FAR more likely than PayPal or Visa disappearing overnight), but they get some advantage for their risk.