Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Friday May 01 2015, @10:28PM   Printer-friendly
from the who-said-fake-money-would-never-be-worth-anything dept.

Thanks in part to Argentina's volatile financial markets, bitcoins are helping people there cut out the banks and government entirely in their financial transactions:

That afternoon, a plump 48-year-old musician was one of several customers to drop by the rented room. A German customer had paid the musician in Bitcoin for some freelance compositions, and the musician needed to turn them into dollars. Castiglione [the bitcoin moneychanger] joked about the corruption of Argentine politics as he peeled off five $100 bills, which he was trading for a little more than 1.5 Bitcoins, and gave them to his client. The musician did not hand over anything in return; before showing up, he had transferred the Bitcoins — in essence, digital tokens that exist only as entries in a digital ledger — from his Bitcoin address to Castiglione’s. Had the German client instead sent euros to a bank in Argentina, the musician would have been required to fill out a form to receive payment and, as a result of the country’s currency controls, sacrificed roughly 30 percent of his earnings to change his euros into pesos. Bitcoin makes it easier to move money the other way too. The day before, the owner of a small manufacturing company bought $20,000 worth of Bitcoin from Castiglione in order to get his money to the United States, where he needed to pay a vendor, a transaction far easier and less expensive than moving funds through Argentine banks.

Do any Solentils manage their transactions in bitcoin? What are your experiences?

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @10:37PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @10:37PM (#177654)

    I tried using Bitcoin once. I installed the client, and waited for it to get the blockchain data. I waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited. Then I had to wait, wait, wait, and wait just a little bit more. Following that I had to still wait longer, which was followed by more waiting. Then I waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited. Then I had to wait, wait, wait, and wait just a little bit more. Following that I had to still wait longer, which was followed by more waiting. Then I waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited. Then I had to wait, wait, wait, and wait just a little bit more. Following that I had to still wait longer, which was followed by more waiting. Soon after, I waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited. Then I had to wait, wait, wait, and wait just a little bit more. Following that I had to still wait longer, which was followed by more waiting. And just when I thought it was nearing the end, I waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited. Then I had to wait, wait, wait, and wait just a little bit more. Following that I had to still wait longer, which was followed by more waiting. Finally I gave up, but that didn't stop my ISP for charging me for the 25 GB I went over my monthly cap thanks to trying out the Bitcoin client.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +5  
       Troll=2, Interesting=2, Informative=2, Underrated=3, Total=9
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @11:11PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @11:11PM (#177666)

    That comment should be modded up. It's actually a pretty accurate description of the Bitcoin experience.

    Of course, somebody will typically come along and say, "But just use $SomeSketchyOnlineServiceRunByUnknownPeople! Then you don't have to use the client!"

    That obviously defeats the purpose of using a decentralized cryptocurrency system, plus it's just a dumb thing to do.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @11:18PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @11:18PM (#177670)

      I down-modded it as a troll post because using that font in conjunction with a wall of text is a deliberate attempt to annoy readers.

      The content might be true, but the intent of the presentation is explicitly anti-social.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @12:02AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @12:02AM (#177684)

        You can magically read people's minds to determine their intent simply because they use a certain font?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @12:29AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @12:29AM (#177694)

          > You can magically read people's minds to determine their intent simply because they use a certain font?

          Maybe you like it when someone pokes you in the eye, that doesn't make it any less anti-social.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @01:57AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @01:57AM (#177723)

            You haven't explained how you can read someone's mind. And now you're making a serious accusation over a font choice that you don't like.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @02:17AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @02:17AM (#177730)

              > You haven't explained how you can read someone's mind.

              If you think font choice does not communicate information then you are just one of those geektards who insists on an excessively literal worldview.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @04:32AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @04:32AM (#177765)

                Please don't use the "tard" suffix. It is very offensive and demeaning to those who suffer from mental disabilities.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @06:05AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @06:05AM (#177780)

                  Make me.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @08:03AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @08:03AM (#177808)

                    Make me.

                    I think you mean "Like me."
                    But that's ok, we understand.

          • (Score: 3, Touché) by maxwell demon on Saturday May 02 2015, @06:26AM

            by maxwell demon (1608) on Saturday May 02 2015, @06:26AM (#177786) Journal

            If you feel that seeing that font is like poking in your eye, you should immediately see a psychiatrist.

            Or at least configure your browser to use a different fixed-width font.

            --
            The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @01:08PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @01:08PM (#177852)

              It isn't the font face it's the font spacing.

              If only there were a difference between a wall of text and the typical use of monospaced fonts. There is one poster, who I haven't noticed for a while, who has garnered frequent complaints for his insistence on using monospacing. This isn't some weird aberration and if you think the poster did not intend to create discomfort, then you haven't read the words of the post. As ethanol said, it was an artistic decision.

              if, on the other hand, your sole point is to complain about the analogy, well then rah-rah-rah for your opinion.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @05:24PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @05:24PM (#177902)

                Maybe the point was to use what he thinks is an annoying font to express how annoying he thinks Bitcoin is.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @01:32AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @01:32AM (#177997)

            Maybe you like it when someone pokes you in the eye, that doesn't make it any less anti-social.

            You are right, it usually makes them ophthalmologists.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday May 02 2015, @12:25AM

        by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Saturday May 02 2015, @12:25AM (#177692) Homepage

        Think artistically, dude. It's seriously deep. The point is that the user was trying to share the essence, quite elegantly in this limited medium, of just how annoying the process really was. They did it literally with their word choice and symbolically with the wall of monospace text and repetition of words representing not only the amount and appearance of data but also the tedium.

        Nerds have a well-deserved reputation of being oblivious to those kinds of personal expressions. Thanks for being a champion of the status-quo.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @12:32AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @12:32AM (#177695)

          Just because it has artistic intention does not make it a positive contribution.
          If I poke you in the eye and say "hey man, you just got to groove with it!" that doesn't make it acceptable.

          • (Score: 3, Touché) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday May 02 2015, @12:53AM

            by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Saturday May 02 2015, @12:53AM (#177702) Homepage

            You just poked me in the eye with your bellicose and censorist rhetoric.

            MODS! MODS! Ban that guy! He's being a dick! I'm gonna withdraw my subscription and leave if you don't ban that guy! Somebody said something online that was offensive to ME! MODS!

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @12:56AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @12:56AM (#177704)

              You are perfectly within your rights to believe that.
              The fact that you can't differentiate between form and content says everything necessary about your argument.

              • (Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday May 02 2015, @01:11AM

                by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Saturday May 02 2015, @01:11AM (#177709) Homepage

                " The fact that you can't differentiate between form and content says everything necessary about your argument. "

                The only thing that says about me is that I'm not a web developer. And you win, I lose at being a web developer. Congratulations!

                • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @01:33AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @01:33AM (#177716)

                  You need to separate your content from its presentation!

                  You need to separate your content from its presentation!

                  You need to separate your content from its presentation!

                  You need to separate your content from its presentation!

                  You need to separate your content from its presentation!

                  You need to separate your content from its presentation!

                  You need to separate your content from its presentation!

                  You need to separate your content from its presentation!

                  You need to separate your content from its presentation!

                  You need to separate your content from its presentation!

                  You need to separate your content from its presentation!

                  You need to separate your content from its presentation!

                  You need to separate your content from its presentation!

                  You need to separate your content from its presentation!

                  You need to separate your content from its presentation!

                  You need to separate your content from its presentation!

                  You need to separate your content from its presentation!

                  You need to separate your content from its presentation!

                  You need to separate your content from its presentation!

                  • (Score: 2) by black6host on Saturday May 02 2015, @02:28AM

                    by black6host (3827) on Saturday May 02 2015, @02:28AM (#177733) Journal

                    The difference here is that the OP was addressing the topic at hand. You are not.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @02:47AM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @02:47AM (#177736)

                      It appears that artistic quality is in the eye of the beholder.

                  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @02:55AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @02:55AM (#177741)

                    Presentation is content.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @04:20AM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @04:20AM (#177762)

                      No it isn't. Presentation is done using CSS. Content is within the semantic HTML markup.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @01:15AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @01:15AM (#177711)

        Are you using Firefox or some other buggy browser? I'm using Chrome and it looks like the normal Arial or Helvetica or whatever font family that's used for all of the comments.

        • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @01:19AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @01:19AM (#177712)

          > Are you using Firefox or some other buggy browser? I'm using Chrome and it looks like the normal Arial or Helvetica

          If chrome renders the <tt> tag with a proportional font, then chrome is the buggy browser.

      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @01:37AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @01:37AM (#177718)

        This is a perfect example of why the moderator's name should be shown next to the moderation. We should know exactly who is engaging in abusive moderation.

        It's also a perfect example of why we need some way for the entire community, ACs included, to flag moderators who abuse the privilege. We need to put an end to abusive moderation.

        Downmodding a comment based on the use of a markup tag that's allowed by SoylentNews is abusive beyond belief.

        Abusive moderators who engage in abusive moderation need to never again moderate, using any account.

        The abusive moderation is more harmful than that comment and its font could ever be.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @02:06AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @02:06AM (#177727)

          > Downmodding a comment based on the use of a markup tag that's allowed by SoylentNews is abusive beyond belief.

          Downmodding a comment based on words that are allowed by solyentnews is abusive beyond belief.

          The fact that it is "allowed" does not make it inherently above judgment.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @03:50AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @03:50AM (#177755)

            It's getting clearer every day that the moderation system here should probably be abolished. It's abused much more often than it's used beneficially.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @04:04AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @04:04AM (#177757)

              It's getting clearer every day that the moderation system here should probably be abolished. It's abused much more often than it's used beneficially.

              As one of the people who modded the wall of text down I agree.
              The fact that it is modded +5 is unequivocal proof that the moderation system is being abused.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @04:17AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @04:17AM (#177761)

                You should lose your moderating privileges forever for modding down a comment that's insightful, informative, relevant and worth reading.

                Abusive moderation should not be tolerated.

                You have admitted to committing abusive moderation.

                You should never be allowed to moderate ever again.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @06:07AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @06:07AM (#177781)

                  > You should lose your moderating privileges forever for modding down a comment that's insightful, informative, relevant and worth reading.

                  Sez you, the commentard.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @03:25PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @03:25PM (#177880)

                  Its been agreed that we need meta-moderation for a long time now. Apparently its a bitch to implement though, otherwise why don't we have it yet? There's definitely a lot of moderation abuse going on, most if it is of the "Asshole talking shit to me, take that!" kind and the "How dare you suggest my view of reality is false! Those so-called "facts" are nothing but a liberal conspiracy!" kind.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @09:26PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @09:26PM (#177961)

                    It shouldn't be hard to do. For each comment that has been moderated, there needs to be a tiny icon that, when clicked, expands a list of the users who moderated the comment, and how they moderated it. Next to each moderation is a button with the text "Report Abuse". When clicked by anyone, including anonymous users, the user who engaged in the moderation is never allowed to moderate again. Moderation should be a one-mistake-you're-done-forever situation. Even a single abusive moderation should be grounds for a user never being allowed to moderate ever again. And it's better to revoke the privileges of a good moderator than it is to allow a bad moderator to make even one abusive moderation.

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by JNCF on Saturday May 02 2015, @03:49PM

      by JNCF (4317) on Saturday May 02 2015, @03:49PM (#177889) Journal

      Of course, somebody will typically come along and say, "But just use $SomeSketchyOnlineServiceRunByUnknownPeople! Then you don't have to use the client!"

      That obviously defeats the purpose of using a decentralized cryptocurrency system, plus it's just a dumb thing to do.

      Not really. You can generate addresses without having a copy of the blockchain, which means that you can have an offline computer in charge of managing your private keys. You only put the public addresses on a connected computer, and you use $SomeSketchyOnlineServiceRunByUnknownPeople to query the blockchain about account balances. When you need to transfer coins from one of your addresses, you either

              a) briefly move the relevant private key to your internet-connected, probably-compromised computer. Immediately build and sign a transaction transferring all of the unspent coins from that address. Propagating this transaction is not dangerous, $SomeSketchyOnlineService can't change it, but there is the potential that somebody who has already compromised your computer could build and propogate a different transaction that spends your coins first. They would have to be moving fast. Still, somebody really paranoid might want to

              b) keep the private key from the online computer at all times. Query $SomeSketchyOnlineService for information about unspent coins owned by your address, and then use your offline computer to build and sign a transaction based on that data. Move a copy of the signed transaction to your online computer, and tell $SomeSketchyOnlineService to propagate it. Once again, they can't change the transaction once it has been signed.

      If you're using option A, you can keep your private keys on a paper wallet rather than having a secure computer dedicated to them. You only need access to a safe computer on one occasion, to initially generate and print a bunch of key/address pairs. For extra credit, destroy the printer.

      I'm not arguing that Bitcoin's ecosystem is ready for mass-adoption, just that using random APIs for basic operations isn't actually dangerous or dumb. That's the whole beauty of their decentralised ledger system, you don't have to trust your peers. If you're using an ECMAScript brain-wallet to store your private keys, that's obviously not a good idea. But it's only slightly worse than keeping them on an internet-connected computer, period. I think that OP's criticism of the core Bitcoin client's user experience is valid, I just think that he probably wasn't the audience originally intended to use that client. We don't need everybody to have a full copy of the blockchain. This is a cutting-edge system, and a polished, safe, easy, consumer-ready interface isn't available yet. It will be, either for Bitcoin or for whatever replaces Bitcoin, but it isn't yet.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @07:00AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @07:00AM (#177793)

    Nobody claimed Bitcoin isn't shady, it's just less horrible than regular, above-board Argentinian banks.

  • (Score: 2) by darkfeline on Saturday May 02 2015, @08:58PM

    by darkfeline (1030) on Saturday May 02 2015, @08:58PM (#177954) Homepage

    Sounds like storing the entire history of transactions in a Git repository. Those kinds of implementations don't tend to scale well.

    Isn't it possible to compress the block chain? Like merge the first half of the chain into a single block. Otherwise I can't see cryptocurrency having a long lifetime, despite its potential utility.

    --
    Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!