Bitcoins banned in Thailand

[4evermaat]

Can we finally change the heading of this thread or something? It appears that the headline is wrong and so a lot of the discussion here is based on facts that simply don't exist.

So what would be the steps for someone wanting to be an THB exchanger of bitcoins? Do they need a money exchanger license or not? Or is this yet to be determined?

"...the 2nd best time to plant a tree is today." Sent from ThaiVisa app (Galaxy Note 2).

Edited August 1, 2013 by 4evermaat

[beb]

but on the other hand : a few weeks ago on bloomberg tv, was the creator... and he did not make much sense to me or was explaining his product in english his problem and for me to understand ?

Pretty sure the person you saw is not the creator of BTC as you say or claimed that. The person who started all of this is known as Satoshi and has kept their real identity secret.

[beb]

Some posts have deplored the fact that the news article in the first post of this topic uses the announcement made by Bitcoin Co. Ltd (BCL) in Thailand as the only source, without reference to an “official source” such as a statement published by a government agency. Searching the web I found that there seem in fact to be no other sources available at all.

In my few years as the manager of a company in Thailand I had more than one occasion to seek and receive the advice of one government department or another and in none of these cases did the government department in question publish the advice given to me, respectively to the company I represented, nor would I have expected them to do so.

In the case of BCL this company chose to publish a summary of their discussions with a department of the Bank of Thailand and they explained their decision to do this, namely “to give information to our users about our choice to suspend our services”. I see nothing wrong with that, nor do I see anything wrong with a news reporter to write an article based on BCL’s published announcement.

If I wanted to find any fault with the news article it would be the use of the word “banned” in the title but I would not blame the journalist for this because most likely it was an editor in the back office who wrote that title, and we all know that it is a catchy headline that sells newspapers.

I think the problem people have with the story is that the reporter took a post from a website and announced to the world that bitcoin has been banned in Thailand. That turns out to be not the case and alone is enough to irritate people. The fact that the reporter managed to include mistakes about fundamental issues that any moron should be able to avoid is just icing on the cake.

[geriatrickid]

Ok, so one poster likes bitcoin because he thinks it is independent of control from banks, governments and financial institutions.

Do the suckers who are grabbing the cyber currency believe it is independent of people or groups who have the skills and software that can manipulate the cybercurrency? What of the programs that inappropriately "mine" the cyber currency? I find it rather odd that many of its proponents are leery of banks, governments and financial institutions, but embrace a cyber currency where no one is actually responsible for making good on the cyber currency. Reputable banks and FIs they shun are subject to public scrutiny, regulatory oversight and recourse in the event of wrongdoing. Just who is accountable in the bitcoin system should something go wrong? In a system that has a fluctuating value, how would one be compensated? For example if the bitcoins mysteriously disappeared from one's anonymous cyber account, who would one claim against and how would one establish a pecuniary loss?

I see the bitcoin as a scheme hatched up by the same type of people that have given us Ponzi schemes. Bitcoin investors will come whinging when they lose their investments when the scheme collapses.

[beb]

for those that are involved in BTC or curious, here's a good podcast that deals with various issues both technical and more mainstream as they concern Bitcoin and other crypto currencies http://letstalkbitcoin.com/ There is a subscription link at this page.

Twice weekly, it gives a good overview of what is going on around the community.

[pancakeman]

Do the suckers who are grabbing the cyber currency believe it is independent of people or groups who have the skills and software that can manipulate the cybercurrency?

It is not possible to manipulate it through software.

What of the programs that inappropriately "mine" the cyber currency?

This is not possible; the fastest way to find the hashes is the best way to mine, doing it faster would not be "inappropriate" it would just be the best way to mine.

[pancakeman]

Just who is accountable in the bitcoin system should something go wrong? In a system that has a fluctuating value, how would one be compensated? For example if the bitcoins mysteriously disappeared from one's anonymous cyber account, who would one claim against and how would one establish a pecuniary loss?

Your money, your loss, no one else to blame. If there should be some kind of global system meltdown (such as a major bug that rendered everything screwed), then all it would take would be a bug fix and a majority favored rollback to bring it back online. If most people decide "I'm going to install the new bug-fixed version, with the database rolled back 1 day" then that what it would be...some people would get screwed, but that's just life.

I see the bitcoin as a scheme hatched up by the same type of people that have given us Ponzi schemes.

Breaking news: Charles Ponzi invested bitcoins.

Bitcoin investors will come whinging when they lose their investments when the scheme collapses.

Would doesn't whinging when they lose money? Will they ask someone else to pay them back their money...unlikely

[harrry]

If a person tried to pay a police bribe by BitCoin is that one crime or two?

three crimes!

No four.

Paying a bitcoin

Receiving a bitcoin

Paying a bribe

Receiving a bribe.

Plus also

THe original offence.

If no original offence extortion,

[technologybytes]

Ok, so one poster likes bitcoin because he thinks it is independent of control from banks, governments and financial institutions.

Do the suckers who are grabbing the cyber currency believe it is independent of people or groups who have the skills and software that can manipulate the cybercurrency? What of the programs that inappropriately "mine" the cyber currency? I find it rather odd that many of its proponents are leery of banks, governments and financial institutions, but embrace a cyber currency where no one is actually responsible for making good on the cyber currency. Reputable banks and FIs they shun are subject to public scrutiny, regulatory oversight and recourse in the event of wrongdoing. Just who is accountable in the bitcoin system should something go wrong? In a system that has a fluctuating value, how would one be compensated? For example if the bitcoins mysteriously disappeared from one's anonymous cyber account, who would one claim against and how would one establish a pecuniary loss?

I see the bitcoin as a scheme hatched up by the same type of people that have given us Ponzi schemes. Bitcoin investors will come whinging when they lose their investments when the scheme collapses.

Clearly you misunderstand how Bitcoin works. You cannot "inappropriately" mine Bitcoins, mining is a legitimate and appropriate business.

The thing is that there can only ever be a certain number of bitcoin, and the release is staggered. Unlike other currencies it cannot be devalued by "quantitative easing" aka printing more of the stuff.

[farang000999]

Bit Bugs love Bit Coin because it is nice to have real money that is not just created out of thin air.

[OxfordWill]

10 points for the first to pay for illegal prostitute services with illegal bitcoins in a double whammy.

Edited August 1, 2013 by OxfordWill

[beb]

What I'm thinking though is that if bitcoin gets effectively tarred with the "used by terrorists & drug networks" brush, it won't just be the BoT trying to shut it down... Or digging into who's been using it...

That's the first thing people do when they want to hammer bitcoin. Only problem is that US dollars have been and are still being used for all of that and more. Drugs, prostitution, murder...the list goes on and the US dollar is the preferred currency for all of that. Imagine how much pedophilia is purchased with dollars. So if we're talking about illegal and morally wrong activities that are payed for by certain currencies then let's have the conversation. Let's see what currency is left standing.

[hawker9000]

Ok, so one poster likes bitcoin because he thinks it is independent of control from banks, governments and financial institutions.

Do the suckers who are grabbing the cyber currency believe it is independent of people or groups who have the skills and software that can manipulate the cybercurrency? What of the programs that inappropriately "mine" the cyber currency? I find it rather odd that many of its proponents are leery of banks, governments and financial institutions, but embrace a cyber currency where no one is actually responsible for making good on the cyber currency. Reputable banks and FIs they shun are subject to public scrutiny, regulatory oversight and recourse in the event of wrongdoing. Just who is accountable in the bitcoin system should something go wrong? In a system that has a fluctuating value, how would one be compensated? For example if the bitcoins mysteriously disappeared from one's anonymous cyber account, who would one claim against and how would one establish a pecuniary loss?

I see the bitcoin as a scheme hatched up by the same type of people that have given us Ponzi schemes. Bitcoin investors will come whinging when they lose their investments when the scheme collapses.

Clearly you misunderstand how Bitcoin works. You cannot "inappropriately" mine Bitcoins, mining is a legitimate and appropriate business.

The thing is that there can only ever be a certain number of bitcoin, and the release is staggered. Unlike other currencies it cannot be devalued by "quantitative easing" aka printing more of the stuff.

In fact, by about 2040 all the bitcoins that can be mined will have been mined (and that's the only legitimate & practical way to create them). A total of about 21,000,000 (there were about half that number in existence as of NOV2012). Bitcoins CAN be lost, and irrevocably so, therefore the more likely scenario over time is probably actually DEflation (which with a non-physical, digital currency, is just a matter of shifting decimal points!). But as others have repeatedly pointed out, bitcoin value is a matter of supply & demand.

Every four years (Jan2009-NOV2012 was the first cycle), the number of bitcoins created is half the number created during the previous 4-yr cycle. That's fixed. "QE" of bitcoins not possible, by anyone. Loss of confidence in them IS possible though, so value COULD go to nothing. And very quickly. If there's loss of confidence in physical currencies, value could skyrocket. Also very quickly. The "currency" chart for BTC (vs USD) only goes back to 2009, but it's interesting.

[beb]

Ok, so one poster likes bitcoin because he thinks it is independent of control from banks, governments and financial institutions.

Do the suckers who are grabbing the cyber currency believe it is independent of people or groups who have the skills and software that can manipulate the cybercurrency? What of the programs that inappropriately "mine" the cyber currency? I find it rather odd that many of its proponents are leery of banks, governments and financial institutions, but embrace a cyber currency where no one is actually responsible for making good on the cyber currency. Reputable banks and FIs they shun are subject to public scrutiny, regulatory oversight and recourse in the event of wrongdoing. Just who is accountable in the bitcoin system should something go wrong? In a system that has a fluctuating value, how would one be compensated? For example if the bitcoins mysteriously disappeared from one's anonymous cyber account, who would one claim against and how would one establish a pecuniary loss?

I see the bitcoin as a scheme hatched up by the same type of people that have given us Ponzi schemes. Bitcoin investors will come whinging when they lose their investments when the scheme collapses.

Clearly you misunderstand how Bitcoin works. You cannot "inappropriately" mine Bitcoins, mining is a legitimate and appropriate business.

The thing is that there can only ever be a certain number of bitcoin, and the release is staggered. Unlike other currencies it cannot be devalued by "quantitative easing" aka printing more of the stuff.

In fact, by about 2040 all the bitcoins that can be mined will have been mined (and that's the only legitimate & practical way to create them). A total of about 21,000,000 (there were about half that number in existence as of NOV2012). Bitcoins CAN be lost, and irrevocably so, therefore the more likely scenario over time is probably actually DEflation (which with a non-physical, digital currency, is just a matter of shifting decimal points!). But as others have repeatedly pointed out, bitcoin value is a matter of supply & demand.

Not to nitpick but the date is actually 2140 as I understand it. We'll all be dead when that final coin is finally dragged out.

[hawker9000]

Ok, so one poster likes bitcoin because he thinks it is independent of control from banks, governments and financial institutions.

Do the suckers who are grabbing the cyber currency believe it is independent of people or groups who have the skills and software that can manipulate the cybercurrency? What of the programs that inappropriately "mine" the cyber currency? I find it rather odd that many of its proponents are leery of banks, governments and financial institutions, but embrace a cyber currency where no one is actually responsible for making good on the cyber currency. Reputable banks and FIs they shun are subject to public scrutiny, regulatory oversight and recourse in the event of wrongdoing. Just who is accountable in the bitcoin system should something go wrong? In a system that has a fluctuating value, how would one be compensated? For example if the bitcoins mysteriously disappeared from one's anonymous cyber account, who would one claim against and how would one establish a pecuniary loss?

I see the bitcoin as a scheme hatched up by the same type of people that have given us Ponzi schemes. Bitcoin investors will come whinging when they lose their investments when the scheme collapses.

Clearly you misunderstand how Bitcoin works. You cannot "inappropriately" mine Bitcoins, mining is a legitimate and appropriate business.

The thing is that there can only ever be a certain number of bitcoin, and the release is staggered. Unlike other currencies it cannot be devalued by "quantitative easing" aka printing more of the stuff.

In fact, by about 2040 all the bitcoins that can be mined will have been mined (and that's the only legitimate & practical way to create them). A total of about 21,000,000 (there were about half that number in existence as of NOV2012). Bitcoins CAN be lost, and irrevocably so, therefore the more likely scenario over time is probably actually DEflation (which with a non-physical, digital currency, is just a matter of shifting decimal points!). But as others have repeatedly pointed out, bitcoin value is a matter of supply & demand.

Not to nitpick but the date is actually 2140 as I understand it. We'll all be dead when that final coin is finally dragged out.

Oops - exactly right. My bad. 2140. Note though that the number of coins halves every four years. 10.5M from 2009-2012; 5.25M for 2013-2016; 2.125M for 2017-2020.... The numerical "difficulty" in the computations involved ("mining") also INCREASES. So coin production for "early adopters" is potentially far more prolific and lucrative than for those who come later.

[rubberduck]

Ok, so one poster likes bitcoin because he thinks it is independent of control from banks, governments and financial institutions.

Do the suckers who are grabbing the cyber currency believe it is independent of people or groups who have the skills and software that can manipulate the cybercurrency? What of the programs that inappropriately "mine" the cyber currency? I find it rather odd that many of its proponents are leery of banks, governments and financial institutions, but embrace a cyber currency where no one is actually responsible for making good on the cyber currency. Reputable banks and FIs they shun are subject to public scrutiny, regulatory oversight and recourse in the event of wrongdoing. Just who is accountable in the bitcoin system should something go wrong? In a system that has a fluctuating value, how would one be compensated? For example if the bitcoins mysteriously disappeared from one's anonymous cyber account, who would one claim against and how would one establish a pecuniary loss?

I see the bitcoin as a scheme hatched up by the same type of people that have given us Ponzi schemes. Bitcoin investors will come whinging when they lose their investments when the scheme collapses.

You don't loose your bitcoins if you store them only on your own computer.

In a Ponzi Scheme, the founders persuade investors that they’ll profit. Bitcoin does not make such a guarantee. There is no central entity, just individuals building an economy. A ponzi scheme is a zero sum game. In a ponzi scheme, early adopters can only profit at the expense of late adopters, and the late adopters always lose. Bitcoin has an expected win-win outcome. Early and present adopters profit from the rise in value as Bitcoins become better understood and in turn demanded by the public at large. All adopters benefit from the usefulness of a reliable and widely-accepted decentralized peer-to-peer currency.

Many other questions are answered here. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Myths

Edited August 1, 2013 by rubberduck

[Puccini]

So, could BCL (legally) exchange THB for some other currency, and then do its bitcoin buying & selling using the other currency? …

I don’t think so, there would still be a currency involved by one of the two parties to each transaction, and the involvement of any currency in a cross-border transaction would mean that Bitcoin Co. Ltd. in Thailand BCL) needs a currency exchange license (which the BoT cannot issue because Bitcoins is not a currency)

…Or, if bitcoins aren't a "currency", then just treat them as a commodity…

I was wondering the same and think it is not possible because bitcoins are nothing tangible and thus not a commodity like rice or pork bellies. It would have to be considered a service, like teaching and transportation are services, for example.

…Is there some legal definition of "capital controls" under which bitcoins fall, even though they've been determined to NOT fall under the definition of "currency"? Many websites, such as some media sites that sell movie downloads, allow you to buy "credits" for use on them. I know a website that sells aeronautical data via subscriptions that are also obtained using such "credits". In Vegas, you buy & redeem "chips". Frequent flyer "miles" are another example: these days some programs promote ways for you to use them to purchase products directly, or use them to be reimbursed for travel you buy with your own money (CapitalOne's "Purchase Eraser"). Except for all the crypto involved, are bitcoins really any different?

BCL stated on its website that its managing director gave the BoT “a presentation about the workings of Bitcoin, the benefits of Bitcoin, insight into the company’s operations and future implications of Bitcoin.” I have no reason to doubt that the information provided by BCL was correct and intelligible.

Now that we have also the comments of BOT Governor Prasarn, published on http://asiancorrespondent.com/111332/has-bitcoin-been-banned-from-thailand/, we can see more clearly.

Post Today cite BOT Governor Prasarn who states that in relation to the statement the Bitcoin company posted on their Web site, that the company contacted the BOT to request permission for the “money changer” business, but what they are doing is not exchanging of money. It may constitute being related to changes in the exchange rate. Therefore, we asked for suspension of activities through their Web site while we investigated. For now, we are liaising with relevant authorities to look at the details both the ICT (in relation to electronic transactions), Ministry of Finance, and the SEC before considering whether we can give a license or not.

I believe it is safe to assume that the BoT thinks that the activities of BCL “may constitute being related to changes in the exchange rate”, with which BOT Governor Prasarn obviously meant that they are apt to have an effect on the exchange rate of the Thai baht (THB), on the basis of the information provided by BCL.

There is a reason for the following requirement in Thailand’s Exchange Control Regulations (http://www.bot.or.th/English/ForeignExchangeRegulations/FXRegulation/Pages/ExchangeControlLaw.aspx) issued under the Exchange Control Act B.E. 2485 (http://www.bot.or.th/English/LawsAndRegulations/DocLib_EngLaw/Law_E35_Exchange.pdf), namely to keep a record of foreign currencies flowing into and out of Thailand for statistical purposes, in particular for the calculation of Thailand’s Balance of Payments.

Foreign currencies can be transferred or brought into Thailand without limit. Any person receiving foreign currencies from abroad is required to repatriate such funds immediately and sell to an authorized bank or deposit them in a foreign currency account with an authorized bank within 360 days of receipt, except for foreigners temporarily staying in Thailand for not more than three months, foreign embassies, international organizations including their staff with diplomatic privileges and immunities, and Thai emigrants who are permanent residents abroad or working abroad.

Consider this: John Doe uses 1 trillion US dollars (USD) in a bank account outside Thailand to buy bitcoins from a trader outside Thailand and subsequently sells these bitcoins to a trader in Thailand, with the proceeds being credited to his THB account in Thailand. While this is not a currency exchange as defined by the law and regulations it is easy to imagine that these two transactions or the sum total of many such smaller transactions can have an effect on the THB exchange rate. These bitcoin transactions would not show up in the foreign exchange statistics and thus the BoT would be unable to see them as the cause of the exchange rate fluctuations and could not take appropriate corrective action if desired.

Edited August 1, 2013 by Puccini

[hawker9000]

So, could BCL (legally) exchange THB for some other currency, and then do its bitcoin buying & selling using the other currency? …

I don’t think so, there would still be a currency involved by one of the two parties to each transaction, and the involvement of any currency in a cross-border transaction would mean that Bitcoin Co. Ltd. in Thailand BCL) needs a currency exchange license (which the BoT cannot issue because Bitcoins is not a currency)

…Or, if bitcoins aren't a "currency", then just treat them as a commodity…

I was wondering the same and think it is not possible because bitcoins are nothing tangible and thus not a commodity like rice or pork bellies. It would have to be considered a service, like teaching and transportation are services, for example.

…Is there some legal definition of "capital controls" under which bitcoins fall, even though they've been determined to NOT fall under the definition of "currency"? Many websites, such as some media sites that sell movie downloads, allow you to buy "credits" for use on them. I know a website that sells aeronautical data via subscriptions that are also obtained using such "credits". In Vegas, you buy & redeem "chips". Frequent flyer "miles" are another example: these days some programs promote ways for you to use them to purchase products directly, or use them to be reimbursed for travel you buy with your own money (CapitalOne's "Purchase Eraser"). Except for all the crypto involved, are bitcoins really any different?

BCL stated on its website that its managing director gave the BoT “a presentation about the workings of Bitcoin, the benefits of Bitcoin, insight into the company’s operations and future implications of Bitcoin.” I have no reason to doubt that the information provided by BCL was correct and intelligible.

Now that we have also the comments of BOT Governor Prasarn, published on http://asiancorrespondent.com/111332/has-bitcoin-been-banned-from-thailand/, we can see more clearly.

Post Today cite BOT Governor Prasarn who states that in relation to the statement the Bitcoin company posted on their Web site, that the company contacted the BOT to request permission for the “money changer” business, but what they are doing is not exchanging of money. It may constitute being related to changes in the exchange rate. Therefore, we asked for suspension of activities through their Web site while we investigated. For now, we are liaising with relevant authorities to look at the details both the ICT (in relation to electronic transactions), Ministry of Finance, and the SEC before considering whether we can give a license or not.

I believe it is safe to assume that the BoT thinks that the activities of BCL “may constitute being related to changes in the exchange rate”, with which BOT Governor Prasarn obviously meant that they are apt to have an effect on the exchange rate of the Thai baht (THB), on the basis of the information provided by BCL.

There is a reason for the following requirement in Thailand’s Exchange Control Regulations (http://www.bot.or.th/English/ForeignExchangeRegulations/FXRegulation/Pages/ExchangeControlLaw.aspx) issued under the Exchange Control Act B.E. 2485 (http://www.bot.or.th/English/LawsAndRegulations/DocLib_EngLaw/Law_E35_Exchange.pdf), namely to keep a record of foreign currencies flowing into and out of Thailand for statistical purposes, in particular for the calculation of Thailand’s Balance of Payments.

Foreign currencies can be transferred or brought into Thailand without limit. Any person receiving foreign currencies from abroad is required to repatriate such funds immediately and sell to an authorized bank or deposit them in a foreign currency account with an authorized bank within 360 days of receipt, except for foreigners temporarily staying in Thailand for not more than three months, foreign embassies, international organizations including their staff with diplomatic privileges and immunities, and Thai emigrants who are permanent residents abroad or working abroad.

Consider this: John Doe uses 1 trillion US dollars (USD) in a bank account outside Thailand to buy bitcoins from a trader outside Thailand and subsequently sells these bitcoins to a trader in Thailand, with the proceeds being credited to his THB account in Thailand. While this is not a currency exchange as defined by the law and regulations it is easy to imagine that these two transactions or the sum total of many such smaller transactions can have an effect on the THB exchange rate. These bitcoin transactions would not show up in the foreign exchange statistics and thus the BoT would be unable to see them as the cause of the exchange rate fluctuations and could not take appropriate corrective action if desired.

I doubt it (the part about having any effect on the THB exchange rate, or the exchange rate of any country). Only some 10.5M bitcoins exist (a bit more; that was as of last NOV). The value now is $95/BTC bid, $100/BTC asked. Total value of ALL BTC owned by everyone everywhere in the world only ~ USD$1Billion. John Doe is never going to be able to buy USD1Trillion worth unless they appreciate from current levels by some staggering factor (and only market forces could make that happen). And such a purchase, were it feasible, actually a far far smaller one would suffice, (and subsequent sale) would shake the BTC itself far more than the THB! The BTC has such a miniscule total world volume compared to most any common currency that I can't imagine one trader having any noticeable impact on any currency with it (maybe some obscure African or S. Pacific island currency against which he probably wouldn't be able to trade the BTC in the first place).

As for its not being "tangible". Is a music or movie or any other media download, or software, "tangible"? I didn't mean commodity in the strict econo-technical sense (soybeans, pork bellies, and so on). I just meant some thing, not currency, that people are willing to buy with "real" currency and be able to sell for real currency. Lots of things bought & sold as "products" are neither services nor tangible like soy beans or pork bellies. But really, I was just saying that if BoT should hold that the BTC is not a currency, then fine. If it's not a currency, how can it be subject to restrictions on the exchange of currencies? If someone wants to trade real currency for something officially recognized as "worthless" and NOT a currency, how is that against the law?

I'm not really an advocate here. I've never owned any part of a bitcoin. The whole thing makes some sense but seems sort of "precarious" to me (but then again, no more "precarious" perhaps than some fiat currencies...). But much of the criticism I see leveled at it is coming from people who simply haven't done their homework and don't understand how it actually works. I think the right expression is, "can't get their minds around it". Then again, I don't think many people really understand how central banks, economics, or conventional currencies really work either... They just think they do because they've been carrying currency around and spending it, and depending on it, their entire lives. And THAT'S all it takes for a traditional currency to be considered viable. It seems to me that the real test of bitcoins as a currency isn't going to be some legal or technical determination by a government official or lawyer made mostly out of short-term self-interest & fear, but rather whether or not bitcoins can survive the test of time, i.e., whether we're still having this conversation about them 5 years from now.

Edited August 1, 2013 by hawker9000

[4evermaat]

In fact, by about 2040 all the bitcoins that can be mined will have been mined (and that's the only legitimate & practical way to create them). A total of about 21,000,000 (there were about half that number in existence as of NOV2012). Bitcoins CAN be lost, and irrevocably so, therefore the more likely scenario over time is probably actually DEflation (which with a non-physical, digital currency, is just a matter of shifting decimal points!). But as others have repeatedly pointed out, bitcoin value is a matter of supply & demand.

Every four years (Jan2009-NOV2012 was the first cycle), the number of bitcoins created is half the number created during the previous 4-yr cycle. That's fixed. "QE" of bitcoins not possible, by anyone. Loss of confidence in them IS possible though, so value COULD go to nothing. And very quickly. If there's loss of confidence in physical currencies, value could skyrocket. Also very quickly. The "currency" chart for BTC (vs USD) only goes back to 2009, but it's interesting.

You are forgetting that bitcoin's decimal denomination is technically unlimited. So you can go down to 0.000000000xxxx1 bitcoin if you really wanted to; although most of the wallet platforms go down to "only" 8 decimal places 0.00000001 or 1 satoshi. There is no worrying of any one person hoarding bitcoins persay; and having more or less of them in circulation does not stop BTC from being circulated. With unlimited denomination, there's no running out of BTC.

From a technical point of view, BTC has very few points where it [the blockchain] can be hacked. The primary method is the 51% attack, where a malicious person/entity would need 51% of the computing power supplied to the entire blockchain in order to double-spend.

Mostly the user is responsible for his/her wallet. Like having cash in your wallet, It is possible that someone could break into your house and steal your wallet or you could lose your wallet in other ways (computer crash). Easy fixes: cold storage, use dropbox or other cloud for wallet storage, backup wallet.

The size of the blockchain itself can become an issue well in the future. But current wholesale rates for 1TB of hard drive space in the could is $50-$100 per datacenter, give or take. "cheaper" if you buy your own storage and internet connection.

[beb]

In fact, by about 2040 all the bitcoins that can be mined will have been mined (and that's the only legitimate & practical way to create them). A total of about 21,000,000 (there were about half that number in existence as of NOV2012). Bitcoins CAN be lost, and irrevocably so, therefore the more likely scenario over time is probably actually DEflation (which with a non-physical, digital currency, is just a matter of shifting decimal points!). But as others have repeatedly pointed out, bitcoin value is a matter of supply & demand.

Every four years (Jan2009-NOV2012 was the first cycle), the number of bitcoins created is half the number created during the previous 4-yr cycle. That's fixed. "QE" of bitcoins not possible, by anyone. Loss of confidence in them IS possible though, so value COULD go to nothing. And very quickly. If there's loss of confidence in physical currencies, value could skyrocket. Also very quickly. The "currency" chart for BTC (vs USD) only goes back to 2009, but it's interesting.

You are forgetting that bitcoin's decimal denomination is technically unlimited. So you can go down to 0.000000000xxxx1 bitcoin if you really wanted to; although most of the wallet platforms go down to "only" 8 decimal places 0.00000001 or 1 satoshi. There is no worrying of any one person hoarding bitcoins persay; and having more or less of them in circulation does not stop BTC from being circulated. With unlimited denomination, there's no running out of BTC.

From a technical point of view, BTC has very few points where it [the blockchain] can be hacked. The primary method is the 51% attack, where a malicious person/entity would need 51% of the computing power supplied to the entire blockchain in order to double-spend.

Mostly the user is responsible for his/her wallet. Like having cash in your wallet, It is possible that someone could break into your house and steal your wallet or you could lose your wallet in other ways (computer crash). Easy fixes: cold storage, use dropbox or other cloud for wallet storage, backup wallet.

The size of the blockchain itself can become an issue well in the future. But current wholesale rates for 1TB of hard drive space in the could is $50-$100 per datacenter, give or take. "cheaper" if you buy your own storage and internet connection.

I just listened to an interesting discussion about how Asic miners, because of their centralizing nature, are creating the potential for a serious problem related to difficulty and an inability to get past increased difficulty if suddenly a significant amount of miners left the system. Basically the scenario would be an entity that wants to destroy BTC could buy up large numbers of miners, put them into the system, let the level of difficulty increase and then pull everything out leaving the rest unable to reach that new difficulty.

I'm not a tech guy so I can't really address the validity of such concerns but basically it's something that a government (US) could potentially do if it really wanted to destroy BTC.

This is part of a larger discussion about the problems related to asic miners that are taking that function out of the hands of the masses and concentrating it on a small group.

[hawker9000]

No - not forgetting decimal denomination (at least I don't think so). Whether we're talking about 1.0BTC or .0000001BTC, the value is still determined by the "market". I agree that neither loss nor hoarding of BTC stops their circulation (due to unlimited denomination). But should enough of them be dumped at one time, the value could be driven to zero, i.e., to the point where no one would accept them in payment for anything anymore.

I was talking about loss of the bitcoins themselves in the 1st para, but loss of confidence IN bitcoins in the 2nd.

[farang000999]

Bitcoin not subject to quantitative easing but what is stopping the flow of an infinite number of similar currencies? What happens when the next e-currency has some features which are better than Bitcoin? There is a limit set on the quanity of bitcoin but no limits on the amount of e-currency that can be created.

Money is based on confidence.

And despite the yearnings of bit and gold bugs, a little inflation is really not a bad thing at all. In fact, it occurs naturally as societies gain wealth as anyone who has read a beginners economics book learned about inflation in prison camps.

Edited August 2, 2013 by farang000999

[beb]

Bitcoin not subject to quantitative easing but what is stopping the flow of an infinite number of similar currencies? What happens when the next e-currency has some features which are better than Bitcoin? There is a limit set on the quanity of bitcoin but no limits on the amount of e-currency that can be created.

Money is based on confidence.

And despite the yearnings of bit and gold bugs, a little inflation is really not a bad thing at all. In fact, it occurs naturally as societies gain wealth as anyone who has read a beginners economics book learned about inflation in prison camps.

There are competing crypto currencies and in the end we can only hope the best one wins. Most are working off of bitcoin with a variation to satisfy certain concerns. For instance, there is one that basically fines a user if they don't spend the currency within a certain amount of time. That is designed to curb hoarding. That may be of interest to some but I would never be involved with something like that. Others have different social goals and others simply think they have a better version. And some are basically just trying to jump on the bandwagon, create a currency, mine and then release with the goal of having a store of something that they can then cash in.

But bitcoin can be improved over time so if there if a better idea comes along, there's nothing to stop bitcoin from making adjustments.

This is my understanding but like I said, I'm not a tech person.

[hawker9000]

Bitcoin not subject to quantitative easing but what is stopping the flow of an infinite number of similar currencies? What happens when the next e-currency has some features which are better than Bitcoin? There is a limit set on the quanity of bitcoin but no limits on the amount of e-currency that can be created.

Money is based on confidence.

And despite the yearnings of bit and gold bugs, a little inflation is really not a bad thing at all. In fact, it occurs naturally as societies gain wealth as anyone who has read a beginners economics book learned about inflation in prison camps.

There are competing crypto currencies and in the end we can only hope the best one wins. Most are working off of bitcoin with a variation to satisfy certain concerns. For instance, there is one that basically fines a user if they don't spend the currency within a certain amount of time. That is designed to curb hoarding. That may be of interest to some but I would never be involved with something like that. Others have different social goals and others simply think they have a better version. And some are basically just trying to jump on the bandwagon, create a currency, mine and then release with the goal of having a store of something that they can then cash in.

But bitcoin can be improved over time so if there if a better idea comes along, there's nothing to stop bitcoin from making adjustments.

This is my understanding but like I said, I'm not a tech person.

Actually, I think the changes that can be made to Bitcoin are pretty limited protocol-wise. It's just a block-chain (and a peer-to-peer network). There's no central control over the network, and any changes made would have to be at least conforming enough to not simply be transactionally rejected. In fact, the exchanges are pretty much the only centralized aspect of the whole bitcoin "scheme", and some feel it's actually these exchanges which will be the downfall of the system since they can't escape susceptibility to whatever scrutiny & regulation national governments make up their minds to bring. (BCL here is actually an early example of this, I guess.) I guess the mysterious "Satoshi" could come out with changes he (or they) feel are needed - there are many who feel he/they actually could NOT do so - and have the necessary credibility or whatever it takes to make significant changes, but 'seems to me that just the fact of any such tinkering could bring the whole thing crashing down. Bitcoin may fade, fizzle & fail, or maybe just have a finite shelf life. But despite what some see as key "flaws" with it, I don't think there'll be many "changes" to the current scheme.

But other competing digital currencies? Yeap, they already exist. And if a "better" one comes along... But don't they all have to clear that big hurdle of getting people to actually use them? Is that so easily & expeditiously accomplished? And might there not be room for more than one in the global commons? Here we're talking about government prohibition of the use of one of these currencies, but what if some government coalition should see an oversight opportunity and decide to create one of these currencies with some power to enforce their use on more universal terms - THAT'S scary.

Edited August 2, 2013 by hawker9000

[beb]

everybody on this thread should read this https://btcglobal.net/blog/post/bitcoin-is-not-illegal-in-thailand

[beb]

Bitcoin not subject to quantitative easing but what is stopping the flow of an infinite number of similar currencies? What happens when the next e-currency has some features which are better than Bitcoin? There is a limit set on the quanity of bitcoin but no limits on the amount of e-currency that can be created.

Money is based on confidence.

And despite the yearnings of bit and gold bugs, a little inflation is really not a bad thing at all. In fact, it occurs naturally as societies gain wealth as anyone who has read a beginners economics book learned about inflation in prison camps.

There are competing crypto currencies and in the end we can only hope the best one wins. Most are working off of bitcoin with a variation to satisfy certain concerns. For instance, there is one that basically fines a user if they don't spend the currency within a certain amount of time. That is designed to curb hoarding. That may be of interest to some but I would never be involved with something like that. Others have different social goals and others simply think they have a better version. And some are basically just trying to jump on the bandwagon, create a currency, mine and then release with the goal of having a store of something that they can then cash in.

But bitcoin can be improved over time so if there if a better idea comes along, there's nothing to stop bitcoin from making adjustments.

This is my understanding but like I said, I'm not a tech person.

Actually, I think the changes that can be made to Bitcoin are pretty limited protocol-wise. It's just a block-chain (and a peer-to-peer network). There's no central control over the network, and any changes made would have to be at least conforming enough to not simply be transactionally rejected. In fact, the exchanges are pretty much the only centralized aspect of the whole bitcoin "scheme", and some feel it's actually these exchanges which will be the downfall of the system since they can't escape susceptibility to whatever scrutiny & regulation national governments make up their minds to bring. (BCL here is actually an early example of this, I guess.) I guess the mysterious "Satoshi" could come out with changes he (or they) feel are needed - there are many who feel he/they actually could NOT do so - and have the necessary credibility or whatever it takes to make significant changes, but 'seems to me that just the fact of any such tinkering could bring the whole thing crashing down. Bitcoin may fade, fizzle & fail, or maybe just have a finite shelf life. But despite what some see as key "flaws" with it, I don't think there'll be many "changes" to the current scheme.

I believe that changes can be made with a majority. Pretty sure this is not uncommon in slight ways.

[hawker9000]

RE the BTCGlobal link: 'Sounds like a bit of hair-splitting. Thai media may have not done so, but you don't need to search very hard to find lots of international media that did report it as a ban. BCL suspended its operations based on BoT's response to their inquiry, that's not in dispute. BoT "advised" them to do so - that doesn't seem to be in dispute either. Does a business seeking the privileges to do business that BCL was seeking ignore the advice of the central bank? Did it HAVE to be an outright "ban" to have the effect of one? So what's the practical difference here?

Maybe some actually. The word "ban" does apparently overstate the situation. But as TV has pointed out in other threads, it apparently hasn't the latitude to change the headlines from the original media whose copy appears here. That often determines at least some of the direction the thread then takes. The BCL situation, and bitcoin generally, IS an interesting topic. There are probably several readers who're interested in the relevance it might have for them in Thailand. Some portion of the thread has been critical of BoT (based on the headline), some other portion has been critical but qualified with IF; much has been about the technology itself and not so much about BoT at all.

It's not unreasonable to let the commentary continue even as the news develops.

RE changes with a majority: majority of what?!

Edited August 2, 2013 by hawker9000

[beb]

RE the BTCGlobal link: 'Sounds like a bit of hair-splitting. Thai media may have not done so, but you don't need to search very hard to find lots of international media that did report it as a ban. BCL suspended its operations based on BoT's response to their inquiry, that's not in dispute. BoT "advised" them to do so - that doesn't seem to be in dispute either. Does a business seeking the privileges to do business that BCL was seeking ignore the advice of the central bank? Did it HAVE to be an outright "ban" to have the effect of one? So what's the practical difference here?

Maybe some actually. The word "ban" does apparently overstate the situation. But as TV has pointed out in other threads, it apparently hasn't the latitude to change the headlines from the original media whose copy appears here. That often determines at least some of the direction the thread then takes. The BCL situation, and bitcoin generally, IS an interesting topic. There are probably several readers who're interested in the relevance it might have for them in Thailand. Some portion of the thread has been critical of BoT (based on the headline), some other portion has been critical but qualified with IF; much has been about the technology itself and not so much about BoT at all.

It's not unreasonable to let the commentary continue even as the news develops.

Sure, commentary should continue but the headline and story were totally wrong. The problem isn't with the BoT, maybe a little with the website but really with the article that did such a bad job of relaying what actually happened.

[pancakeman]

everybody on this thread should read this https://btcglobal.net/blog/post/bitcoin-is-not-illegal-in-thailand

So we should ignore the opinions of the BoT and instead follow the advice of Frankie Bishop?

[beb]

everybody on this thread should read this https://btcglobal.net/blog/post/bitcoin-is-not-illegal-in-thailand

So we should ignore the opinions of the BoT and instead follow the advice of Frankie Bishop?

My suggestion is limited to reading that article. Beyond that, you should do as you like.