Bitcoin Is Over $7,200!

[timd354]

You are factually wrong.

It's legal tender in Japan.

First of all, we are not in Japan, and secondly, Bitcoin is not legal tender in Japan despite some internet people claiming that it is. Just because you read something on the internet, does not mean it is true

Many people are confused because recent changes to Japanese law specifically recognized Bitcoin as a legal payment method, but Japanese law does not recognize Bitcoin as legal tender.

 

[Deleted member 134708]

First of all, we are not in Japan, and secondly, Bitcoin is not legal tender in Japan despite some internet people claiming that it is. Just because you read something on the internet, does not mean it is true

Many people are confused because recent changes to Japanese law specifically recognized Bitcoin as a legal payment method, but Japanese law does not recognize Bitcoin as legal tender.

I do owe you an apology.

I was looking at your comment sentence by sentence. Soon as you stopped USA talk I pounced.

You are fully correct in your context (prior) in USA not legal tender.

But it actually is in Japan so I'll take my apology off the air.

 

[Deleted member 134708]

Ok. @timd354

I bow. You are smarter than me. (Not being facetious)

I thought about it.

Legal tender is a centralized name. Btc can never be legal tender. That's what it was made for. To be decentralized.

So you have my full apology. I tried to look smart and failed.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Me bring um wampum ...clam shells trade for Rolex.

 

[Elliott]

WSJ--Updated Dec. 7, 2017

"More than $70 million worth of bitcoin was stolen from a cryptocurrency-mining service called NiceHash following a security breach, causing the company to halt operations for at least 24 hours.

Andrej P. Škraba, head of marketing at NiceHash, said to The Wall Street Journal that approximately 4,700 bitcoin had been stolen from a bitcoin wallet, an online account that stores the digital currency. Bitcoin wallets, like other online bank accounts, have been targets of hackers in the past.

“It was a professional attack,” Mr. Škraba said. He declined to elaborate further, saying more information will be revealed at a later date."

And because there is really nothing behind it, it is just as difficult to short:

The Street---
But the cost to short bitcoin hasn't been cheap, S3 found. Stock borrow costs have averaged a 10.2% fee for the year, and "borrow rates are getting more expensive as borrow supply diminishes," S3 said. Since GBTC is more of a retail-owned stock than an institutionally owned stock, new shorts are being charged an 18.5% fee.

"If short interest continues to climb, we should see new borrow rates hit the 50% fee level quickly," S3 said.

The cost to short the GBTC fund could rise higher than 50% and possibly near 100% by the time the first futures contract trades, S3 noted. Many analysts have asserted bitcoin is headed for a pullback when futures open for trading.


Anyone want to catch a falling knife?

I use PayPal and Amazon, its so easy, nobody steals from me. And the bank protects me when something goes wrong.

 

[djd09]

You are in left field. Not gonna knock you for it cause hey, everyone was at 1 time.

Keep ripping on fiat, while you convert bitcoins into dollars. Might as well give the Fed a big kiss while you are at it.

 

[djd09]

A pair of US senators have filed a new anti-money laundering bill aimed at beefing up oversight of digital currency activities.

The bill – the Combating Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Counterfeiting Act of 2017 – was filed last week by Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Senator Diane Feinstein of California.

Among the changes, according to a draft text of the bill, are additions to definitions for "financial institutions", which, if the bill is passed, would include "any digital currency exchanger or tumbler". Additionally, the bill clarifies that any "issuer, redeemer or cashier" of a "digital currency" is also covered.

While not explicitly spelled out as such, the bill moves bitcoin and other digital currencies closer to being defined as a "monetary instrument" under US anti-money laundering statutes, as it targets "funds stored in a digital format", according to a summary published by Grassley's office.

Beyond the regulatory adjustment, the bill seeks information from the US Department of Homeland Security's Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency about its policies on digital currencies.

Specifically, it calls for a report "detailing a strategy to detect prepaid access devices and digital currency at border crossings and ports of entry". This report – which would be due 18 months after the ostensible passage of the bill – is also required to include details about how such a strategy would be implemented.

The bill's release comes shortly after a member of the US House of Representatives called for a study into virtual currency use for terrorism financing.

https://www.coindesk.com/senators-call-digital-currency-oversight-anti-money-laundering-bill/

 

[Joe Flacco]

I don't know if crypto will replace fiat. I guess it is possible. I think both can exist.

 

[The Bob]

The intrinsic value is that if owe a debt of whatever amount, Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender that the creditor is legally obligated to accept as payment for that debt within the USA. Offering payment of a debt in bitcoins is not legal tender and does not have to be accepted by the creditor.

What you describe is a medium of exchange. Many things have been used for that. But there is no intrinsic value in a Federal Reserve Note, also called a dollar.
Gold and silver have intrinsic value; diamonds have intrinsic value. The fact that dollars have to be backed by "the full faith and credit of the US" says it all. If dollars had intrinsic value, there would be no need for such a gaurantee.

 

[Elliott]