According to:
http://www.faketitles.com/html/principality_of_sealand.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand
http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/sealand.htm

...it's not recognized at all.

I didn't find that name in any list of sovereign states or countries, nor even on this list of states with limited recognition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_limited_recognition

I also found this one:
http://principality-of-sealand.eu/about/geschichte_e.html
...though the domain name suggests that it may be biased.

Okay... you have a source?

Nope, I didn't use those.  That must be one of the reasons my definition of exchange suck.  What I have used, though, is currency exchange service, in person, where I pay in one currency and get the [buying or selling] value of another currency, i.e. BTC, CAD, EUR and USD.  I very much prefer a cash transaction over one tied to a financial institution account.

While they write "exchange" in bib letters, and show the "selling" and "buying" value of each currency they trade in, then I just reused the term buy and sell.  Then while they "had" the currency they gave me and that they took the currency I gave them.... then I assume there is a certain amount of those currency in their hand.  And by "hand", I mean possession.  And by possession I mean under their supervision.  And while it is under their supervision, I say they are holding it.

You are indeed talking about exchanges where users offer to sell or buy whatever we want to exchange, though I have a vague idea of how I believe that works.  I've seen some charts, heard about it, but never went very deep in the understanding of its backed.  I would assume that I still pay to the exchange and the exchange pay me, but I can be mistaking.  If my assumption is right, it would mean that they need to have a certain amount of what they trade in their hand, even if the currency, the stock or the bitcoin legally belongs to the user during the process.

So those offices that change your currency, are they exchanges?  Or how do you call them?
And do exchange need to hold any asset at any point?  Or how can the exchanged assets be moved between users?

Thanks for your reply; I appreciate it.

Which makes it similar to BTC for that matter.  Wasn't that my point?

Right, it seems that my wording was ambiguous.  I've been using "buy [...]" as in "accepting [...] in exchange for [money]", or more precisely "accepting to trade them"?  Words....


In a sense, I do.  Just like the word "apple" is magic.  One thinks it's a computer, one thinks it's a fruit, and both swear that the other is a idiot.  That works with other words like "value" or "buy", and also with: safety, bitcoin, currency, virtual, transaction, you, money, future, freedom, conversation, religion, online...  we can have fun all day long.

As crazy as it may seem, "you" may refer to your person, your personality, your way of thinking, your idea, the words you use, one thing that you said, the thing he thought you meant by that, the group of people he believes you to be part of.... and there we go with which group is he talking about?  Or is he talking about the way of thinking of that group he thinks you are in according to what he thinks you meant when you used that word?  So, indeed, words are truly magic.

I totally agree with both of you, odolvlobo and Chet.  Though it seems that so far we see similarities, comparability, room (but I mean MUCH room) for interpretation, but no actual distinction between... how BTC is less prone to being manipulated by the power that be than EUR, USD or a stock.

I am not looking for an "answer" but rather for shedding a light on the fact (i.e. my belief) that BTC is not as different that holding stocks or any currency.  And if it is different, I sure want to know where it actually differs.  Wait, would that be considered an answer?

Lucano, God bless you;
rhinospray, you nailed it!  (ouch!)

If I ask you how much the BTC is worth right now, what is your reference?  What will you base your answer on?

Now, try think outside the box (I know it is impossible, but one may still try) and explain how this works.

So, what makes the value of a BTC any less subjected to the same manipulative forces than fiat currency is subjected to?

Don't get me wrong, I believe bitcoin is a great great tool, but there is misunderstanding about how it compares to fiat as for its market value and its safety* is and I am not the best person to explain it.

*All people don't define safety the same way do they?

---

I personally believe that offer and demand is the way prices should be determined, and I believe it works as long as "big players" are not manipulating it.  The price of a stock, for instance, will gain or loose value depending on how much people seem to value it, or how much people think others value it... see the concept of a Keynesian beauty contest.

However, if a player, such as the US gov gets in and buy an a LOT of ammunition (just an example) then the price of ammunition would go up.  Or, it could print (digitize) money and make the value of the dollar decrease.  (Also just an example)

While most (correct me if I'm wrong) use major exchanges as a reference for the value of the BTC, those exchanges may decide to hold on to them or basically just decide to charge more for them, therefore increasing its price.  Large purchases of bitcoins, particularly through those exchanges, would likely boost the price quickly.  On the other hand, if a exchanges were to decide* to stop buying any bitcoins, wouldn't that make the market price drop suddenly?  Also, if someone (anyone) holds a lot of bitcoins and would start selling them very quickly, would that not have that same effect.

Note that a decision is usually made in the "light" of something, for example.... I don't know... regulations?  (if that's possible)

Food for thought:  If price drops suddenly, does that mean that value drops proportionally?

Sure my private key protects my bitcoins and I can store them in my brain, but I would like someone to explain thoughtfully what the difference is, value-wise, between holding bitcoins and holding dollars.

Anyone?

Nice point.  While the government of a country want to be in control of the currency of it's citizens, or the currency altogether, that applies well.

A government that protects its own interest rather than the interest of its people does not want to adopt bitcoin, that is what we see in our world.  The people, however, have their interest inversely proportional.  It is about who will benefit.

There is a difference between a country and it's administration.  Only should the people be responsible enough so that an administration would need act accordingly.

For example, the US constitution is bases on the principle that the government should be as limited as possible, while freedom AND RESPONSIBILITY belongs to the people, e.g. free to act stupidly and get hurt, and responsible of keeping the government limited, among being responsible for their security and everything else in their live (vs other's life)

The United States is now far from that, and the eurozone has a growing "shifting potential", economically speaking.  It is also in my opinion that no instituted government would adopt the currency; only people could.  People who live in a country.

I don't see how it could "improve bitcoin" either.  What I am talking about is it's status as defined by the law.

"Nowhere would do it" because of [many many reasons.]  However, some reasons do not apply to ALL countries, and therefore some countries have fewer reasons not to do it.

If I may rephrase: what is that universal reason that applies to all country that do and will ever exist, and makes you totally convinced that "nowhere" would do it?

In my eyes, a statement's weight is proportional to what supports it.  What is behind your claim?

You should learn to tolerate other peoples' opinions too.  God bless you!

FinCen Guidance FIN-2013-G001 (http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html) says:


Three terms to legally define here: virtual currency, legal tender, and jurisdiction.

Let's dream that ONE sovereign state (internationally recognized as a country) makes bitcoin legal tender (perhaps even it's official currency).  Then being legal tender in a jurisdiction, would it no longer fall under their "special" definition, but instead necessarily become "just a currency"?

I bet it would change the game.  Here are my two questions:

Where do you think bitcoin is the most likely (i.e. less unlikely) to become legal tender?
And if we assume it will happens, in which time-frame would you guess it will?

I am asking those question in order to first establish some framework as a starting point, a framework to allow a better understanding of the current international situation and a tool to strengthen the bitcoin institution.

That being said, I would presume that "nowhere in the world" and "never in the history of mankind" are unlikely useful for this purpose, but for "freedom of speech" sake...  you are the master of your keyboard.

You did the right thing sending her the email.  Now, trust divine justice, karma will take care of it all.  She will lose what she got, or had lost it in the past and get it back.  What you apparently "lost" will get back to you in one way or another, if it didn't already have.  Nothing for nothing, that's THE law.

Fighting over it will hurt you more than it will hurt her.

In the original client, when you make a transaction, it takes money from "wherever there is funds."  I don't know how the decision is made as for what address the funds are taken from, but:

Let's say you received have 10 BTC on one address, say address "1addressIrecieved10BTCon"
then you send 2 BTC to "1addressIamSending2BTCto".
Therefore,
10BTC are taken out of "1addressIrecieved10BTCon",
2BCT are sent to "1addressIamSending2BTCto",
8BTC are sent to a "change" address, say "1addressInMyWalletButHiddenFromMyView"

This means that the address you took funds from, i.e. "1addressIrecieved10BTCon", is now empty, while the 8 BTC that are still available for you to spend are in a change address that actually belong to your wallet, but that you will not see directly in the bitcoin client.


If your funds are spreader over multiple addresses, I DO NOT KNOW how it determines what address it will take funds from.  My GUESS would be that it merges the smallest amount until it reaches the amount you want to spend, though it would make sense for it to tend to avoid spending funds from transaction that received fewer confirmations.

One sure thing is that the only control you have over where funds are taken from and where they are going is limited to the one address you wish to send funds to, and the amount that will be send to that address.  Where the funds come from and where the change goes is out of your hands, unless you know how to use the command lines to "micro-manage" your transaction, or have a client that will allow you to do it.

If you are comfortable enough, you can go in "Help -< Debug" (menu) and then in the "Console" tab and type "help".  You will see the commands available.  You can then use the "sendmany" command in order to select the address you want to send funds to and the "account" you want to take the funds from.  The "account" (which is neither a wallet, nor an address) should match the label, but change (e.g. the 8 BTC above) addresses could have been created in the same "account".  The funds would then be spitted over many addresses, but under the same "account" (or label), so the "coins" would still have come from that same first address, although the funds will have moved through intermediate address in the process.

An account is a subset of addresses withing a wallet.  An account may contain only one address, or many.

Another workaround would be to create separate wallets and send the amounts you want to each wallet, then decide which wallet you want to spend from, but I almost get upsets just to think about that idea.

I hope that helps.

It takes it's info off MtGox.com, though I didn't succeed findinout how it does so looking in the "cleaned up" source html or javascript, not firefux debugger helped me.  Perhaps installing a sniffer would allow me to see what url is sent to mtgox.com, but I would suspect that the page calls a page that is also if preev.com, be for the public code to work, despite it's obviously made difficult to read.

I wish to have a simple call from php.  If you look at http://blockexplorer.com/q/addressbalance/address, you find that the response is pretty clear and straight forward.

Whether encoded in JSON or in plaintext, that's the sort of "access" I want, though for the exchange rate, from reliable sources such as mtgox, but hopefullt several souces so that I can either average or compute a decision, or at least not rely exclusively on only one source.

Definitely, I'd check mtgox directly, rather than through preev, because the latter would give me the same value yet relayed.

Thanks for your reply

I am looking at reliable source to actually get the market exchange rate between BTC/USD, and hopefully BTC/EUR and BTC/CAD as well.

This is for automation purposes, so that can process a fair exchange rate according to at least several reliable source.  I do NOT want to rely on only one source.

Does anyone know of any such source, where the data can be provided though an, API, in plain text, or any mean that is meant to be read "not on a web page"?

I say keep the debit cards where it belongs, i.e. to the financial institutions.  Only them could issue such a bitcoin debit card, but that card would then have all the disadvantages of a regular debit card, if not more, e.g. the ability to manage your waller.  And if that's not what you want, then just transfer your bitcoins to your bank account when necessary.  There already are services for that.

Stores, restaurant, etc. who already accept debit card and credit card and will feel obliged and constrained to stick to those for a while.  That's my opinion.

Keep in mind that each transaction using a debit card cost something to the merchant, and often to the customer as well.  Credit card is even worse for the merchant.  Though merchants are happy when someone pays cash because it saves the fees mentioned above.  The downside is the need to handle the money, make sure to buy and carry enough change, count the money, make a deposit for the physical money.  And there can be many employees, so where did that $5 go, or where does it come from?

So cash can be great too.  It has both advantages and disadvantages, both for the seller and the buyer.

As for accepting bitcoins, I'd focus on encouraging the use of the new technology, rather than hiding it in the conventional one.  All the merchant really need is a QR code printed next to the cash register, and a feed (notification) for transactions that goes through.  So the customer takes his smart phone, scan the code, enter the amount and sent money.

When the transaction is seen on the network, one may wait 15 or 30 seconds to make sure it's not being double spent in person, in real time... for a low amount.  That is acceptable security.  In fact, a cashier is more likely to accept fake bills of cash than being fraud with the bitcoin transaction.  Especially if that casher doesn't take a few second to examine each bill.  A tablet, a smart phone or a small window on a POS computer can be a "view only", with or without a small wallet to quickly perform a few small refund without the manager if need be.

It can also be done so that a request money type of QR code, which is generated live and displayed on a screen to the customer, so that all he has to do is to scan it and "accept to send x BTC to y".  No need for a third party, just listening to the network.  Even some client software could be use as is for that purpose, though it's is much better to be adapted for such POS system, which is a very easy thing to do.  Otherwise, one may need a calculator for the exchange rate.

Also note that the upfront cost can be practically inexistent, so does the fixed cost, we are talking about a computer or portable device would be on anyway.   This is a huge advantage for merchants who, for instance, won't bother paying for accepting cards because it is to expensive in fees.

Yes, yes, remains the volatile (or ever increasing) exchange rate.  While that may not be solved by a debit card, that can be solved by spreading the word.  Here is what you can do:

If you are an employee and a smart phone or a tablet, ask customers "would you like to pay using bitcoins today?"

If the person say yes, then the employee himself pays for the transaction, and have the customer pay the sum of x BTC directly to him. At the end of his shift, he just need to put the right amount money in the cash drawer.

Don't be upset if the customer says no.  That may happen ;)  But you see the opportunity.  One may come back the following week, specially choose your line, enthusiastically ready to pay with his new bitcoins, a transaction that may get the next guy in line thinking.  Or, if you are a customer in the line, then you may simply wear a shirt displaying "I use bitcoins".  Therefore, if the guy in front of you want's to pay using bitcoins, then you buy his bitcoins and give him the cash value.

That would work in the street too.  The cool thing is that you any whoever it is] actually decide what your exchange rate is.  How much is your bitcoin worth for me?  How much is my cash worth to you?  Isn't that wonderful?

I know I'm going a little far here with the t-shirt, but all I mean is that the technology is out, in OUR hands.  We don't need to bother using VISA's or PLUS network.  The middle-man is not as necessary as it seems.  Just buy and sell bitcoins, show you are doing it (be visible) and encourage people to do it out.  It's trying it out and seeing it used and working that will convince people.  The more people using it, the more stable and the strongest the currency is.

So, who wants that debit card, and why?