[uncensored-r/Bitcoin] 4 Years ago, we started accepting Bitcoin at my Subway Restaurant. The first order we sold with B...
The following post by sapan211 is being replicated because some comments within the post(but not the post itself) have been silently removed. The original post can be found(in censored form) at this link: np.reddit.com/ Bitcoin/comments/7bgaic The original post's content was as follows:
Planet Money Episode 891: Who Won The Bet Over Bitcoin?
I don't know if anyone here listens to "Planet Money", a pop economics podcast by NPR. Their most recent episode was about widespread adoption of Bitcoin. Specifically, it was about a bet between Ben Horowitz, a venture capitalist who believed that Bitcoin was on its way to becoming a widespread payment platform, and Felix Salmon, a finance journalist who thought it was going to go to zero. They made a bet 5 years ago, whether or not 10% of Americans would be using Bitcoin at least once a month, and they finally got the results today:
GOLDSTEIN: As promised, we went out and got Ipsos, a real polling firm, to ask 900-and-some Americans - a representative sample of Americans this question. Have you purchased anything using bitcoin as your payment in the last month? The percentage of Americans who said, yes, is three - three. HOROWITZ: All right. GOLDSTEIN: Now, they did ask those people - the people who said they had, they said, at what merchant did you make the purchase? And I have some of those answers. And it suggests that the 3 percent is a little high. HOROWITZ: Yup. GOLDSTEIN: If you go down this list, somebody said Gaia Ethnobotanical, which I looked up - in fact, does accept bitcoin. Subway - I think some Subways accept bitcoin. But there's also a bunch that say - this one says Litecoin. A few say Coinbase, which is a bitcoin cryptocurrency exchange. So these people are using bitcoin to buy other cryptocurrency.
Horowitz ended up admitting to something that a lot of people on this sub have been saying for a while as well:
KESTENBAUM: That's what Ben thought would happen with bitcoin. He thought the code that powers bitcoin would just get better and better and, very quickly, it would obviously be this safer, faster, more private, cheaper way for people to buy stuff online. That did not happen. GOLDSTEIN: No. Bitcoins just became so valuable that the people who worked on the system didn't want to make it any better. They just wanted to lock everything down and keep it the way it was. HOROWITZ: I think that what happened with bitcoin is that there is kind of one very, very strong need among the kind of investors/miners, which is that the code and the meaning of the code would not change.
And Salmon, the guy who bet against Bitcoin, hits on the real paradox of Bitcoin:
SALMON: I - honestly, I was looking back. I mean, there were two things which I expected would happen which didn't happen. One is I expected the price would probably go to zero, and it didn't. It went way up and to the right. And the other is that I expected that there would actually be use cases over the following five years that, even if people weren't using it to buy stuff in stores, and that was my side of the bet, I imagined it would be used for remittances, or, somewhere along the line, it would have evolved. Especially if it had grown to be worth thousands of dollars per bitcoin, then it would be used for something. GOLDSTEIN: So it's more valuable and less useful than you thought.
11-28 03:13 - '[quote] semantics... and the idea of block chains itself are way older than bitcoin. / [quote] there weren't 400 different standards competing to be the new telephone. But there are hundreds of coins competing to be a global se...' by /u/rathax_ removed from /r/Bitcoin within 45-55min
Wrong right off the bat. Bitcoin is built intertwined with Blockchain - Blockchain was made with Bitcoin in mind.
semantics... and the idea of block chains itself are way older than bitcoin.
is like saying "telephones could fail as business entirely, but the telecommunication network will live on!" No. That's stupid.
there weren't 400 different standards competing to be the new telephone. But there are hundreds of coins competing to be a global settlement system. You saying bitcoin is the new tech but in reality its just one of many coins that are built intertwined with the tech. In your example, bitcoin wouldn't even be a standard... it would one of the many telephone companies that produce the telephones that are intertwined with the telecommunication network.
MLM scheme, by your definition.
again, in your example, you are selling a product and not a financial investment. There is nothing wrong with promoting bitcoin as a tool that you should use to settle payments, but people are promoting at as a financial investment and as a concept to get rich.
BTC may have the means soon to become an efficient transactional currency (multiple layers, segwit2x, lightning, etc.)
but will still never be able to beat traditional database transactions in terms of efficiency. The bitcoin network struggles with mere 370k transaction A DAY. Some half decent MySQL database can run through that in a second and that's basically the traditional banking system while bitcoin currently consumes as much power as whole fucking Ireland. The things you have listed like segwit2x and lightning networks have their limits and are still far from a final solution to the scaling problem. also, hasn't segwit2x failed and major contributors to Bitcoin Core are not interested in SegWit2x and will not implement it? lightning networks cant be a [decentralized bitcoin scaling solution]1
BTC continues huge mainstream adoption
there is no huge mainstream adoption. The only thing that is somewhat used is bitpay that has an estimated 300% growth to 1bn in transactions for this year. Sounds nice but PayPal transaction volume grew with 14bn during the same time. So the new disruptive new tech gains new market shares slower than the traditional system? there are almost no direct bitcoin payments done outside the darkweb.
Right, so you admit you misunderstood the dotcom bubble?
people invested in retarded bullshit they have no clue about and completely misestimated the new tech? have I said something different?
Right, so you admit you misunderstood the dotcom bubble? Because investors invest in thing which are being invested in.
It looks like the news finally became interesting enough to comment on again.
Merchant adoption is happening top-down
Last year, someone who predicted that Wal-Mart would be accepting bitcoins in two years would have been looked at as insane. Now, some people view that scenario as inevitable. The important part of merchant adoption isn't the people paying in bitcoins; it's that there is another place for businesses to spend bitcoins. The more the space develops, the more likely it looks that the first people to use bitcoins for common purchases will be business to business transactions. If you have lots of bitcoins from customers, and your supplier also accepts bitcoins from customers, then there is no reason to pay Coinbase a fee to cash out your bitcoins and then pay bank fees to pay the supplier. Some businesses have a model where the same goods are purchased every day, and these businesses are perfect for the beginnings of this. For example, Subway needs to buy huge numbers of fresh tomatoes every day for its stores. If Subway accepted bitcoins, it makes more sense for them to just send their bitcoins immediately to the tomato supplier. That way, they are shielded from volatility and they don't have to pay fees.
Bitcoin as a big-money transfer network
Everything is pointing towards bitcoin, for the foreseeable future, becoming a network for business-to-business transfers. Seeing as how it is taking a while for people to add wallets to their phones, the logical first users are businesses. Businesses are also largely unaffected by the 1MB transaction limit, because transaction fees are constant. For them, if you need to buy $1m in tomatoes, $0.50 will get you into the next block easily. I've said in the past that bitcoin could become a clearinghouse between banks. The factors are lining up that non-financial business-to-business transactions could be coming first, followed by transfers between banks.
Unfortunately, it looks like people are back at it in /bitcoinmarkets again, and it disappoints me to see that. This time, someone is being personally attacked in a hugely out of proportion thread where some users have alleged that he has some "motive" to influence the price of bitcoins. I can't ever get into someone's head to see what he is thinking. Just using the logic of math, there are so many possible thoughts a person can have that the odds of me coming upon the correct one by chance are astronomically small. Therefore, it would be inappropriate of me to accuse people of thinking something when my accusation is almost guaranteed to be false. The other issue with accusing people of "motives" is that they really aren't relevant. Talk is cheap, but actions are relevant. This is why laws specifying greater penalties for "hate crimes" should be eliminated. If you rob someone and kill him, then you took someone's life unnecessarily regardless of whether you drew a swastika on the door on the way out. I strongly disapprove of anyone who attempts to attach "motives" to people who are posting on the Internet. There aren't many blows cheaper than that. If you disagree with someone, then say so, and if you think that a person's posts are not contributing to the discussion, then say that or report them to the moderators. *Note: I edited this post after someone mentioned to me that it isn't illegal to post a swastika on a door without committing a murder. So if I painted the symbol on my door, there would be no penalty for that act, but if I killed someone on my porch and then painted the symbol on my door, the penalty for that act would be several additional years in prison, even though I did the same thing both times.
Follow the money
To figure out what's really happening with anything in life, follow the money. My dad yesterday called me and was wondering if he should sell. Selling certainly wouldn't be a bad idea, given that I told him to buy at $68. He had watched one of those YouTube videos where people were talking about the invention of bitcoin and its significance. In the video, a guy was arguing that the blockchain technology was going to bring a lot of changes, but that bitcoin itself might fail. I simply don't comprehend this argument. Money is the simplest, most logical, most useful, and most necessary of all the applications for which the blockchain can be used. If you don't use a blockchain of money, then how do you have a distributed stock exchange? What surprises me, but which confirms my argument, is that almost all of the $130m in venture capital that went into bitcoins this year is going into services based on accepting and processing bitcoins, with the largest going to BitPay. Nobody is investing millions into proofs of existence or voting systems. These people don't just throw money around when it isn't going to provide a return. That demonstrates that money is the application where the blockchain technology will be most successful.
Why most blockchains will fail
This brings me to why most of these alternate blockchain technologies will fail. Ethereum is an example of a technology that was not primarily designed to be used for money. Namecoin is another example. The problem with these technologies is that miners need to be rewarded in some way. Namecoins are not money; they are tokens that can be used to register domain names. If you want to register a domain name, then namecoins are great for you, but if you don't, then you want to get rid of them so that you can obtain something that is fungible and is valued by everyone. The only people who value namecoins are people who want domains, people who are squatting domains, and people who think that other people will pay more for them. Unlike bitcoins, namecoins and ethereum are not accepted at 60,000 merchants. Namecoins would have succeeded if people who mined them were rewarded with bitcoins. But rewarding namecoin miners with bitcoins not only would have been difficult to implement, but would also would have defeated the purpose of their existence as a separate chain. Had they been implemented as colored coins, they might have had a different outcome.
Speaking of namecoins, one way to earn bitcoins while mining namecoins is through merge mining. In merge mining, a miner hashes multiple coins at once, and when a block is found for one of them, then he also gets blocks in all the other coins of lower difficulty. Merge mining has been heralded as a solution to a number of problems for altcoins. I'm not sure that it's all it's cracked up to be. For one, merge mining does more to centralize mining than anything else. Now, a pool like mine can mine ten coins at once rather than one, and sell them all at once to get bitcoins. Since merge mining is complicated to set up, and requires miners to be aware of all the new coins coming out every day, solo mining is not optimal for merge mining. Meanwhile, pools can easily add new coins and all of their miners will be mining the newest coins. Also, merge mining makes coins extremely vulnerable to 51% attacks. Imagine that you have 10 coins you are mining, there are three pools, and there are no other miners. One pool mines 3 of them, one pool mines 6, and the third pool mines all of the coins. The third pool, which makes the most money, therefore attracts the most miners and obtains 40% of the market share of all three pools. The other pools have 30% each. In this situation, 7 of the 10 coins are unintentionally subjected to 51% attacks. Three of the coins are mined by the two other pools, so the largest pool has a minority share in those coins. For the other 7 coins, the large pool has 70% or 100% of the hashpower. To make things worse, price is irrelevant to merge mining, since adding a new coin requires no more electricity. The most expensive coins are just as likely to be killed as the most inexpensive coins. If darkcoins were merge mined, they would be just as likely to be killed off as krugercoins would, despite krugercoins having no meaningful advantages over other types of coins. Not only does this jeopardize "better" coins, it also means that junk coins will stick around much longer because nobody will be able to put an end to them. Merge mining is a great equalizer: price, vulnerability, and features (or lack thereof) all become the same.
HELP! I need someone who can throw together a Bitcoin website for me: Bitcoin-Allentown.org
HELP! I need someone who can throw together a Bitcoin website for me. I live in Allentown, the locale where a Subway has begun accepting Bitcoin, and became a national sensation. The owner, Sapan Shah, has been featured in the Lehigh Valley's newspaper Morning Call, and on the local TV station WFMZ, and has been interviewed on CNBC. I had an idea. I went to several other Subways in the Lehigh Valley, and also to other restaurants in the same mall as the famous Subway. Many of them could see the unique publicity opportunity available to them at this time, and I think I could set up a meeting where Sapan Shah (I haven't talked to him yet about this) could relate his experience in setting up a merchant account with Coinbase, and training his employees to accept Bitcoin transactions from customers. We could then hand-hold any interested proprietors through the process of signing up with Coinbase. I could put together a schlocky website myself in Dreamweaver, but I'm hoping there is a Bitcoin enthusiast out there who is a seasoned website designer, and could make an attractive site in just a few hours (also, if there are any other Lehigh Valley Bitcoin aficionados that would like to help please PM me). What I need is something to which I could point Lehigh Valley merchants, and I would go out and hand out flyers to pique their interest. The URL is: Bitcoin-Allentown.org HELP!
Hungry for Bitcoin: places to buy noms with BTC, online and off
I'm a foodie, and I think BTC is very cool. Here's a list of some of the food-related Bitcoin news and shops that I've found. Obviously, the list is by no means exhaustive. :) ~~~ ONLINE FOOD SHOPS AND SERVICES
This grocery-slash-drugstore sells a wide variety of candies, drinks, baking goods, etc. They even sell pharmacy items such as eye drops. Prices are in USD but the currency is BTC so prices don't increase with the rise in Bitcoin value. I've heard this site may be out of service, but it looks in working out at the moment.
Foodler is a place where you can order takeout online at tons of restaurants--so long as the restaurants are in your delivery zone. They accept BTC, so you can add credits to your account and order takeout with virtual coin.
This great little article on NPR talks about a farm in Utah beginning to accept Bitcoin after being part of a BTC-focused documentary. It brings up some good ideas of what could happen on other small farms.
These cookies are not available for purchase, but they look pretty sweet in every sense of the word. ~~~ I think the use of Bitcoin for food shows the coin's trend towards a currency rather than a commodity or speculative investment. Time will tell. EDIT: Psst! Gyft sells gift cards for Bitcoin, which can unlock access to lots of stores and restaurants. So much food, and no need to convince retailers to retool their POS systems to accept BTC. Thanks to rluffintlimme for pointing out this oversight.
Bitcoin, Peter Thiel, Eric Schmidt & Bilderberg - The New World Order wants a cashless society. Are we getting it now, via Bitcoin?
WILD SPECULATION VIA GUT FEELING - Could be absolutely wrong...Or, might just be on to something. 1) Bitcoin is reaching new highs on a daily basis. As I type this, Bitstamp is showing a price of $340 per BTC, a 200% increase in a month. 2) Back in May, Bilderberg attendee and PayPal co-founder, Peter Thiel, invests in BitPay, currently the largest BTC payment processor for merchants. 3) Recently, Barack Obama allegedly asked Google CEO and Bilderberg attendee Eric Schmidt whether or not it was something the President "had to worry about." Allegedly, Schmidt didn't know what BTC was. Personally, if true, this is a huge red flag. The CEO of Google, who attends Bilderberg meetings with Peter Thiel, doesn't know what Bitcoin is? Interesting. 4) One of the NWO's goals is a cashless society. No wonder Alex Jones is so skeptical of BTC and Max Keiser's relentless promotion of it. Could it be that the elite are behind Bitcoin? First, they introduce it to the purist libertarians as a stateless, unregulated currency. They let it expand and gain steam at a grassroots level. 4 years after inception, pffft, Eric Schmitd, who attends Bilderberg with Peter Thiel, he hasn't even heard of such a thing (as the price EXPLODES and it's mentioned on CNBC and Bloomberg TV on a regular basis.) Could it be, that once Bitpay integrates a certain threshold of merchants, and BTC becomes known by the masses, that the government & central banks will swoop in and take control of it? A franchise owner of Subway in Pennsylvania has just taken to accepting BTC at his/her restaurants, just as an example of its growth. To me, BTC smells like the conditioning of the masses towards a cashless society. Just sayin'.
I see people here raving about how great the bitcoin technology is, how good it would be if people acepted bitcoin as a form of payment, if more and more people started using it. That said why does price/USD/EUR whatever matters? If you are new to the whole thing 500USD/BTC or 20000USD/BTC is the same - you just get a beer for a different amount of BTC. What bitcoin really needs is stable price, so that merchants can price their goods accordingly, currently it's a huge gamble unless you trade to another currency straight away. Anyway, my point is - this subreddit is full of articles like - subway accepted bitcoin yey, here'a s good article why bitcoin will change the world. Then the price drops to what it was a few weeks ago and everyone freaks out. How does a price drop changes the fact that merchants have adopted bitcoin? Most of you are holding 1-2-3-10-20BTC, very few people have a life changing amount of 10K or whatever, only they can freak out over price. Regardless of price/trading volume the protocol stays the same, so don't be an ass and value bitcoin technology high only when the price is high. I know you probably want your 1-2BTC to turn into 10 shiny PS4s or something in a few months, may be it will, maybe it won't, but either way this doesn't change anything. As per your logic KWD should be much better currency than USD because it's more expensive 1:1? A lot of the time here it looks like people are promoting freedom just because they can make a profit, if it was cheaper they would be like "yeah freedom sucks..". Bitcoin is great not because it's expensive or cheap relative to another currency, it's great because of the underlying technology and ideas.
Back in 2013, a single subway sandwich shop accepting Bitcoin got airtime on CNBC, and we were all jumping for joy. Nowadays we get full TV features about Bitcoin and people are like " yawn, could be better".
Only Moscow and Allentown, Pennysylvania have a Subway franchise that accepts Bitcoin. Fernando, the subway franchisee, was sensitized to Bitcoin during the first Bitcoin conference in Buenos Aires, at the end of 2013. His restaurant being located opposite the conference venue, many people spoke to him about Bitcoin. After meeting with Augustin Aguilar of BitPagos, from whom he had first-hand ... Subway is yet another restaurant franchise which advises its customers to check their local joints for the support for Bitcoin, as some of them may offer support for this currency now just as they did in the past. Playboy TV supports payment ... 4 Years ago, we started accepting Bitcoin at my Subway Restaurant. The first order we sold with Bitcoin is now worth over $275 today! In November of 2013, Adam Welsh made the first and historic trip and purchased a Chicken Bacon Ranch Sandwich Meal at my Subway Restaurant in Allentown, PA. The cost at the time was $12.35 or 0.04 BTC. Today, 0.04 BTC = approx $280. Original Post (from 4 years ... The "five-dollar foot-long" Subway jingle isn't the same in bitcoins, especially when it's a weird total like 0.006 BTC. In any case, that's close to what it'll cost you for a BLT on 9-grain honey ... After Andrew Torba found out that a Subway near him was accepting bitcoin, he was compelled to visit for shop to see how it works for himself.
Unfriended: Dark Web - Pushed into a Subway Train Scene (8 ...