Drug Site Silk Road Says It Will Survive Bitcoin's Volatility 293
Sparrowvsrevolution writes "Bitcoin's recent spike and then collapse in value has convinced many that it's too unstable to use as a practical currency. But not the founder of Silk Road, the black market drug site that exclusively accepts Bitcoin in exchange for heroin, cocaine and practically every other drug imaginable. Silk Road's creator, who calls himself the Dread Pirate Roberts, broke his usual media silence to issue a short statement that Silk Road will survive Bitcoin's bubble and bust. The market's prices are generally pegged to the dollar, with prices in Bitcoin fluctuating to account for movements in the exchange rate. And Roberts explained that vendors on the site have the option to also hedge the Bitcoins that buyers place in escrow for their products, so that they can't lose money due to Bitcoin's volatility while the drugs are in the mail. As a result, only about 1,000 of the site's more than 11,000 product listings were taken down during the recent crash."
Speculation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Speculation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I sell actual things in Bitcoin (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Speculation (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I sell actual things in Bitcoin (Score:5, Insightful)
I blogged about it the other day, in how I wish governments would just make BTC to fiat currency transactions illegal. It would be a great step in reducing volatility and decoupling BTC from the regulated markets.
That sounds to me like a sure way to kill bitcoins. If I accept bitcoins as payment, and no one who sells something else I want to buy accepts them, then the bitcoin has no value for me.
Re:Speculation (Score:4, Insightful)
No they are not.
“Dollars, euros and other fiat currencies” have central banks that can intervene and do try to manage the currency. When inflation / deflation spikes they can create / destroy currency, money, and near money. (Does this mean they can debase the currency, unlike BitCoin? Yes)
Gold, which I think is more like BitCoin, has the advantage of – for the lack of a better word – mass – that resists rapid changes. A wide user base, lots of the stuff gathering dust in vaults or grandma’s jewelry.
Both have deep forward and futures market they also lend long term stability. Maybe one day BitCoin will get there – but right now it is an interesting experiment in my opinion.
Re:Speculation (Score:5, Insightful)
Dollars, euros and other fiat currency are just as vulnerable.
Bullshit! Currencies backed by the economic activity of entire 1st-world nations are nowhere near as vulnerable.
Basically, you want the company store (Score:2, Insightful)
I own my sole to the company store has deeper meaning then just a song lyric. Mine companies used to pay people not just not enough to survive (so they had to borrow credit from the company store and then be forever in debt) but often in company currency, that could only be spend in the company store. It is a way to enslave people, not free them.
But ah... it was the GOVERNMENT that freed these people by enforcing that salaries should be payed in fiat currencies. So basically, you want to reverse that. Here are your wages, in bitcoins. No you can't convert them anywhere, you can only use them to buy goods from my friends, at whatever prices they set.
Nice.
When you meet a libertarian, remember, the oppression of government is not what he objects to, it is that it is the government doing the subjugation and not him. Remember what the south was really about, it was about freedom from a government that told them to stop denying freedom to other people. When a republican wants to make government so small, he can drown it in a bathtub, ask him what is going to replace it. Ten to one he thinks it is going to be him waving the biggest gun around. Libertarians are all against the government because they want to be the one doing the telling. And frankly unless you own a VERY big gun, no matter how bad the government may be, a local warlord is going to be even worse.
Re:I sell actual things in Bitcoin (Score:5, Insightful)
I sell physical goods and accept Bitcoin as a payment method. The volatility doesn't bug me at all. it's only a tiny percentage of overall sales...
That is because your risk is very limited. If you had a significant amount of your sales in Bitcoin you'd probably think differently; since your risk exposure would be much higher.
If a seller is concerned with volatility, they should consider not selling their received BTC for fiat currency.
No, they should immediately convert it so they assume no volatility risk.
It's the number of "we accept bitcoin" sites that accept currency and then immediately convert it to fiat that is one reason for the downward pressure.
That's called market forces.
Re:Speculation (Score:4, Insightful)
They are, the full faith and credit of the USA.
Bitcoins have the network backing them as their source of value.
One of these is easy to replicate the other is not.
Re:I sell actual things in Bitcoin (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd be happy to throw back just to the 1800s or so -- when poor people could actually save their way to wealth, where credit addiction didn't lead to thrill-seeking behavior addiction, and where the money supply wasn't a medium to fund warfare and welfare entitlements benefiting the rich and powerful.
Business regulations, money regulations and savings dilution aren't modern in any way, but they've become the norm. I'd rather see all 3 go away, or at least just become part of the nanny-state economy, not my economies.
Re:Speculation (Score:4, Insightful)
Massive ammounts of contracts are written for pre-determined ammounts of dollars, euros, pounds etc. That makes the value of those currencies somewhat "sticky", yes it does change over time but usually fairly slowly. If it changes too rapidly governments will sometimes step in to halt the shift.(e.g. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/sep/06/switzerland-pegs-swiss-franc-euro [guardian.co.uk] )
Bitcoin has none of that, it just floats to whereever supply and demand take it. Speculators consistute some of that supply and demand but not all of it. Depending on their strategy they may either increase or decrease volatility
Re:Speculation (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Speculation (Score:5, Insightful)
Shhh! (Score:5, Insightful)
Silk Road's creator, who calls himself the Dread Pirate Roberts, broke his usual media silence
Yegads, man! You're going to scare the horses. Your usual media silence is a wise practice. The general public doesn't know you exist, and doesn't know you use Bitcoins. Those are good things. The first rule of drug dealing is you do not talk about drug dealing. Just 'cuz I don't use your service doesn't mean I want to see more scrutiny aimed at you, or at Bitcoin.
Re:I sell actual things in Bitcoin (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd be happy to throw back just to the 1800s or so -- when poor people could actually save their way to wealth
That is the funniest thing I've read all day, thanks, it makes a change from the death and bombs.
I'd rather see all 3 go away, or at least just become part of the nanny-state economy, not my economies.
There is no separate economy that belongs to you. You are either in society and the actual economy, or you can live on a desert island somewhere and rot.
Re:Speculation (Score:5, Insightful)
Looking at historical gold prices, I'd estimate that if gold was priced on intrinsic value alone, cost per oz would be less than a tenth of what it is.
Re:Speculation (Score:2, Insightful)
And leftwingers think that Taxing and spending brings Utopia and wealth.
See how easy it is to paint with broad strokes?
Re:Basically, you want the company store (Score:2, Insightful)
Instead, we are in debt to our government, to the tune of 55K per person. And you seem okay with it, or are ignorant of that fact. There is no way to tax the rich enough to cover that debt. The Company Store is now the Federal Government.
Re:Shhh! (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that many drugs cause you to lose the capacity for rational thought while intoxicated and directly cause you to do things that you would probably never do sober.
If the bar is the capacity for rational thought, then many people would not be permitted to roam free.
Additionally drugs cost money.
Their high price is a result of their legal status.
Drug addicts generally have a difficult time finding employment thanks to drug screens. Tobacco users are starting to feel this pinch as well yet tobacco is totally legal so no blaming the government here
Those two things are totally different, and pushed on companies for different reasons.
A viable solution might be to legalize drugs and severely increase penalties for drug-related crimes and domestic violence.
A thousand times no. There is no need for different laws for violence committed under the influence and violence committed while sober and only under the influence of whatever chemicals your brain is making that day, just as there is no need for a law against driving like an asshole when you're using your cellphone when there's already a law against driving like an asshole.
Re:Speculation (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think any of them thinks it brings wealth. Equality perhaps, but not wealth.
Re:Speculation (Score:4, Insightful)
Equality of results (not equality of opportunity) which is their version of "Utopia", and impossible, and tyranny of a sort. It punishes success, rewards failure, by definition.
I believe in equal opportunity, given that is possible, in a truly fair and just society. Look, I have as much if not more problem with our current justice system as most left wingers. It isn't fair. There is too much cronyism, on both sides of the isle.
Re:Basically, you want the company store (Score:2, Insightful)
You know why "some people sold themselves into slavery in order to keep their families from starving"? Because somebody else owned all the land, and houses, and farm implements that they'd need to work. A slave who sells himself into slavery proves he/she is perfectly capable of working hard to support themselves and their family; they would have made perfectly fine free citizens working their own land with their own tools. But because authoritarian oligopolist fuckers like you decide that society works best when a tiny few own all the resources, so the masses must sell their own bodies into slavery on terms pleasing to the few, slavery exists. And then we're supposed to be so thankful and gracious to the powerful "job creators" for giving back the laborers some tiny scraps of the fruit of their own labor. So no, I'm not going to thank the slaveowners for "graciously" allowing slaves to toil.
And saying "some slave owners treated their slaves the same as their own children" is an outright lie disprovable by a simple fact of history: no plantations were inherited by new black masters when the old white masters passed away. "Treating someone as your own children" doesn't mean arranging for their children to inherit the position of slavery under your own children's feet.
Re:Speculation (Score:5, Insightful)
"Providing" basic needs, means they don't have to provide for themselves. And you think that is humane, but it is the worst kind of tyranny, dependance. There is a reason why National Parks posts signs saying "don't feed the bears". Why we recognize this with bears and not humans is baffling.
Taking from productive members of society, by threat of force, to provide for people unwilling to provide for themselves, is the tyranny I speak of . Do you think that is okay?
Re:Speculation (Score:4, Insightful)
Really? A dollar is only worth what you can buy with it. It can become nearly worthless overnight. It is only paper and your faith in it is all that gives it value.
That's a foolish and tired cliche. It has centuries of history. People realize that society would collapse if we just gave up on the dollar overnight. I'm no fan of our current president but I certainly know that the checks and balances in our system would make it virtually impossible for his administration to ruin the currency. (fears which propped up gold) There is apocalyptic military might backing it up. People have been making that argument since we went off the gold standard (not the first time in U.S. history, btw...was a common practice during wartime) and most realize these things (at least subconsciously) and rest easy that their fellow citizens will not allow the economy to spontaneously combust and return to the barter system.
Unless you're a college student who is just waking up to how the world works, it's ridiculous to make that statement. Adults will simply reply: We know, and we don't care.
Completely overblown (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Speculation (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a difference between providing services where society benefits from universal coverage and costs go down and a welfare state where unproductive members of society are entirely carried by the productive members. Entirely idealistic Socialism is just as wrong as entirely idealistic Capitalism. What we need is a pragmatic approach to finding the correct balance.
What people seem to forget when they're complaining about socialism is that they've already bought into it. Taxes pay for our police, firemen, military, road construction and a whole crapton of other services where allowing privatization creates chaos and introduces a ton of inefficiency into the system. Early America didn't have these government-run systems and realized very quickly why that was a bad idea. There were instances of fire engines sitting outside of burning buildings because the building wasn't a subscriber to their service. But they had to respond anyways in case the fire spread to the neighboring buildings, which were subscribers. And just imagine a world with multiple police forces or multiple street providers...navigating around town would require subscribing to multiple services and traffic laws would depend which law enforcement was patrolling which streets.
The question isn't whether universal health care is socialist...it is. The question should be whether the current, privatized system introduces enough inefficiency to merit a single, unified system. It should be whether having a partially-insured populace has enough of a negative effect on the entire population to justify requiring everyone to be covered. It's an entirely pragmatic question that can be answered with data...are nationalized health care systems more or less efficient and do the benefits of universal coverage (a more reliable workforce, less untreated infectious diseases, fewer emergency room visits, etc) outweigh the extra cost of insuring those who would not otherwise be covered. From what I've seen, the answers point to yes (socialized care in Europe is cheaper and seems to work better that what we have in US).
But what the answer is is of secondary concern to me than how the decision is made. If we're going to persist in framing the debate as one of ideals where the decision comes down to compassion, personal responsibility or other such non-quantifiable value, we'll never arrive at the right answer.
Re:Speculation (Score:4, Insightful)