General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOne of the world's biggest banks just admitted bitcoin could destroy existing finance firms
http://www.businessinsider.com/bnp-paribas-bitcoin-blockchain-securities-firms-redundant-2015-7French bank BNP Paribas says the technology underpinning bitcoin has the potential to make existing companies "redundant," a huge admission from one of the world's biggest banks.
Analyst Johann Palychata writes in the company's magazine Quintessence that bitcoin's blockchain, the software that allows the digital currency to function, "should be considered as an invention like the steam or combustion engine," that has the potential to transform the world of finance and beyond...
If investors can trade shares directly with each other in a system that has a layer of trust built into it then middle men stock brokers aren't needed anymore.
randys1
(16,286 posts)Just tried to figure it out using google, still confused
TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)I will go to the website mentioned see if i can learn more
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)until governments officially accept and support it. It seems
to be built on trust, and money and trust rarely coincide.
TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)Here is how secure it is.
Imagine you built a perfect computer; Forget about GHash and Megahertz.
You built a computer which used the absolute minimum amount of energy theoretically possible to record a change in a single bit. [ 1 to 0 or 0 to 1 ].
Now imagine you used most of the natural resources in our star system to construct a Dyson sphere and covered the entire surface of this sphere with a single star system sized super computer.
Now imagine you could keep this supercomputer cooled at roughly absolute zero and could do so without expending any additional energy.
If you had that and captured (with no inefficiency or loss) the entire energy output of our star
(not just in a day or week, but continually until it burned out) you couldn't COUNT to 2^256 before you ran out of energy.
Keep in mind this is simply counting.
Just counting, not hashing, not comparing, not performing lookups just counting 1....2....3....2^256-1.
These numbers have nothing to do with the technology of the devices; they are the maximums thermodynamics will allow.
And they strongly imply that brute-force attacks against 256-bit keys will be infeasible until computers are built from something other than matter and occupy something other than space.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)First, it assumes a general-purpose computer is trying to break the encryption. You'd make a specialized system to actually break it instead of relying on a general-purpose CPU. Your graphics does operations on millions of 128-bit numbers at least 60 times a second. That would utterly cripple a general-purpose CPU.
Second, it ignores that the problem is 100% parallelizable. Two computers do it about twice as fast. There's a reason for the joke that the NSA measures it's computing power in acres.
Third, counting doesn't take that long. Especially on a special-purpose processor. It's the other mathematical operations that make 256 bit keys secure, for the moment. 128-bit keys were declared "weak" 15 years ago. 256 bit isn't going to last our lifetimes (unless you're in hospice care). And that's assuming we keep going with the same basic technology.
Fourth, quantum computing is inching towards practical, and will utterly destroy our current encryption methods.
TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)It doesn't matter how many parallel computers you make. You could make a trillion of them. A trillion supercomputers crunching away your entire life wouldn't even begin to scrape against 1% of the possible computational space bitcoin entails.
As the article notes, even with a perfect computer, it would take the energy output of the entire sun since it started to even count to 2^256 with any type of computer, much less "hack" it. It not about technology, it's physics.
As for Quantum computers, Bitcoin already has the capability to implement forward anti-quantum technology.
http://www.businessinsider.com/quantum-computers-and-bitcoin-2013-4
Also, if it were possible to crack the encryption of Bitcoin, it would also be possible to crack the encryption of the entire worlds financial markets. So if you don't trust the encryption of Bitcoin, I suggest you cease all current electronic commerce, close your bank account, and go live in the forests of Alaska trading wolf pelts.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)This is false. It assumes chip size, material and register space stays the same. Yes, they claim to be talking about "ideal" computers, but they aren't. They're talking about ideal implementations of computers that were current at the time the graphic was made. Since chip size, material and register space have already changed from when the graphic was made, I think we can safely say those assumptions are false.
This is also false, for the same reasons above.
No, they think they might have one way to defeat quantum computers. Since we don't have quantum computers really working yet, it is not at all clear that this solves all problems that quantum computing would cause them. Because we don't even know the full extent of what a quantum computer can do yet.
Guess what? It is possible. That's why your web browser doesn't use 64-bit or 128-bit SSL keys anymore. Because a commodity computer can break those in a reasonable timeframe.
All that protects modern encrypted data is the amount of time it takes to factor a really big number. Advances in computing power have required that we regularly increase the size of that really big number. 128-bit has been long broken. 256-bit is the current minimum to be secure. But 256 won't be enough. It is already recommended that new applications use at least 512-bit keys.
Fundamentally, Bitcoin is secured by a 256-bit key. It is only a matter of time until that is broken. The people behind bitcoin are gambling that it will take a very long time to make breaking a 256-bit key routine.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Claiming that there is some code that will never be broken is just silly. You want a financial revolution? That would be public banking.
TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)So your argument is:
We cant trust Bitcoin's encryption because it could be broken, so we have to stay with the current financial system based on the exact same encryption, except it has the added benefit of corruptible 3rd parties. Brilliant.
eridani
(51,907 posts)In many ways, government still is.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Or finds a flaw in the math (oops).
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)BTW, New York State is now licensing bitcoin exchanges,
see: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/08/business/dealbook/bitcoin-exchange-receives-first-license-in-new-york-state.html?_r=0
isn't the dollar built on nothing but trust also?
azmom
(5,208 posts)Like it.
Response to TampaAnimusVortex (Original post)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)They wouldn't leave one currency they have no control over and enter another one.
Well they probably won't anyway (one couldn't discount it completely as another stupid
thing a Greek government did).
JCMach1
(27,590 posts)you can't put the genie back in the bottle...
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)Bitcoin is to banks as Gnutella was to music.
Napster was centralized and therefore easy to shut down. Bitcoin and Gnutella is decentralized.
JCMach1
(27,590 posts)except even harder to stop...
Bitcoin is decentralized and encrypted...
And by Bitcoin, I mean all Cryptocurrencies... Many are even more protected than Bitcoin.
For example, take Bitcoin Dark
http://bitcoindark.pw/#
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)on the "intrinsic value" issue, I'd still be skeptical on the cryptography issue. I just don't
believe that whatever cryptographic method is used and believed to be theoretically safe
won't one day found by be flawed and that such a flaw couldn't take down the whole
currency.
JCMach1
(27,590 posts)parts about Cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin is knowable over time and all assets are accounted for in the Blockchain (essentially a decentralized electronic ledger).
For example, let's say the NSA wanted to know what you are doing with your Bitcoin. Indeed, they could figure it out by attempting decryption (however, it may take them a generation) ... However, the resources it would take to decrypt one person would be crippling.
there is a good discussion here http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/25375/why-not-use-larger-cipher-keys/25392#25392
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)brute force or reverse engineering into just something requiring a bit of effort. I trust math, I
don't trust mathematicians to be all seeing, knowing and error free.
JCMach1
(27,590 posts)TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)Not that it matters... If Bitcoin is broken, the entire world's current financial systems are also compromised. The same boogyman hides behind door number 1 & 2.
Also, even in the advent of someone theoretically breaking a single block's transactions - it's a completely different scale to break the entire blockchain and all subsequent transactions in the past.
Additionally, multi-signature security requires that multiple keys be hacked to access the funds at an address. In that respect, it's even more secure than your current encrypted technology which uses one key.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)One of the fundamental parts of the design of bitcoin is there is a limit to how many bitcoins can exist. Because the creators of bitcoin were goldbugs that completely buy into fearmongering that "hyperinflation is just around the corner!!!"
It's not going to become a new standard. Because in the real world, the population increases. Also, if you want to see what removing inflation as a tool for central banks does, take a look at Greece. Devaluation is really terrible for an economy, and that is your only option when you can't use inflation.
As for this:
That doesn't require bitcoin. You can do it today if you'd like. Nothing requires you to go to a stock broker to buy or sell stocks.
What the stock broker does is give you access to a stock market, making it much easier to find a buyer or seller. Bitcoin doesn't make that go away. Someone opening a market "to everyone" does. But you make a hell of a lot more money charging people for access, so there isn't much incentive to create an "open to everyone" stock market.
TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis:
https://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/sr/sr331.pdf
... the only episode in which we find evidence of a link between deflation and depression is the Great Depression (1929-34). We find virtually no evidence of such a link in any other period. ... What is striking is that nearly 90% of the episodes with deflation did not have depression. In a broad historical context, beyond the Great Depression, the notion that deflation and depression are linked virtually disappears.
Also, as to your reference to the quote
"If investors can trade shares directly with each other in a system that has a layer of trust built into it then middle men stock brokers aren't needed anymore."-- you missed the words "in a system that has a layer of trust built into it".
Obviously the writers of the article knew anyone can trade shares directly and that has nothing to do with what they were talking about.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Yeah, excellent analysis there.
Also, you apparently need the concept of an example explained to you.
The "layer of trust" comes from you giving the money to them while they simultaneously hand you the shares of stock. Just like every other purchase you make.
Do you need a broker between you and your supermarket? No? But there's no layer of trust!!
No, the writers are telling you a story you like, so you're attributing to them far more than the article covers.
TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)Or maybe you can point to where this massive deflation was in 2007 (because that's when it started).
Here are the official numbers
http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-inflation-rates/
So, your back down to a single data point again.
Now. Let me explain in very simple terms you can understand about what they were saying and how you misread it.
You giving someone else money for something isn't a "system that has a layer of trust built into it". That's exactly the definition of no "system" being involved at all.
sys·tem -- noun
1.a set of connected things or parts forming a complex whole, in particular.
A stock market is a system. The blockchain is a system. You giving some guy on the corner money isn't a "complex whole" or a system.
The writer was discussing a "system" that was trustworthy, but that didn't require humans to act as the trusted 3rd party. Instead, a hard mathematical electronic system that was open to inspection, but practically unmodifiable, is a trusted "system". No such animal has existed in history prior to Bitcoin. That's why it's special, and that's why it's expanding. This is why you'll be using it in the future, either explicitly by holding the Bitcoins, or implicitly when you deal with trusted 3rd parties who move them around for you with you unknowing. Regardless of how you personally feel about it, It's here to stay.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The economic crisis started in 2007. Greece's internal devaluation/deflation started after the Greeks started implementing austerity measures demanded by the Troika.
http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-inflation-rates/
So you are looking at US inflation numbers and saying Greece didn't have any deflation.
Seriously? You actually posted something that pathetic?
Because you handing someone money at the same time they hand you what you are purchasing is 100% untrustworthy.
There are many ways to make a transaction secure. Bitcoin uses one. The reputation of the seller is another. The system of laws against fraud is another. The insurance supplied by a credit card is another. A commodity exchange and its rules are another.
Bitcoin is not the only way, as much as you love it.
You do realize that Bitcoin is based on standard encryption algorithms, right? Meaning a metric fuckton of those systems existed prior to Bitcoin.
Also, bitcoin wasn't even the first attempt at a digital currency. It's rev 2. Because rev 1 was broken.
I realize you are evangelizing here, but you do not fundamentally understand the technology you are talking about. Instead, you're quoting tropes other people have said while stripping off important qualifiers.
A little like saying "I can treat your respiratory illness, because I read some about the rhinovirus". When they die from bacterial pneumonia, you might realize you didn't have some important information.
TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)First you make note of a recession starting in "2008", which was wrong, but I corrected you with 2007.
Then I post the feds own numbers to show there was no deflation in the U.S., but then you go - "wait, I was REALLY talking about what was happening around the world in Greece". Something like "Yes, you proved me wrong, so I'll pretend I was REALLY talking about something else". Has to be the saddest straw man I've ever seen.
Straw man 2 - I never said it used any magical encryption other than what was currently in use - Try again.
And finally, I most certainly understand the technology, apparently a boatload more than you understand economics...
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Iceland could use inflation to restore competitiveness, because Iceland had its own currency. The result was Icelandic goods and services effectively became cheaper on the global market, and the country recovered.
Greece can't use inflation, because Greece doesn't have its own currency. So the only way they can bring the costs of Greek goods and services down on the global market is via extremely painful "internal devaluation". They have to destroy their economy for many years in order to do what inflation can do in one or two without destroying the economy.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Last edited Thu Jul 9, 2015, 12:52 PM - Edit history (1)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)They're still way over their heads in debt, and still need to go through a massive internal devaluation.
you realize that bitcoin is divisible to infinity correct?
New standard you say? I say bitcoin is not, but instead a government introduced version of bitcoin will be.
Just ponder the idea of nothing but electronic currency. Imagine the illegal drug scene trying to operate. Imagine the additional tax revenues that will be generated. Imagine now the gov can watch every move you make, know your habits and patterns. There is no hiding within an all seeing electronic currency...that is why we will see one on the next 20 years.
No longer can you score a bag of weed for cash, there will be an electronic receipt - too much money going to one person that does not add up and in come the authorities. So you want to pay your neighbor $100 for watching your place while you were on vacation or buy something from them? Well you will now have to answer to that and pay your taxes for the sell. Having a rummage sell and 20 different accounts (people) buy something from you? Well you are looked at and to be safe now you better pay your due taxes on those transactions.
We think the NSA is bad...wait until we have nothing but an electronic currency. It's already moving that way, look at how many folks use cash these days, very little...it's mainly all digital transactions - 1's and 0's so why even have physical dollars?
If you think we are not going digital in the near future then all I ask is for you is to ponder your last month of transactions and be honest with yourself about how many times you used cash vs electronic transfers? Do you really think that when your paycheck gets direct deposited into your bank that the money is there...no, all that is there are 1's and 0's...cash is so 1980's.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Yes, inflation effectively divides the money too. But it does so in a way that doesn't get resistance.
You used to sell something for $1. It's now worth 50 cents. Getting you to lower the price to 50 cents is hard. You will resist doing that. (It also fucks with investment and expansion)
Inflating the dollar so that the item is still $1, but that dollar is worth less works around that. You keep it at $1. And you don't fuck with investment and expansion.
You mean the life I already live? I don't remember the last time I spent paper money.
Because drug dealers and purchasers would never lie about what they are buying or selling.
Because electronic records totally stopped HSBC from laundering drug money.
Psst...We already have it.
have a hybrid.
I mean one can still pay folks in cash, still can go buy weed on the corner, still avoid paying taxes at rummage sales and with neighbors.
HSBC you say....haha, we all know those big bankers are too big to go after, I was meaning little ol' me and you. 1%ers and the ruling class will still be exempt from the rules opposed on us little poor folk when cash is outlawed.
I mix it up every once in awhile. I'll stop by the bank, grab some cash and use it for a month or so, then I'll use the debit card for a month or so. Is kind of funny seeing the young kids eyes when you whip out a wad of cash to use. That look of "What the fuck are you doing old man, you're fucking with me here, is that um...cash?" is priceless....and I live messing with people, entertaining.
Me at store using cash:
Can I have your phone number? No
Well can I have your zip code? No
Can I have your name? No
Sir I need something! No you don't sparky, it's perfectly acceptable to just take the money and hand me a receipt.
Walking away I will glance back at the check out person and they will be talking to another..I can only imagine what they are saying:
"Oh my god, that old asshole (I am 44) just ruined my day, I had to physically count money"
"He just used a couple of $100 bills to pay for groceries, think I should call our manager over and see if she wants to call the police? Guy has to be a criminal".
Converting actual physical dollars over to 1's and 0's also takes the psychology out of a purchase. I still view the physical dollar as a measure of stored "labor"...it's Little different and lot easier to spend with 1's and 0's or Vegas chips.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)bitcoin is still a fiat currency with no intrinsic value. I liken it to anarchy currency.
Food stores, water, real estate, and other real stores of value will always have some value.
TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Old win3.1 software has more value to me than a bitcoin.
TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)I personally don't care what you do or care about. I was simply making the point that it's adoption is growing... and those predicting its death years ago continue to be proven wrong over and over. And that the whole "intrinsic value" argument is about as silly as it gets.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)that's because it hasn't any.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)items in my house containing gold, including the device I'm using to post this. I have yet to obtain any
useful items containing bitcoin. I think their specie 'intrinsic value' argument is specious.
cemaphonic
(4,138 posts)field of international money transfer, if it can manage a number of security improvements, and also flush the bitcoin ecology of all of the scammers, pump and dump artists, and libertarian kooks that infest it.
It is way too slow, clunky and volatile to serve as a currency for even a tiny national economy, and the thought of trying to insert it into the modern system of high-speed, high volume computerized stock trading, well, lets just say that the steam engine is a pretty apt analogy.
TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)Indeed, it is slow now, but as the blocksize being processed is increased, so is the speed. They increase the blocksize as the need requires - and how they have done in the past. This process most definitely will scale into the future and theoretically could reach VISA level transactions around 2032.
Orrex
(63,263 posts)I understand that Bitcoin also appeals to the cutting-edge entrepeneur who enjoys the online, no-questions-asked purchase of boys and girls, so I guess it's got that going for it.
Cassidy1
(300 posts)Amazon, Target, CVS, Reddit, PayPal, Expedia, Zappos, Whole Foods, Microsoft, NewEgg, Sears, Gap, Dell, etc.
Orrex
(63,263 posts)It's a proxy currency like a gift certificate or a voucher, but if the backing disappeared this morning, and Bitcoin's value were suddenly dependent entirely its own solvency, Amazon et al would stop accepting it by this afternoon.
Cassidy1
(300 posts)Your argument is dependent on backing and value, but someone predicts that Bitcoin is trustworthy and stable enough.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)into dollars for them. Basically the same reason they accept credit cards.
Orrex
(63,263 posts)Funny how Bitcoin's cheerleaders always omit this fact, pretending instead that it's actual currency, rather than an exchangeable coupon.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Cassidy1
(300 posts)So it has the same clout as the credit card companies in that regard.
TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)So who's opinion should I care about. Some anonymous random entity on the internet or the analysis of one of the largest banks in the world. Hmmm.
Don't like it, don't use it. Bitcoin adoption continues to expand and certainly doesn't need you.
Orrex
(63,263 posts)The bank's statement boils down to "we won't profit from this," which is why they've resisted direct, consumer-controlled stock trading for decades. It's a reasonable caution for any financial firm regarding an alternative trading format. What would you expect him to say?
If anything, Bitcoin is a boon to financial firms, because it lets people traffic in sex slaves more easily and without getting the banks' hands dirty.
TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)"because it lets people traffic in sex slaves more easily and without getting the banks' hands dirty."
So I take it you'll be giving up cash now? In the name of protecting those sex slaves I'm sure...
Orrex
(63,263 posts)Your question assumes that swapping bitcoins is equivalent to electronic transactions in actual currency. Since that equivalence is false, your question is meaningless.
TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)I thought you were going to explain why Bitcoin can further sex slavery, but cash doesn't. My mistake. You apparently intend to deviate to some straw man issue. I'll take that little detour as your inability to answer the issue.
Orrex
(63,263 posts)I was not explaining why Bitcoin can further sex slavery, because it's already coin of the realm in such online transactions.
I was explaining--correctly--that Bitcoin is unsavory because it immediately fell into use in such transactions and other shady dealings. This--coupled with the fact that it's not real currency but is worshipped as such by its acolytes--undermines its legitimacy.
Having had this conversation previously, I know that there's a fair chance that you will try to imply that my knowledge of this fact implicates me in sex-trafficking. I encourage you not to embarrass yourself by pursuing that idiotic mistake.
TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)The point I was making however was that many industries start in shady dealings.
Video tape was heavily driven by the porn industry. The Internet was also heavily driven by the porn industry.
It does not follow however that because something starts seedy, that it ends that way. Invalid logic.
Also, the other point I was making was that because Bitcoin has some protection from tracking and regulation, so does the dollar have pretty much similar protections against tracking - so again, it does not follow that all non-trackable currency devices should automatically be eliminated upon the boogyman of sex trafficking.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)One employee of a singular bank allowing an analysis doesn't really seem to rise to the level of "apparently scare a major bank."
However, I realize we're often biased and evangelize about those things we're passionate about, and more often than not perceive mere disagreement as an attack on own sense of worth and identity and you appear to have done numerous times throughout this thread... regardless of who bitcoin needs or doesn't need.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)JCMach1
(27,590 posts)The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)If enough people value or don't value something, then you either will or don't have to value it.
The money that we do have is just a piece of paper, or a digit on a screen. Enough people agree that those have value, so whether you think it has value or not, you better have it if you plan on buying anything.
Where something like bitcoin goes in the future, that's wait and see. Right now, it's not valued enough that anyone has to value it. But, the human mind is pretty crazy, to the point that a piece of paper(or digit on a screen) can make or break you. So who knows what will happen.
hunter
(38,349 posts)I suspect it's a black-ops project to build a tool useful for cracking common sorts of encryption, to build a sort of rainbow table.
All those bitcoin miners may be unwittingly working for the NSA or some unknown agency.
Have a Nice Day!
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)ago for some completely unfathomable reason? Maybe people were speculating in them, don't know for sure.
But one thing that makes me quite wary is that they are something that can simply be created from nothing, supposedly at a steady rate until some point about thirty years from now when no more will be allowed to be created.
I can tell you that if someone offered to pay me in Bitcoins I'd tell them, no thank you. And if someone else only wanted Bitcoins I'd likewise tell them no thank you.
They really do seem much more like a slightly clever Ponzi scheme than real money.
And digital publishing has made me completely unwilling to buy anything that's self-published because invariably it's crap. Recently I purchased a self- published book written by someone here on DU, and had I had a chance to look at the physical book I absolutely would not have bought it, because the formatting was so terrible: extremely narrow margins, paragraphs not indented with a space between each. This was the physical book, and apparently the author had farmed out the formatting to someone and had never bothered to look at the result. It might be interesting enough to read, but I won't be bothering to read it, and very much regret the money I spent. If Bitcoins are the equivalent, then they will be like all those self-published books out there that aren't worth buying.
hunter
(38,349 posts)... I am very much enjoying "Books on Demand."
People are experimenting and taking risks in ways major publishers never would, and many older public domain works are being republished, often as labors of love, recreating older styles of typography and artwork, electronically yes, but that's an art too.
My wife and I frequently buy art from local artists, and thrift store art too. When the price of producing music reached a point where artists could produce and sell their own CDs, no middleman involved, we started buying music that way too. Now it's possible to buy books like that. Yep, maybe it's hard on the traditional music publishers, and the traditional book publishers, but the vast majority of artists, musicians, and authors were never going to be accepted to the "big leagues," and the vast majority of older books were never going to be reprinted.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)And a lot of established writers are now self-publishing their back list, and those are properly formatted and edited.
My complaint is the utter lack of professional level of editing and presentation.
Music is perhaps very different from books, since all you need I suppose is a decent capture of the sound, and then the equipment to make the CDs, which I suspect isn't very expensive.
Books, on the other hand require a lot more attention. Too many who self-publish don't bother with professional editing. And then, heaven forbid someone who has self-published decides to join a writers group and hasn't a clue that his self-published masterpiece simply isn't that good, and actually needs a lot of work. Which is why I now categorically won't buy a self-published book.
I have more than once bought CDs from local musicians and have never been disappointed.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)oriented start-up using "underlying technologies" of Bitcoin to improve consumer payments. Goldman partnered with IDG Capital Properties (China), according to the NYT.
TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)that signed on to the board of circle.com - one of the biggest (and New York based) Bitcoin exchanges around.