EFF Resumes Accepting Bitcoin Donations After Two Year Hiatus 93
hypnosec writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has started accepting donations in the form of Bitcoins again after a two year hiatus, stating that the legal uncertainty hovering over the digital currency has all but disappeared. On their blog the EFF noted that a report from U.S. Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), in addition to their own findings, 'have confirmed that, as a user of Bitcoin or any virtual currency, EFF itself is likely not subject to regulation.'"
Re:DESPERATE TIMES CALL FOR DESPERATE MEASURES !! (Score:5, Insightful)
Question is, which one is more "real"?
When you consider that USD and most other currencies are backed by nothing more than the governments that print/mint the stuff, suddenly Bitcoin doesn't seem so fake after all.
(Though personally anyone who doesn't have some sort of tangible assets in their pile is asking for a total loss...)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:DESPERATE TIMES CALL FOR DESPERATE MEASURES !! (Score:4, Insightful)
Good point re. tulips. OTOH, tangible assets like precious metals, water rights, mineral rights, real estate? As long as you don't get stupid about investing in them, and do so with your eyes open, you generally do better in the long run, and have a very good hedge against monetary crashes (and don't invest in perishable items - hence you avoid commodities).
I'm not saying that one should entirely abandon cash, stocks, etc. What I am saying is that relying on fiat currency (or anything purely based on it, like stocks) as your sole source of security is pretty damned risky. You may get lucky, or you may lose your shirt if inflation ever gets out of its cage.
Re: (Score:1)
Rights are no tangible assets. What's tangible is the water. The water rights are not tangible, and will be worthless as soon as nobody is willing to defend your rights any more. As soon as you are the only one who cares about your rights, those rights effectively don't exist any more; it goes back to who has the power to actually control the tangible object itself, that is, the water or the mineral resource.
Re: (Score:3)
tangible assets like precious metals, water rights, mineral rights, real estate
Re: (Score:2)
Precious metals: mainly worth something because they are valued high, not much intrinsic value / use in industry.
Gold and silver see some very heavy usage in industry, especially high-tech and electronics; it also sees a lot of use in many lower-tech industries as well (and not just as decoration).
Huge fluctuations based mainly on economic expectations (http://insiderfortunes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Gold1.jpg)
Yes and no - I daresay a lot of it is fluctuations of fiat currency relative to the metal in question. I will definitely agree that it isn't something you wouldn't want to base any short-term investments on, but over the long-haul, it does have a steady-yet-usable increase in value.
Water rights, mineral rights: these are worth nothing more than the government that issues them, just like banknotes.
Yes and no. Most folks on the east coast pr
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying that one should entirely abandon cash, stocks, etc. What I am saying is that relying on fiat currency (or anything purely based on it, like stocks) as your sole source of security is pretty damned risky. You may get lucky, or you may lose your shirt if inflation ever gets out of its cage.
Bitcoin has over and over proved to be more trustworthy than my local currency (ARS).
I know bitcoin is unstable - but you should get to know our economy!
Re: (Score:3)
You can't live in a tulip; you can live in a house. Some assets are more tangible than others.
Re:DESPERATE TIMES CALL FOR DESPERATE MEASURES !! (Score:5, Insightful)
Precious metals, guns, bullets, alcohol, gasoline, non-perishable food. Those are tangible assets. Anything secured by a court filed document you might as well have just left as fiat.
Re: (Score:3)
You don't actually "own" land in the event of government instability. Nor mineral rights, nor water rights, nor any other form of "ownership" that exists only by support of the government agreeing you own it. A tulip bulb on the other hand. That is yours at least as long as you can keep someone from taking it away. Precious metals, guns, bullets, alcohol, gasoline, non-perishable food. Those are tangible assets.
Private property has collapsed much more rarely than fiat currencies, as a matter of degree. But if you find yourself in the middle of the Civil War II, chances are very good you'll be relieved of all your "tangible assets" by an army while your claim to the land might survive the war. And refugees are almost always robbed blind by bandits and armed gangs, if you're first driven from your land. I'd rely more on stealth, feigned poverty and forged surrender than mere accumulation of assets. Chances are you'r
Re: (Score:2)
You don't actually "own" land in the event of government instability.
You do if you've taken enough advantage of your second amendment rights.
Re: (Score:2)
How is non preishable food any more tangible than owning a house?
In either case if there is significant enough government instability someone will come and try to take it away from you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Without government, and with enough means to hold it, the two terms become one and the same.
Re: (Score:2)
An armed renter becomes the owner the minute there is no longer an armed government claiming that right belongs to someone else. So does random armed guy/group walking into an empty house.
Re: (Score:2)
An armed renter becomes the owner the minute there is no longer an armed government claiming that right belongs to someone else. So does random armed guy/group walking into an empty house.
So? An armed robber becomes the armed owner of your food the minute there is no longer an armed government claiming that right belongs to someone else.
Re: (Score:3)
Legal rights of ownership and other things protected by a legal document aren't the physical thing they are related to. Investing in them is not investing in a tangible asset. They are no more secure than tangible than government bonds.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually things have value only so much as YOU value them. Doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. Water is nearly free to most people, but if you're alone trapped in the desert it may be the most valuable thing you own.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
When you consider that USD and most other currencies are backed by nothing more than the governments that print/mint the stuff
Nothing less than those governments as well... the same governments that have control over stuff like the world's largest military, one of the world's largest economies, many of the world's largest banks, one of the world's largest nuclear weapons arsenals...
Point being, it's not chopped liver.
The one people are willing to hold ... (Score:3)
And money, real or imagined, is money !!
Question is, which one is more "real"?
The one people are willing to hold. If people who accept bitcoins for transactions immediately convert them to something else then that something else is more real.
Re: (Score:2)
Question is, which one is more "real"?
The one I can pay taxes with, exchange for RMB in china, and expect to retain its price over the span of 6 months.
You keep using that word... (Score:2)
When you consider that USD and most other currencies are backed by nothing more than the governments that print/mint the stuff, suddenly Bitcoin doesn't seem so fake after all.
Nothing.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be silly. Without the US government, we'd be living in a Mad Max world, and money would be a moot point. The government keeps people from raping and murdering you. The government keeps people from taking anything you own. The government maintains the utilities that allow you to live comfortably. The government also maint
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be silly. Without the US government, we'd be living in a Mad Max world, and money would be a moot point.
Actually, any working, viable government (be it local, regional, national, whatever) can prevent a "Mad Max world". The US government can theoretically be replaced by another government, making USD worthless. Now on a practical level, doing so would be messy and bloody, but the possibility is always there.
There is also instability within said government. Say inflation went apeshit and spiraled out of control. The US government in response decides to 're-calibrate' its money... suddenly $100,000 in USD equal
Re: (Score:2)
And money, real or imagined, is money !!
You can bet they convert them to real money as soon as they receive them.
Why would they risk holding onto them? They might lose all their value at any time.
News for Lawyers (Score:1)
Five of the last nine stories.... just sayin
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorta... Depends on which ones.
The ones in the building where I work are a mixed bag:
Attitude-wise, they range from egotistical asshats who deserve to be wrapped in chains and pitched into the river, to a couple of guys I know who are cheerful, friendly, and some of the kindest gents you'll ever meet... unless you're on the wrong end of their cases.
Nerd-wise? Some can dive damned deep into caselaw, to the point of sheer OCD - they argue legalities in casual settings like me and my co-workers debate offsite
Re: (Score:2)
Attitude-wise, they range from egotistical asshats who deserve to be wrapped in chains and pitched into the river,
I assume these are some of the ones qualifying as "nerds".
Re:News for Lawyers (Score:5, Insightful)
Law is a curious mixture of logic, psychology, history, ethics, and economics. It is not dominated by any one of those areas, but rather its complexity comes from the myriad interactions between different aspects of a particular situation. There is a certain nerdy beauty in those interactions and, for instance, it can indeed be quite interesting to see logical arguments suggesting discarding centuries of history in response to a recent socioeconomic change. Then with all the fervor of a sporting match and the careful maneuvering of a chess game, the opposing lawyer presents his logical arguments for how the past centuries' traditions should be upheld because the people now widely believe them to be ethically right, regardless of some particular moral standpoint.
Almost equally interesting is watching the other nerds arguing about which team is better. It's like a sports-bar brawl, but with bigger words.
Re: (Score:1)
A particular situation?
Please, enlighten me.
Take the arguments over the constitutionality of certain laws (either existing or proposed). These can be deeply logical, and when you consider that new laws and precedents based on them can affect future outcomes and tests of those laws, and from there the future of the country at large changes? Well... yeah. It *is* important to watch this stuff before it becomes law, or at least to see how you can help (as a lawyer) mitigate any damages caused by it.
As you yourself mention viz. Obamacare, it does affect
Re: (Score:2)
Please, by all means, describe to me again how the cesspool of law today is really just a beautiful, misunderstood, and under-appreciated hot mess by us mere layman, because I sure as hell don't see it when I shell out hundreds of dollars every month for the fucking "luxury" of carrying insurance everywhere I turn, all thanks to litigation. Car, boat, home, renters, life, health, dental, vision, pet, flood, the list is almost endless.
No problem. Keep enough cash on hand to cover the damages caused by any car or boat accident, rebuild your home, enrich your beneficiaries if you die (I recommend saying "screw 'em, I don't think it's a good idea to be worth more dead than alive"), pay cash for all your health, dental, and vision needs, pay for your pets (what, is there some moron who actually buys pet insurance?), cover your own (and your bank's, if you don't own your house outright) losses in the event of a flood, etc. Me, I don't have
Re: (Score:2)
Some interesting legal questiosn that we studied for Dutch criminal law:
Someone got shot and was paralysed from the neck down. When she also got an infection (as a complication of the wounds/operation), she decided not to seek treatment because her life wasn't worth living anymore. Is this murder or aggravated assault?
A similar one: a man is stabbed, and while he could have been saved, the medics make a mistake and he dies. Is (the stabbing) murder or assault?
Another one: a man drives too fast in a commerci
Re: (Score:2)
I'll use your own example: hot coffee.
The case of Stella Liebeck [stellaawards.com] is a perfect example of what lawyers should be doing. McDonalds, for over a decade, served their coffee at temperatures hot enough to instantly cause severe burns - over 700 of them that led to lawsuits, almost all of which were settled out of court with no indication of McDonalds lowering their coffee temperature or even training employees to ensure lids were put on properly before serving. Stella Liebeck's lawyer was the first one to success
Re: (Score:2)
Which is the proper service temperature for coffee.
Which includes pretty much everything served at McDonald's.
Dunno how this fits in with the rest - is it a Slashdot commen
Re: (Score:2)
Please read the comment I replied to. The point is that "this is McDonalds" doesn't count as an excuse for putting unsuspecting customers at risk, and that's something lawyers should be doing.
Similarly, the comment about the insane medical system is also in response to the earlier post. The Affordable Care Act is at attempt to defend medical professionals from the billions of dollars in unpaid bills annually. Yes, I agree that a single-payer system would be far simpler and much more effective, but there's n
Re: (Score:2)
Reducing the sentiment to its basic form, humans should stay the *BLEEP* out of the physical world... Yeah, that's going well.
There are few laws that say "you can't research this technology". Rather, there are laws that describe what's acceptable to do with a particular technology once you have it. To use the Slashdot-standard car analogy, laws rarely forbid the use of cars, but using them in such a way as to put others' lives at risk is a crime. The ultimate goal of law is to help society to live peacefull
Re: (Score:2)
Too late (Score:4, Interesting)
Pity they hadn't been collecting them for the past two years, and just saving them. They'd have made a mint!
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe, maybe not. The stock-market aspect of Bitcoin tends to turn that "mint" into somewhat of a variable.
Re: (Score:3)
Too late indeed.
I donated before they stopped. Something like 15 bitcoins (which, at $100 a coin, is $1500, a nice chunk of change, at the time it was more like $4 a coin). They then, stupidly, turned around and gave all the bitcoins away. And not to other organizations of a similar mind (FSF, or whoever), but to the Bitcoin Faucet. They should have either just stopped publishing the donation address (and left all the coins sitting in a hidden, off-line wallet), until they worked out the legal consequences,
Re: (Score:1)
I'm really glad they took the time, because if there was legal action and the EFF wanted to represent those people their acceptance of bitcoin could create a needless conflict.
Re: (Score:2)
You CAN just donate money without tacking on all of those convenience services, you know...
Re: (Score:2)
Pray tell how? I live (currently) in a developing African country. If I want to donate cash to EFF, I'd have to fly to the USA and hand it to them. Or, you know, use a service that takes a chunk as a transfer fee. So, yeah, maybe you want me to post it to them? I'll stick with Bitcoins.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah? More like a worthless IOU. I don't have a check account anywhere in the world. The only "developed" country I know of that still uses personal checks is the USA. OK, you can still use them in other places, but it's just easier to do an electronic funds transfer, which are (generally) free (domestically). I don't have a USA bank account, so I can't even do that (without incurring International bank transfer fees). Did you not read the bit about me being in an African country? (And I've never even been
Donated some (Score:5, Funny)
posting ac because <spookyvoice\>ooooo... bitcoin anonymity...</spookyvoice\>
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why not... (Score:5, Insightful)
You, sir, sound like someone who has only dealt with credit card companies as a consumer. Their per-transaction rates and additional fees are ridiculous and they reserve the right to reverse any transaction at any time on their own discretion. A move away from centralized payment systems, with their single points of control and the accompanying rent-seeking is a benefit to everyone except the major processors.
Do you really think that giving a few financial service companies a stranglehold on most economic activity is a good thing? If a handful of companies including Visa, Inc. work together, they can effectively stop payments to any organization they like. Bitcoin isn't perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.
Re: (Score:1)
Accepting them is a "no-brainer" as a donation, there is no loss. But for any other serious financial transaction, well, unless you are a mobster or a dope dealer or otherwise involved in something illegal, the real question is WHY DEAL WITH IT.
Because freedom.
Also as the system become mature and ubiquitous it will be a good way to avoid extortion fee from the banks and credit card processors. There is lot more competition in currency exchange. As a result trading currency(eg: Bitcoin to USD) is cheaper then all the transaction fee you get for processing credit cards.
But yeah, continue to spread FUD about new technologies. In the meantime the US government continue to use 'honest' and 'legit' USD to traffic drugs [wikipedia.org].
Enron used US dollars (Score:1)
You : "Mobsters, drug dealers, gunmen, fraudsters, Wallstreets biggest financial frauds, all done in US dollars. The real question is WHY DEAL WITH IT."
Me: "Just because the dollar is used for crime, doesn't mean you are a criminal for using it. Don't be afraid of stuff so that you're guilty by association because that's how fascism works."
You : "Identity thieves, scammers, fraudsters use Paypal. The real question is WHY DEAL WITH IT."
Me: "Just because Paypal is used for crime, doesn't mean you are a crimin
Re: (Score:1)
Accepting them is a "no-brainer" as a donation, there is no loss. But for any other serious financial transaction, well, unless you are a mobster or a dope dealer or otherwise involved in something illegal, the real question is WHY DEAL WITH IT.
There is a (potential) loss. As soon as the Bitcoin collapses, some people will have lost money. And Bitcoin might, in retrospect, be regarded as a pyramid scheme. People will not be happy with any party that has profited from that.
Re: (Score:2)
Accepting them is a "no-brainer" as a donation, there is no loss. But for any other serious financial transaction, well, unless you are a mobster or a dope dealer or otherwise involved in something illegal, the real question is WHY DEAL WITH IT.
I guess one of the several good reasons should be enough for your trollish post: Because you want to be able to accept/send money from/to anyone in the world connected to the internet within reasonable time (one hour) and with small fees (cent per transaction)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
$1.2 per transaction, actually. The default transaction fee is 0.01 BTC, and current exchange rate is $120 per BTC.
That's becoming somewhat of a problem, actually.
Re: (Score:1)
Ummm... bullshit?
The default transaction fee is 0.0001 BTC. 1.2 cents.
I like this though:
"That's becoming somewhat of a problem, actually."
Makes it appear that you're part of things, and know what you're talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
The "Main" tab in "Options" menu of the qt client says: "Optional transaction fee per kB that helps make sure your transactions are processed quickly. Most transactions are 1kB. Fee 0.01 recommended."
Also, setting this to 0 in results in both "Debit" and "Net amount" in "Transaction details" be the same thing, and "Transaction fee" to not show up. So I conclude that 0.01 BTC is indeed the default fee.
Re: (Score:2)
Define "serious financial transaction". How does it differ from a regular financial transaction?
But in any case, the reasons to use Bitcoin is: you don't need the approval or cooperation of any third parties. You don't need a credit card, PayPal account nor even a bank account. You don't need to pay fees associated with these nor
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The reason for that, is I will not support or have any business with any
organization that implicitly gives legitimacy to Bitcoin by accepting them for
payment for any services or as donations.
Care to share the reason why would you do that? What do you see on Bitcoin so horrible that it drives you to completely abandon doing business with entities using it?
Re: (Score:2)
I am writing to notify you that from this moment I have decided to stop giving
financial support of EFF, via both my membership and donations, including via
campaigns like the Humble Indie Bundle.
I hope you are aware that humble indie bundle now also accepts bitcoins as payments for their games. You should probably stop buying them if you hate bitcoin so much:)
Re: (Score:2)
I've decided to stop paying my tax. Turns out most of that money goes to warmongers and making weapons. And I won't pay my phone bill. Turns out that that part-funds illegal phone competitions.
Guess who I'll be hurting more.
(P.S. Also the reason why I'm in fits of hysterics when a DVD tells me I'd be supporting terrorists if I pirate it - ironic given the criminals I'd supported by buying it in the first place)
They don't hold bitcoins, they immediately convert (Score:2)
... what is it that, once I've generated a BitCoin, motivates someone else to want it so much that they're willing to sell me something in exchange ...
That they can convert the bitcoin to a US Dollar, a Euro, etc **immediately** after receiving it. They don't hold bitcoins, they convert them to something else.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. The value of official currencies is substantially backed by financial and other laws. Bitcoin is just intagible goods. The status of official currencies is higher, way higher.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are BitCoins valuable
The value of everything is just matter of supply and demand.
So you should ask: why is there demand for bitcoins?
Because they have many desirable properties. To name just a few:
- they are digital
- they are scarse
- there is no central authority in charge of them
- they can be transfered anywhere in the world (where there is internet connection) in about a hour for very low fee
- they are easily divisible
- they are recognised as currency by growing number of users
Re: (Score:2)
World of Warcraft accounts.
Steam's new Trading Card beta (with RARE FOIL CARDS!)
Trading cards in general.
Achievements in games.
XP in game networks.
"Levelling up".
There's any amount of intangible things that people will pay real money for. That's the incentive. It's not that *I* would pay X amount of money for whatever it is, but that *SOMEONE ELSE* would pay it. That makes it valuable.
Why they buy it is up to them. To complete their collection? To get one over on their friends? To say they have one?