Bitcoin economyBitcoin economy
Cash-exchanger – это международный обменный сервис, позволяющий совершать обмены электронных валют в любой точке мира, где бы Вы не находились.
Совершать обмены с Cash-exchanger можно с любого устройства, неважно чем Вам удобно пользоваться: мобильным телефоном, планшетом или компьютером.
Подключитесь к интернету и за считанные минуты Вы сможете произвести обмен электронных валют.
Все наши кошельки полностью верифицированы, что гарантирует Вам надежность и уверенность при совершении обмена.
Ознакомиться с отзывами о работе нашего обменного сервиса.
Отзывы про cash-exchanger.com
Все обменные операции полностью анонимны, мы не предоставляем Ваши данные третьим лицам
Обменный пункт Cash-exchanger:
Андрей Россия 46.146.38.* (12 августа 2018 | 23:11)
При переводе на карту возникли трудности, банк отвергал платеж. Обратился в поддержку, в течение 15 минут вопрос был решен, перевели на другую мою карту. Оперативная техподдержка, удобный сервис, спасибо за вашу работу!!!
Galina Россия 5.166.149.* (12 августа 2018 | 21:01)
Перевод был произведен супер быстро! А если добавите еще Сбербанк, чтобы комиссия поменьше, лучшего о не пожелаешь! Так держать!
Влад Россия 46.42.42.* (12 августа 2018 | 10:18)
Выводил эксмо рубли на тинькофф - процедура заняла порядка 5 минут, с 25тыс заплатил комиссию 7,5 рублей.
Результатом доволен на все 146%
Егор Нидерланды 192.42.116.* (9 августа 2018 | 18:40)
Очень быстрыы и оперативные, я сам накосячил при вводе но ребята быстро помогли 10 из 10
Андрей Россия 213.87.135.* (8 августа 2018 | 19:27)
Как всегда быстро и качественно, СПС.
Андрей Россия 176.195.75.* (8 августа 2018 | 11:21)
Обменивал с карты ВТБ на эфир, транзакацая заняла меньше минуты, оператор отвечал очень быстро, определенно годный обменник, будем пользоваться
Леха Россия 93.81.174.* (6 августа 2018 | 11:19)
Все супер как и всегда
Tuesday, 21 March The great Bitcoin blocksize debate as an ideological battle. I hope that it will help people deeply think about their own values, and use them productively instead. The conflict is often explained as a governance problem. I think this while there is an element of truth in it, misses the point. The main reason why there is discord is the conservative vs. The 'Bitcoin Core' group tends to be more conservative whereas the 'Bitcoin Unlimited' tends to be more progressive. Conservatives view the rules as containing a historic wisdom which may not be apparent. Progressives view them as contextual and as a reaction to contemporary phenomena. These tendencies are a naturally occurring phenomenon and are largely influenced by psychology. They reflect themselves in all areas of life. People are unlikely to change their affinity. They associate themselves with people with similar affinities, and the community membership gives them a sense of belonging. If someone tries to treat obstacles in a way conflicting with their affinity, they will view it as an attack on their values, and follow by an immediate counter by any means available. Typical reactions are accusations of being a traitor collaboration with the enemy , segregating their opinions censorship , ridicule and other ad hominems. It happens in politics Brexit, Trump , or in religion the different branches of Christianity or Islam. Even in cases when there is some element of truth in the accusations, they are mainly a symptom rather than a cause of the problem. Unfortunately, psychology tends to catch up even well educated, highly experienced and an otherwise reasonable people, and they go full retard. This causes an enormous waste of resources, which otherwise could be spent on productive endeavours. People in the Bitcoin community of all should acknowledge that some people are naturally more conservative and some more progressive. This would help to calm down the situation. Collectivists want everyone to adhere to a broad set of rules, whereas individualists want just a very narrow set of rules for everyone. In the forking debate, collectivists want there to be only one Bitcoin and the other to either die or never start in the first place, whereas individualists are either indifferent or prefer that both survive. In the forking debate, collectivists point to lost network effect, consumer confusion and similar things. Individualists argue that a fork would prevent oppression and allow to refocus resources productively. While this axis explains a smaller proportion of the debate, it is perhaps more important. You see, conservatives and progresives can get along, as long as they are individualists. Once they calm down, they will leave each other alone and try to resolve conflicts peacefully. But there is no such solution with collectivists. They will appeal to the higher good and demand your subjugation to it i. Remember that the real danger is collectivism and its most encroaching manifestation, the state. If afterwards you still think that a common solution cannot be found, then calmly prepare for a fork, and spend your time and resources in your part of the community, in a productive way. I studied the concept of liquidity and how it relates to Bitcoin. I was able to meet many other extraordinary people, in person, including, in no particular order: I became more and more involved in it. I hope that I can help to make it into a sustainable and more formally managed open source project with clear goals and path for the future. I would also like to use this opportunity to thank all contributors, translators, and other people who work on a different Bitmessage implementation like Daniel Krawisz and Justus Ranvier. Nevertheless, I am still interested in Bitcoin my Bitmessage-Email gateway, mailchuck. I think that every now and then, I can probably still make a new post about something interesting. Monday, 20 October My comments on the BitLicense. I specialise in economic research of cryptocurrencies, with emphasis on the economic theory. My activities involve publications, lectures, reviews and consulting. I have started my research three years ago. Prior to that, my professional focus was in computer networks and security, for about fifteen years, including traditional payment processing, where I was mainly responsible for implementing security policies PCI-DSS and disaster recovery. This combination allows me a broad insight into the types of activities and problems of cryptocurrency companies. While my own business is unlikely to require to apply for the BitLicense, several of the companies that I have contractual relationships with might. Even though it is customary to give recommendations in comments to proposed regulation, I typically try to stay neutral. I strive to help people to understand rather than to tell them what to do. In this spirit, I hope that my comments will cause the NYDFS to become more aware of the consequences of the proposed regulation, which, according to my impression, are not well understood. I read many of the publicly available comments to the proposal, and used some of them as input for my own comment, in order to make my arguments more complete. Nevertheless, I think that I bring new important insights, and my comment should not be simply be treated as a duplicate of other comments. Links to some of the sources that I used can be found at the end of the comment. My comment is divided into four sections. The first one lists two issues which, in my opinion, make the BitLicense proposal unworkable. The second one lists issues which, while possible to adapt to, nevertheless cause significant hindrances for cryptocurrency companies. The third one lists issues which are comparably minor, such as omissions and unclarities. The grave issues follow from the nature of cryptocurrencies. Unlike with traditional monies and financial systems, cryptocurrencies are just numbers. For a more casual explanation, four of such keys comfortably fit into a single SMS or a tweet. As long as this storage or transfer involves a third party, at least one of the participants is potentially subject to BitLicense. This has the perhaps unexpected consequence of a wide variety of businesses, not merely those who use cryptocurrencies in a non-financial way as has been pointed out by others, such as Sean King , but who do not even have a cryptocurrency-specific business, being faced with BitLicense requirements. For a better emphasis, let me reformulate that. Anyone storing or transporting data or physical objects, on behalf of their customers, is potentially subject to BitLicense. Some examples of businesses that will unexpectedly be affected: If he views my email on his mobile phone, his mobile phone provider will become subject to BitLicense. This affects all kinds of non-commercial entities who merely participate in the provision of online storage or data transfer. Even if they realise that they store data that might be a private key, if the key is encrypted, they have no way of knowing the balance or what cryptocurrency it is related to. What is, to me, surprising, is that this is not an unforeseeable problem. Other types of regulations do contain a variety exemptions, and they actually do exempt at least some of these business types. For example, federal regulation, 31 CFR California financial code, division 1. There are no equivalent exemptions in the BitLicense. BitLicense does not even exempt local, state or federal agencies, foreign governments, or the US Postal Service. These might also become subject to BitLicense. The police, if they, during exercising their duties, confiscate physical objects that store private keys such as computers , will also become subject to BitLicense. Even prior to cryptocurrencies, money transmitter laws already affected businesses in absurd ways. Tu explains some of these problems. Even if a company realises it is subject to BitLicense and attempts to act according to it, they cannot comply with the identification requirements Once an address has non-zero balance, it is publicly visible on a ledger, and anyone can send transactions to that address, without identifying himself to anyone. The recipient cannot prevent this. If you think that I am exaggerating, similar things already happened in the past. The requirement to identify both of the parties involved in a transaction is akin to requiring a mail server or relay operator to identify the senders and recipients of each email. At least the mail server operator can reject an incoming email. A holder of a private key cannot prevent receiving a transaction, as required by Wences Cesares concurring, they were not exaggerating. My conclusion is actually that it is even more problematic than the comments of those gentlemen allege. It is not clear whether this prohibits retaining profits in other fiat currencies e. It however excludes investing into analogous types of investments issued in other countries and denominated in other currencies. Furthermore, here we have a paradoxical situation where most of the BitLicense treats non-financial uses of cryptocurrencies as financial, this restriction treats financial uses of cryptocurrencies as non-financial. Companies that use cryptocurrencies as functional currencies, for example to pay their suppliers or employees, might get cash flow problems due to this restriction. Some companies, such as CoinBase, need stashes of bitcoins to sell to their customers quickly. This could also be potentially hampered by this restriction. Some companies do not use fiat money at all. In the past, blockchain. Other types of businesses that do not require a fiat account are mining pools or sellers of physical bitcoin media, such as Casascius coins. What if they cannot find anyone that is willing to provide them such services? The additional reserves could also be used for other services, such as hedging or facilitating margin trading. If the company needs to liquidate excess reserves according to accounting deadlines rather than business demand, this would have negative impact on security and the provision of variety of business services. BitLicense seems to apply to certain type of intermediation services, for example escrow. This would include not only cryptocurrency businesses, but also others like notaries or lawyers. While I assume that in a typical escrow situation notaries and lawyers do identify the parties, why should they be subject to the other restrictions of the BitLicense? Companies that bring together buyers and sellers are not specifically exempt. If I travel to New York, say for a conference, companies that I have contractual relationship with might become subject to BitLicense due to my trip. Are these companies supposed to track my movements? My bank does not care whether I travel to US, why should a cryptocurrency company do? All BitLicensees are required to have a cyber security program This includes companies that do not deal with bitcoin electronically e. In some business models, the identity of the parties is known to another business involved in the transaction. In the case of purse. This just makes the participants more vulnerable to identity theft. Some companies act as an agent of the payee e. Why do they need to identify the payer? The payee can, with appropriate court order, provide the identity of the payer. During the Senate hearings in November , Tony Gallippi of BitPay said that they do identify the merchant already, but as far as I know, none of the cryptocurrency payment processors identify the payer. The aforementioned professor Tu also uses the example of the agent of the payee, and the California financial code has an exemption in such as case. Is the company supposed to return them to the depositors? How much time do they have for it? This may affect thousands of non-commercial entities and private persons if not rectified. On the other hand, 'other value' and 'retail conversion' Perhaps they should be. Some businesses do not provide such valuation at all, so they should not be required to explain how they calculate it. The requirement for a bond or trust account in dollars We all need to be aware that some of the purported goals of the BitLicense are, to a larger or smaller extent, in conflict with each other. If the BitLicensee is required to store personal identification of the customer, this increases the risk of identity theft. NYDFS needs to clarify their priorities. NYDFS also does not appear to have given much merit to alternative methods to achieve the desired goals. The most obvious method is in my opinion the education of consumers it is expected that the BitLicensees do this. NYDFS could also perform certification services of public keys or provide APIs for authenticating consumer identities, which would help BitLicensees to identify New York residents without having to store their identities themselves. Brito, Shadab and Castillo attempt to provide examples of many such alternative approaches. Vienna, Austria, October 20th Jerry Brito and Eli Dourado: Jerry Brito, Houman B. Securities, Derivatives, Prediction Markets and Gambling, http: Anthony Gallippi Senate Hearing, https: Jim Harper on behalf of Bitcoin Foundation: Hammering on the BitLicense, https: The BitLicense Papers 3, http: Regulating the New Cashless World,. Saturday, 4 October Review: Since I read so much, I thought that maybe I can start posting reviews. I take it seriously and I fully read everything that I review, and make highlights and comments. The proponents of Bitcoin are, with a handful of exceptions, presented as anonymous, hysterical and associated with ad-hominems, for example: The sources of proponents he uses are mainly comments and forum posts. Their arguments are taken as unquestionable truth. He sources them from, among other things, personal interviews and blog posts. Bias continues The bias is all over the place. When addressing Bitcoin from the perspective of Austrian school of economics, he quotes three negative opinions, and ignores many others who are either neutral or positive about it, and instead of referencing research publications, he references blog posts. I listened to recordings of both of the FEC meetings which resulted in this decision. The debate was mainly regarding applications of internal regulations and how to technically implement them and had nothing to do with confidence. It probably takes at least a year old, like Victoria Grant. The economic analysis is a mixed bag. On one hand, he describes the omnipresent hype, fraud, bubbles, pump and dump schemes, and so on, and how they are present a problem. I have no issue here and even agree to a large extent, just in one occasion, he describes a pump and dump scheme and incorrectly labels it as a ponzi scheme. Another thing that I agree with him is that Bitcoin is not suitable for money laundering for similar reasons as he presents. On the other hand, he lacks understanding of largely uncontroversial concepts like the liquidity premium and transaction costs. Mainly he ignores the hidden costs of a trusted third party and the property rights enforcement of media of exchange. An example would be the costs associated with identity theft, which he does not mention at all. Without these, a lot of economic phenomena cannot be understood, not merely Bitcoin. Again, without such a theory, a lot of economic phenomena cannot be understood. He misses that, among other things, merchant acceptance increases liquidity. Jeffrey Robinson portrays, M-Pesa or Amazon Payments as potential competitors to Bitcoin, but misses, among other things, that they do not work internationally. International trade is a non-negligible proportion of global trade. The more controversial economic topics, such as deflation, velocity, intrinsic value are portrayed in a one-sided way and again the statements of the sources are taken as undeniable. If you like this review, send me some Bitcoins: Friday, 14 March The contradictions of Smiling Dave continue. Smiling Dave continues to post about Bitcoin and making up more and more ridiculous arguments as the gaps in them are exposed, and continues to distance himself from the Austrian approach more and more. However, I recently noticed something more serious: It has to be in wide demand. Marketability of media of exchange The first part is the one where he introduced a contradiction. In that case we can expect his next post to concentrate on explaining the difference between liquidity and marketability. Now, as I explained several times already, including in my thesis and earlier posts, the connection between liquidity and medium of exchange function is empirically observable with Bitcoin. It was already liquid in early when the first use as a medium of exchange was observed. Furthermore, Menger emphasised the importance of 'organised markets' exchanges and speculation in playing a role in the concept of liquidity. We observe these two with Bitcoin as well. Wide acceptance and marketability. Smiling Dave has erroneously argued that somehow wide acceptance is a characteristic of marketability. However, we need to be careful when applying this to money. The level of liquidity necessary for money may still lie very high and be unattainable for Bitcoin for all we know. While the implied assumption so far has been that there is a big gap between 'nothing' and a 'medium of exchange' and a narrow gap between 'medium of exchange' and 'money', Bitcoin shows that there are goods where the relationship is reversed: This is why it is important to distinguish between money and a medium of exchange, yet another difficulty many economists seem to face: Neither does Smiling Dave. Tuesday, 11 February Mt. Gox and fractional reserve banking. Gox has been long accused of running a fractional reserve system, the accusations increased during the last couple of days due to an escalation of the transaction malleability aspect of Bitcoin , and the inability of Mt. Gox to handle it on the technical, managerial and PR level. I think that it might be useful to look at the Mt. Gox situation from this perspective. The next section is quote from the draft with some minor modifications. Following is a list of some of these cases: The last three cases could be argued to be a consequence of negligence and give a rise to liabilities, however the first three are perfectly legitimate occurrences. Therefore, the impossibility to redeem the deposit on demand is not a sufficient criterion to conclude illegitimacy. There is also the praxeological issue of differentiating withdrawal on demand and after a fixed period. The act of withdrawal is a type of action, and as such takes some time. It begins with the depositor initiating a contact with the bank, continues through the bank obtaining identification of the depositor or at least the bearer instrument he provides, verifying it, accessing their reserves, recording the withdrawal in their accounting systems and presenting the specie to the withdrawer 3. During this time, the bank can liquidate some of their investments to compensate for the lack of reserves at the time of initiation of the withdrawal request. So from praxeological point of view, it is impossible to differentiate between on demand and not on demand deposits. Applying the theory onto Mt. Gox Based on known facts, Mt. Gox suffered from points 2, 4, 5 and 6. Gox can fix this mess, but at least theoretically the problems casued by transaction malleability should be possible to audit, and at least there where account holders themselves successfully performed a double spend attack, Mt. Gox knows who they are, and can attempt legal action against them. I would like to introduce a saying: In other words, Mt. Gox is a lucrative target, because of its history, market share, poor management and PR skills. Attacks thus tend to affect Mt. This generates knowledge, and entrepreneurs and users who observe these attacks, their consequences and reactions of Mt. Gox can learn from this, and not repeat the mistakes. Maybe we can argue that Mt. Gox should have spent more on management, auditing, PR or lobbying to avoid the account seizures , but not all of this can be known in advance, and thus some level of experimenting is necessary. Maybe we should do the same thing with Mt. After they repay everyone their deposits back. Saturday, 7 December 'I, Broken Economist': He knows a lot. He thinks he knows more than he actually knows. Heterogeneity of a monetary system He writes that money enables economic calculation, and thus division of labour. He writes that you cannot buy everything with Bitcoin yet. Because North does not have a general theory of liquidity, and a general theory of transaction costs. Which is very sad, because Menger was very eloquent on explaining both of these categories and made profound discoveries. People who claim that their arguments are based on Menger, yet do not have either a theory of liquidity or a theory of transaction costs do not really understand Menger. But Menger was very elaborate on explaining why both liquidity and transaction costs are heterogenous and cannot be summed up to a particular activity. The implied error of the homogeneity of a monetary system is visible when North writes: It is visible also in other partial implications of the alleged homogeneity, for example assuming that liquidity is a final means of payment. This already has been erroneously claimed by Smiling Dave. Final means of payment is merely one of the factors that influence liquidity. Liquidity is also not a unit of account. Unit of account and liquidity influence each other, but again are merely one of the factors. The total mix of all these influences the choice of a medium of exchange. The weight of the result is not only different based on the evolutionary stage of Bitcoin, but also on the particular circumstances of a particular user. This is why some people in some situations will find Bitcoin more advantageous, and other people or even the same people in a different situation disadvantageous. It is also why it cannot be apriori concluded what the future of Bitcoin will be, we can only make educated guesses. The only thing we can do as praxeologists is to conclude that Bitcoin might expand in those areas where its advantages are assessed as subjectively the most important with respect to other media of exchange. Heterogeneity of social interaction The problem that North thinks he knows more than he actually does is exacerbated by his misapplication of the system of property rights and social frameworks to Bitcoin or the lack thereof. It is a more efficient social framework. Payments are merely the first, easiest, type of a contract, on which Bitcoin demonstrates its advantages. Rather than being an 'implicit denial' of contracts, Bitcoin provides a more efficient framework for them. I think that we can all agree that Bitcoin is not perfect. But there are no perfect goods. There is always the subjective assessment, imperfect information, and opportunity costs. Bitcoin is at a very early stage, and the basis for the framework is still expecting human actors to fill it with their own activities. Bitcoin first created a framework, and then this was incrementally use for payments. This is also, paradoxically, why North is clueless. He understands how social institutions evolve in theory, yet he cannot connect empirical data when it happens right under his nose with the theory. Conclusion North complains that people who criticise his position of Bitcoin do not understand the Austrian school. As I wrote before, the future of Bitcoin does not depend on the understanding of economists. It depends on human action. But as a researcher I see it as important that I address errors. Others than can read both, make up their own mind, and build on top of it. The Austrian school did not end with Menger, it began with him.