Mano tikėjimas žmonių godumu irgi nesumažėjo nei per 0,01%



So what???

Nieko...
Tik kad sfinkasFX ir vėl bus prašovęs. Rizikingas dalykas tie šortinimai.

jau senai stopa gavau

Tim Draper vienu mostu susizere visas 30 000 monetu su tikslu i tolimesni BTC infrastrukturos pletima besivystanciose salyse.

nice

Bitcoin rizikos:

jeigu ka nors domina tikroji sio sarasho priezastis, skaitykite desineje puseje esancia paskutine "rizika"..

Surašiau atsakymus/vertinimus į kiekvieną iš šių rizikų. Dauguma rizikų yra:

a) nesusijusios su pačiomis virtualiomis valiutomis, tik su jų keityklomis/e-wallet servisais ir kitomis third-party kompanijomis, kuriomis naudotis nėra būtina, norint naudomis virtualiomis valiutomis.

b) tinkančios ne tik virtualioms, bet ir fiat valiutoms.

c) kylančios iš to, kad finansus reguliuojančios tarnybos per 5 metus nesugebėjo išleisti aiškių nurodymų kaip reguliuojamos virtualios valiutos.

d) neegzistuojančios (false).

Atsakymus į tokias rizikas pabraukiau.

Trumpiniai: FC - fiat currency, VC - virtual currency.

1. User suffers loss when an exchange is fraudulent (High)

True, but what does this have to do with VCs themselves? Don't use a centralized exchange who could steal or lose your VCs - that's one of the main points/advantages or VCs - you don't need to use any third parties.

2. User suffers loss when an ostensible exchange is not a genuine exchange (High)

True, but what does this have to do with VCs themselves? Don't use a centralized exchange who could steal or lose your VCs - that's one of the main points/advantages or VCs - you don't need to use any third parties.

3. User experiences drop in value of virtual currencies (VCs) due to (significant and unexpected) exchange rate fluctuation (High)

True, although this rate fluctuation has been upwards for most of the time.

4. User holding VCs may unexpectedly become liable to tax requirements (Med)

True, but it is because the government did not manage to give clear regulations in 5 years. This just shows the incompetence of the government. Government's incompetence is a risk to everything, not to just VCs.

5. User who is a member of a VC mining pool does not get fair share of mined VC units from a mining consortium (Low)

Technically true, but user can always choose to mine in a different pool, or no pool at all. Besides, user does not have to mine to be able to use VCs.

6. User suffers loss when buying VCs that do not have the VC features that the user expects (Med)

False. The user does not need to "expect" anything, because the source code of these VCs is open source, and could be read by anyone, letting the user to see for himself, what feature a VC has or doesn't have.

7. User's computing capacity is abused for the mining benefit of others (Low)

False. User does not need to give his computer capacity to mining to be able to use VCs. If he decides to do so, it is completely voluntary.

8. User suffers loss due to changes made to the VC protocol and other core components (High)

The same applies to USD. At least with VCs you have a saying in what changes will be made, and you can choose to reject them.

9. User is not in a position to identify and assess the risks arising from VCs (Low)

False. The source code of these VCs is open source, and could be read by anyone, letting the user to identify and assess any and all possible risks. The whole system is 100% transparent. On the other hand, this risk really applies to USD, where the workings of the system are hidden and not transparent.

10. User is in violation of applicable laws and regulations (Med)

True, but it is because the government did not manage to give clear regulations in 5 years. This just shows the incompetence of the government. Government's incompetence is a risk to everything, not to just VCs.

11. User loses VC units through e-wallet theft or hacking (High)

True. You have to learn to be responsible for your own money. I know, it's a crazy idea, but get used to it.

12. User loses VC units when exchange gets hacked (High)

True, but what does this have to do with VCs themselves? Don't use a centralized exchange who could steal or lose your VCs - that's one of the main points/advantages or VCs - you don't need to use any third parties.

13. User's identity may be stolen when providing identification credentials to access VCs (High)

True, but what does this have to do with VCs themselves? Don't use a centralized exchange who would require you to provide identification - that's one of the main points/advantages or VCs - you don't need to use any third parties.

14. Market participants suffer losses due to unexpected application of law that renders contracts illegal/unenforceable (Med)

True, but it is because the government did not manage to give clear regulations in 5 years. This just shows the incompetence of the government. Government's incompetence is a risk to everything, not to just VCs.

15. Market participants suffer losses due to delays in the recovery of VC units or the freezing of
positions (High)

True, but what does this have to do with VCs themselves? Don't use a centralized exchange who could delay/freeze your VCs - that's one of the main points/advantages or VCs - you don't need to use any third parties.

16. Market participants suffer losses due to counterparties/intermediaries failing to meet contractual settlement obligations (High)

True, but what does this have to do with VCs themselves? Don't use counterparties/intermediaries - that's one of the main points/advantages or VCs - you don't need to use any third parties.

17. Market participants suffer losses of VC units held in custody by others (Med)

True, but what does this have to do with VCs themselves? Don't let anyone else hold your VCs - that's one of the main points/advantages or VCs - you don't need to use any third parties.

18. Market participants suffer losses through information inequality regarding other actors (Med)

False. The source code of these VCs is open source, and could be read by anyone, letting the user to identify and assess any and all possible risks. The whole system is 100% transparent, so there could be no information inequality, because ALL information is available to ANYONE. Unless it means information inside centralized exchanges, in that case - don't use centralized exchanges.

19. User suffers loss when counterparty fails to meet contractual payment or settlement obligations (High)

True, but what does this have to do with VCs themselves? Don't use counterparties - that's one of the main points/advantages or VCs - you don't need to use any third parties.

20. User experiences fraud or loss of fiat currency (FC) when using VC cash machines (Med)

True, but what does this have to do with VCs themselves? Don't use VC cash machines - that's one of the main points/advantages or VCs - you don't need to use any third parties.

21. User has no guarantee that VCs are accepted by merchants as a means of payment on a permanent basis (High)

Technically true. For it to happen, every single merchant must stop accepting that particular VC after user receives it. The probability of that should be "extremely low", not "high".

22. User suffers loss when VC payment they have made to purchase a good is incorrectly debited from their e-wallet (High)

True, but the only way it could happen, is by user error. You have to learn to be responsible for your own money.

23. User is not able to convert VCs into fiat currency, or not at a reasonable price (High)

"Not able to convert VCs into fiat currency..." - technically true, but for that to happen, every single exchange/trader of that particular VC should close, and every user of that particular VC should stop accepting them (the probability of that should be "extremely low", not "high"); "...or not at a reasonable price" - who decides what is a reasonable price?

24. User is unable to access VCs after losing passwords/keys to their e-wallet (High)

True. You have to learn to be responsible for your own money. At least with VCs you can make backups. You can't make backups with USD.

25. User is not able to access VCs on an exchange that is a 'going concern' (i.e. has the resources to operate) (High)

True, but what does this have to do with VCs themselves? Don't use a centralized exchange who could steal or lose your VCs - that's one of the main points/advantages or VCs - you don't need to use any third parties.

26. User is not able to access VCs on an exchange that has gone out of business (i.e. does no longer have resources to operate) (High)

True, but what does this have to do with VCs themselves? Don't use a centralized exchange who could steal or lose your VCs - that's one of the main points/advantages or VCs - you don't need to use any third parties.

27. User suffers loss as a result of VC prices being manipulated (High)

True, although this rate fluctuation has been upwards for most of the time.

28. User investing in regulated financial instruments (e.g. derivatives, SPS, CIS) using unregulated VCs suffers unexpected loss (Med)

I don't get this one, how does a user suffer loss? In any case, this obviously seems a problem with regulation or third parties, not VCs themselves.

29. User is misled by unreliable exchange rate data (Med)

True, but what does this have to do with VCs themselves? Don't use a centralized exchange who could give you false data - that's one of the main points/advantages or VCs - you don't need to use any third parties.

30. User suffers loss when investing in fraudulent VC investment schemes (Med)

The same applies to USD. VCs are not a cure for stupidity.

31. User is exposed to significant price volatility within very short time frames (Med)

True, although this price volatility has been upwards for most of the time.

32. User cannot execute the VC exchange at the expected price (Med)

The same applies to USD and other fiat currencies. Obviously, VCs will not make the expectations of anyone who uses them to become magically true.

33. User is exploited by a VC Ponzi scheme (Med)

The same applies to USD. VCs are not a cure for stupidity. At least with VCs all transactions are publicly and permanently recorded for law enforcement to be able to track them.

34. Exchange is operationally unable to fulfill payment obligations denominated in VCs or FCs (Med)

True, but what does this have to do with VCs themselves? Don't use a centralized exchange who could be unable to fulfill payment obligations - that's one of the main points/advantages or VCs - you don't need to use any third parties.

35. Exchange is not in control of its operation (Med)

True, but what does this have to do with VCs themselves? Don't use a centralized exchange who could lose control of it's operations - that's one of the main points/advantages or VCs - you don't need to use any third parties.

36. E-wallet provider faces loss should their refund policies be abused to hedge currency transactions (Med)

True, but what does this have to do with VCs themselves? Don't use a centralized e-wallet provider who could control your VCs - that's one of the main points/advantages or VCs - you don't need to use any third parties.

37. After accepting VC for payment, merchant is not reimbursed (Med)

I don't get this one. Why should a merchant be reimbursed? The transfers of VCs are generally irreversible, so I don't see any situation where a merchant (not a user) should/could be reimbursed.

38. Unlike a FC, the merchant cannot be certain that they can spend the VCs received (Med)

Technically true. For it to happen, every single VC user/merchant/developer must stop using/accepting/developing that particular VC after the merchant receives it. The probability of that should be "extremely low", not "med".

39. The merchant cannot be certain of the FC purchasing power of the VCs they have received (Med)

False. The merchant can accept VCs and have them automatically and immediately converted to FCs, negating any risk of purchasing power change.

40. Merchant faces compensation claims from customers if transactions have been wrongly debited (Med)

False. Transactions of most VCs are public, and can be checked by anyone. For that reason, it is impossible they they are "wrongly debited".

41. Wallet provider loses e-wallets provided for individuals (High)

True, but what does this have to do with VCs themselves? Don't use a centralized e-wallet provider who could control and/or lose your VCs - that's one of the main points/advantages or VCs - you don't need to use any third parties.

42. Scheme governance authority fails to meet payment and other obligations (High)

False. There is no "scheme governance authority". It simply does not exist. That's one of the main points of VCs - "scheme governance authorities" has been replaced by public and 100% transparent (open source) mathematical algorithms.

43. Scheme governance authority is subject to unexpected civil/criminal liability that brings the VC scheme to a halt (Med)

False. There is no "scheme governance authority". It simply does not exist. That's one of the main points of VCs - "scheme governance authorities" has been replaced by public and 100% transparent (open source) mathematical algorithms.

44. E-wallet provider faces compensation claims from customers if functionality of wallet is compromised or fails to provide expected functionality (Med)

True, but what does this have to do with VCs themselves? Don't use a centralized e-wallet provider who could control and/or lose your VCs - that's one of the main points/advantages or VCs - you don't need to use any third parties.

45. Criminals are able to launder proceeds of crime because they can deposit/transfer VCs anonymously (High)

False. The transactions of most VCs are public and pseudonymous, not anonymous. Besides, "laundering money" means "making illegally gained money legal". Simply hiding money is not "money laundering", because it does not make them legal.

46. Criminals are able to launder proceeds of crime because they can deposit/transfer VCs globally, rapidly and irrevocably (High)

False. "Laundering money" means "making illegally gained money legal". Being able to deposit/transfer VCs globally, rapidly and irrevocably is not "money laundering", because it does not make them legal.

47. Criminals/terrorists use the VC remittance systems and accounts for financing purposes (High)

The same applies to USD. At least with VCs all transactions are publicly and permanently recorded for law enforcement to be able to track them.

48. Criminals/terrorists disguise the origins of criminal proceeds, undermining the ability of enforcement to obtain evidence and recover criminal assets (High)

The same applies to USD. At least with VCs all transactions are publicly and permanently recorded for law enforcement to be able to track them.

49. Market participants are controlled by criminals, terrorists or related organizations (High)

The same applies to USD. At least with VCs all transactions are publicly and permanently recorded for law enforcement to be able to track them.

50. Criminal uses VC exchanges to trade illegal commodities and abuse regulated financial sector at point of entry (High)

The same applies to USD [exchanges]. At least with VCs all transactions are publicly and permanently recorded for law enforcement to be able to track them.

51. Restorative justice of victims of crime is hindered by criminal using VCs to avoid seizure of assets, confiscation and financial sanctions (High)

True, but at least with VCs all transactions are publicly and permanently recorded for law enforcement to be able to track them.

52. Criminal can use VCs for anonymous extortion (High)

The same applies to USD. At least with VCs all transactions are publicly and permanently recorded for law enforcement to be able to track them.

53. Criminal organizations can use VCs to settle internal or inter-organizational payments (Med)

The same applies to USD. At least with VCs all transactions are publicly and permanently recorded for law enforcement to be able to track them.

54. VCs make it more feasible for individuals to engage in criminal activity (High)

False. How do they make it more feasible? Cash transactions leave no record or trace, all VCs transactions are publicly and permanently recorded for law enforcement to be able to track them.

55. Hacking of VC software, wallets or exchanges allows a criminal to implicate others in the criminal activities they commit (Med)

True, but what does this have to do with VCs themselves? Don't use a centralized software/wallets/exchanges - that's one of the main points/advantages or VCs - you don't need to use any third parties.

56. Criminals, terrorist financiers and even entire jurisdictions are able to avoid seizure of assets, confiscation, embargos and financial sanctions (incl. those imposed by IGOs) (Med)

True, but at least with VCs all transactions are publicly and permanently recorded for law enforcement to be able to track them.

57. Criminals are able to create a VC scheme (High)

The same applies to USD. At least with VCs all transactions are publicly and permanently recorded for law enforcement to be able to track them.

58. Tax evaders are able to obtain income in VCs, outside monitored FC payment systems (Med)

Technically true. The same applies to USD (cash). With VCs all transactions are publicly and permanently recorded for law enforcement to be able to track and monitor them much more thoroughly than any FC system would ever allow.

59. Payment service providers (PSPs) that use FC and also provide VC services suffer losses due laws that render VC contracts illegal (Low)

True, but it is because the government did not manage to give clear regulations in 5 years. This just shows the incompetence of the government. Government's incompetence is a risk to everything, not to just VCs.

60. PSPs that use FC and also provide VC services fail due to liquidity exposures in their VC operations (Low)

True, but what does this have to do with VCs themselves? Don't use a centralized PSP - that's one of the main points/advantages or VCs - you don't need to use any third parties.

61. PSPs that offer VC payment services suffer loss of reputation when VC payments fail, because they gave the impression that VCs were regulated (Med)

True, but what does this have to do with VCs themselves? Don't use a centralized PSP - that's one of the main points/advantages or VCs - you don't need to use any third parties.

62. Businesses in the real economy suffer losses due to disruptions in financial markets that were caused by VC assets blocked, delayed, etc. (Low)

False. VC transactions are technically impossible to block/delay (at least for a long time).

63. Regulators decide to regulate VCs but the chosen regulatory approach fails (Med)

True, but it is because the regulators did not manage to give clear regulations in 5 years. This just shows the incompetence of the regulators. Regulator's incompetence is a risk to everything, not to just VCs.

64. Regulators do not regulate VCs but the viability of regulated financial institutions is compromised as a result of their interaction with VCs (Med)

True, but it is because the regulators did not manage to give clear regulations in 5 years. This just shows the incompetence of the regulators. Regulator's incompetence is a risk to everything, not to just VCs.

65. Regulation and supervision of conventional financial activities is circumvented by unregulated 'shadow' activities that incur the same risks (Med)

True, but it is because the regulators did not manage to give clear regulations in 5 years. This just shows the incompetence of the regulators. Regulator's incompetence is a risk to everything, not to just VCs.

66. Regulator is subject to litigation as a result of introducing regulation that renders pre-existing contracts illegal/unenforceable (Low)

True, but it is because the regulators did not manage to give clear regulations in 5 years. This just shows the incompetence of the regulators. Regulator's incompetence is a risk to everything, not to just VCs.

67. Should the regulator decide to regulate VCs more leniently than FCs, an unequal playing field in the market for payment services will emerge (Med)

True, but it is because the regulators did not manage to give clear regulations in 5 years. This just shows the incompetence of the regulators. Regulator's incompetence is a risk to everything, not to just VCs.

68. If an unequal playing field is retained, the intensity of competition in the market for FC payment services diminishes as providers exit FC markets (Med)

True, it's called progress. Obsolete technologies are replaced by newer and better ones all he time.

69. Regulators prevent potential new entrants to payment services market if the regulatory approach to VCs is excessive (Med)

True, but it is because the regulators did not manage to give clear regulations in 5 years. This just shows the incompetence of the regulators. Regulator's incompetence is a risk to everything, not to just VCs.

70. Should VCs gain widespread acceptance, central bank as issuer of FC can no longer steer the economy, as the impact of its monetary measures become difficult to predict (Low)

True. That's a good thing, and a reason for this list.

OHO, nemažai darbo įdėta, dabar tik pliusu galiu įvertinti, o būtų galimybė - permesčiau centą kitą.

Jei tik yra noro, tai galimybė yra, ją suteikia bitcoin.

1Q4Q9WrxzWk9zQ51fPXYyaavmmAiEv2Vi3



Beje, būtų labai nesunku tokią sistemą integruoti visame traders.lt forume. Jei už pranešimus vartotojai galėtų lengvai gauti tips'ų, tai gal ir trolių mažiau būtų, ir argumentuotų, informatyvių pranešimų padaugėtų. Kaip pavyzdį galiu pasiūlyti http://coinwidget.com/ plug-in'ą, kurį galima labai lengvai integruoti į bet kurią svetainę.

Tai kad tas plug-in nieko ypatingo nedaro, tik BTC adresą gražesne forma atvaizduoja. Bet tą adresą vis tiek visi forumo dalyviai turėtų patys pirma susikurti per kažkokį išorinį įrankį ir rankomis susivesti pas save profilyje.

Valdžia užsimojo nevaržomai naršyti po žmonių banko sąskaitas

geros naujienos

pasirinkimo laikas arteja: galima leist savo gyvenima, pinigus ir isteklius stovint salia virstancio babelio boksto, kuris kaip matome vistiek pasmerktas griuti, arba dalyvauti naujos decentralizuotos ekonomines sistemos kurime, pakeisiancios sita antikvarine architektura.

valdzia reks, dejuos ir issikalines, nes budamas pats sau ir savo paties banku, as nepalaikysiu ju situ korumpuotu istatymu. jie sauks kvailiai, piramides, tulpiu svogunai ir teroristai! galu gale neteke kantrybes, apsivynios apdriskusia veliava ir verks patriotizmo asarom! neissigaskit ir nepabekit - visa tai bullshit. netapkite vergais ju kuriamiems verslo istatymams!

Taip ir yra. Kodėl parašei taip, lyg tai būtų kažkokia problema? Registruojantis forume privaloma nurodyti el. pašto adresą, kurį taip pat patiems vartotojams pirma reikia susikurti per kažkokį išorinį įrankį ir suvesti rankomis. Jei problemos nėra tame, tai kur tu matai problemą, jei tas pats galios bitcoin adresui? Skirtumas tik tas, kad el. pašto adresas registruojantis yra privalomas, o bitcoin adresas būtų neprivalomas. Beje, gauti bitcoin adresą yra netgi paprasčiau, nei el. pašto adresą, nes visuose didžiausiuose el. pašto tiekėjuose registracijai reikalingas telefono numeris, o norint gauti bitcoin adresą jokia registracija apskritai nereikalinga.

Man rodos yra tokių servisų, kurie per API leidžia kurti pinigines/adresus ir atlikti operacijas. Bet taip pat nesunkus variantas pasiimti atskirą VM ir ten pasikurti asmeninį bitcoin noda'ą. Yra jau pakankamai PHP wrapper'ių su jais dirbti.

Pastebėjau vieną labai įdomų dalyką. Straipsnyje rašoma:

Valdžia ketina priimti dvi mokesčių įstatymų pataisas, kurios įteisintų nevaržomą žmonių banko sąskaitų sekimą ir įvestų "solidarią" pridėtinės vertės mokesčio (PVM) mokėjimo naštą. Liepos 10 d. Seimo plenariniame posėdyje numatyta svarstyti projektą, įpareigojantį bankus teikti duomenis apie visų be išimties žmonių ir juridinių asmenų bankų sąskaitų apyvartą ir likučius Valstybinei mokesčių inspekcijai (VMI).

Perskaičius straipsnį, sudaromas įspūdis, kad liepos 10 d. (šiandien) turėjo būti balsuojama dėl abiejų straipsnyje minimų pataisų: 1) dėl nevaržomo sąskaitų stebėjimo, 2) dėl "solidaraus" PVM mokėjimo. Tačiau iš tiesų, pataisos dėl "solidaraus" PVM mokėjimo jau buvo priimtos lygiai prieš mėnesį, t.y. birželio 10 d.

http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter/w5_show?p_r=618&p_k=1&p_d=148566

2014 m. birželio 10 d. pranešimas VIR

Seimas šiandien po svarstymo pritarė įstatymo pataisoms, numatančioms, kad PVM nesumokėjus vienai įmonei ir apie tai žinojus arba turėjus informacijos kitai, mokestį privalės sumokėti kita įmonė, o nauja tvarka leistų taikyti solidarią atsakomybę.

Problema su mokėjimų sistemos įdiegimu yra fundamentali.
Nieks nemoka/negali jos padaryti, nes tai labai sudėtinga ir reikalauja didelių įdėjimų.
Pašnekėti viena, padaryti visiškai kita.
Manau sliux nepajėgus įgyvendinti tokio dydžio projekto, todėl klausimas būtų toks - padaryti patiems kaip siūlė gloomers savarankišką mokėjimo sistemą, kurią jau paskui būtų galima integruoti į kokius tik nori web puslapius ar projektus.
Aš būčiau pirmas - mielai integruočiau į sintagon.

Pradžiai reiktų surasti bendrą kalbą ko norime ir kas būtų paprasčiausia įgyvendinti. Pervesti bitcoin ne problema ir dabar - problema tai parodyti teisingai.
Dabar gaunasi taip - gavai įmoką - o nežinai už ką.
Žinoti už ką gavai - būtina, ir kiti nariai turi matyti, kad skatinti atitinkamą veiklą.

Aš siūliau įvesti tarpinę "valiutą" - kurios kiekius ir būtų galima parodyti.
Gal yra kokių kitų pasiūlymų?

Beje, temos savininkui rekomenduočiau teršėjus baninti be gailesčio.
Pinigai - tema rimta, suvaikėjusiems troliams čia ne vieta.

Itariu pas Droida gime subprojektas - isidiegti visas imanomas mokejimo sistemas - paypalo donate yra, bitcoin yra, dar siulau sudaryt galimybe suteikt 2%, paysera idiegt, uzsiregistruot algojimas.lt arba sudalyvaut bedu turguje.
Nes tie, kurie daro bizni jau nuo nepriklausomybes laiku nemato problemu su atsiskaitymu.

Tai, kad mato (-; Nuo nepriklausomybės laikų tai iš vis net nėra ką kalbėti nes ten buvo tuštuma. Paskutiniai keli metai yra tik atsigavimas, kai lietuviai išmoko šiek tiek naudotis internetu... Tai, kad beveik viskas vyksta už užuolaidų ir visuomenė nelabai žino, kiek kur ir kaip moka, tai nereiškia, kad nėra problemų (-;

Problemu su atsiskaitymais visada yra, ypac jei suki reikaliukus uz istatymu ribu. Tai sitoje vietoje oi oi kaip bitcoinas puikus gaunas. Tiesa uz istatymu ribu gali atsidurti ir jis pats, bet ai.. kam rupi tie istatymai.

Pagrindinė dabartinės bankinės sistemos problema - per brangu ir nepritaikyta daryti daug smulkių pavedimų.
Pabandyk pervesti 1 centą 1000 kartų.
Nuskaičiuos nuo gavėjo 1000 litų kaip minimum.

Paseno bankai ne techniškai, bet technologiškai ir ideologiškai.
Amžinai tokie dalykai negali tęstis, kiti laikai, kiti reikalavimai.
Vat ir pradėjo atsirasti konkurentai, o bankai apsimeta kad nebijo.

Todėl visiems būtina turėti bitcoin sąskaitas ir išmokti jais naudotis.
Tegu tai būna kaip planas B, kuris labai greit gali pavirsti planu A.
Bitcoinai - pasaulinė valiuta, jais gali atsiskaityti daugelyje valstybių.

Kodėl pas mus forume negali būti padaryta pradžia?

bankai bando irgi pereiti prie tokios kaip bitcoin'ai technologijos. Nors cia jiems dar daug zoles aps..ti. Ir viskas tik del to, jog reikia tureti tokius pacius komisinius, kokius dabar turi, bei kontrole - kas gi per bankas, jei negales valdyti savo klientu srautu. Vat ir pagrindiniai ju inkarai, kuriu tikrai i prieki su visu banku laivu nepatemps nei elektronines pinigines, nei saldainiukai ant konsultanto stalo.
Aziotazas truputeli apstojo su bitcoin'ais (arba pats emiau skaitineti - o blogai). Visgi siai valiutai butinas pagrindinis dalykas - kuo didesnis pripazinimas ir sklaida. Butu totali pergale, jei ji pripazintu amazon'as ar ebay'jus.
Del pradzios forume - na ji jau yra siokia tokia- tai tema, burianti sia tema besidomincius. Kitiems, kitaip mastantiems ar tiesiog nezinantiems, tai yra rizika. Tad sia reiktu kazkaip sklaidyti. Droide, turi geru ideju ir platu mastymas - tikrai uzgims kazkas tavo galvoje