Just because everyone abusing it is not going to jail does not mean it is legal.
Ah, illegal in Russia, but so are a lot of things (homosexuality, for example - so Apple blocks the gay dating apps in Russia). Apple has to follow the laws of each country, they already have infrastructure in place to block things on a per-country basis.
Having something be illegal in some other country is not a good reason to block it in the US.
Having something be illegal in some other country is not a good reason to block it in the US.
You stated it wasn't illegal. It being illegal in one place proves that it is illegal and in no way means it's not legal in at least one other place.
In regards to Apple are you now saying they don't have the right to protect their business and should only stop allowing bitcoin apps when the Supreme Court makes them or Congress passes a bill? Really?! Do you not think companies have the right to protect themselves? Do you really not see where this going?
You stated it wasn't illegal. It being illegal in one place proves that it is illegal and in no way means it's not legal in at least one other place.
In regards to Apple are you now saying they don't have the right to protect their business and should only stop allowing bitcoin apps when the Supreme Court makes them or Congress passes a bill? Really?! Do you not think companies have the right to protect themselves? Do you really not see where this going?
If you say "bit coin is illegal" without qualification, it is natural to assume you mean "illegal in the US". So the original statement is misleading.
I don't think that Apple is doing this to protect themselves, I think that they are going to buy PayPal eventually and they want to clear out any possible competition to their eventual payment system dominance. I realize that you don't agree, but I don't think your arguments have any merit.
Do the charges specifically use the term money without any further qualification or alternative terminologies to include any medium of exchange, or is that just a website's reporting on the arrest?
He was also hit with a 'money laundering' charge, so it would give bitcoin some legitimacy as money or legal tender.
If you say "bit coin is illegal" without qualification, it is natural to assume you mean "illegal in the US". So the original statement is misleading.
I don't think that Apple is doing this to protect themselves, I think that they are going to buy PayPal eventually and they want to clear out any possible competition to their eventual payment system dominance. I realize that you don't agree, but I don't think your arguments have any merit.
1) I agree that it should be qualified which I did in my first response to you with the use of legal tender, which is what Apple accepts as payments for each country it runs its iTS.
2) You don't think Apple is protecting themselves but then in that very same sentence you create a scenario where Apple would be protecting themselves.
3) You created a scenario that you can't prove and have nothing to even make a halfway decent hypothesis so you've then manipulated it to mean that Apple is being anticompetitive. You haven't even made an argument as to why you think Apple needs PayPal, how PayPal competes with bitcoin, or how Apple buying PayPal (which I think is very unlikely and unnecessary) would mean they can't allow other apps. PayPal has legitimate competitors and yet all those service are still on the App Store. The only reasonable answer is the one you are choosing to ignore.
2) You don't think Apple is protecting themselves but then in that very same sentence you create a scenario where Apple would be protecting themselves.
Protecting themselves from competition in exactly the same way as Microsoft did when they bundled IE with Windows...
Protecting themselves from competition in exactly the same way as Microsoft did when they bundled IE with Windows...
1) This was debunked already as being a foolish analogy.
2) Again, your argument is plain wrong that even calling it specious would be going it too much credit. Let me know what Apple removes all apps that allow one to transfer funds to someone else, not just bitcoin apps, and you'll have a position you can finally defend.
I don't think that Apple is doing this to protect themselves, I think that they are going to buy PayPal eventually and they want to clear out any possible competition to their eventual payment system dominance.
And you followed up with this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
2) You don't think Apple is protecting themselves but then in that very same sentence you create a scenario where Apple would be protecting themselves.
When you said "Apple is protecting themselves" in that context, the only possible meaning is "protection from competition".
When you said "Apple is protecting themselves" in that context, the only possible meaning is "protection from competition".
protecting is defined as to "keep safe from harm or injury" which is the status quo for business. What you're suggesting isn't protection but an offensive measure that is illegal. That's a very different thing.
Again, let me know what Apple bans all apps that allow for payments to be transferred unless they go through Apple's server, which include my Starbucks app.
I think this argument is coming to an end. We have a group of people who don't understand bitcoin and refuse to educate themselves on it, using hypocritical arguments to justify Apple's equally hypocritical decision and ad hominems against anyone who disagrees.
Explain to me how apple benefits from having bit coin apps.
The risks are as plain as day.
Convince me that the benefits to apple outweigh the risk......
Apple is in the business to make money. It is not their responsibility to make sure bitcoin suceedes
I guess I can understand how anti-government types with an Androidian love for the term open can ignore these obvious risks to major corporations, but I what I don't get is how Apple's obvious reasoning is then transmogrified into some nefarious, anti-competitive scheme that now equates to removing all payment methods from the App Store and some plot to buy PayPal.
Read it. Same result. Apple have removed all BitCoin apps from their App Store, blocking users from using BitCoin in a native app on their platform. The web isn't Apples platform, so web apps don't count. Apple have placed roadblocks in the way of users using BitCoin.
Can you interview the inventor of banks or credit cards, [other meh]?
I suspect that John C. Biggins, of Flatbush National Bank, is already dead (http://bit.ly/1o7ECov). But I'm sure he wouldn't have mind to give an interview to you around 1947. Sheesh...
So far, most of the ignorant comments here seem to be from the bitcoiners. You guys seem to have a basic misunderstanding of the role of money in a macro-economy. (Hint: Legitimate 'money' is both a medium of exchange and a store of value -- all your pro-bitcoin arguments are solely focused on the former).
If you’d like to learn a bit more about why it’s not ready for prime-yet – it may get there at some point in the future, but many questions need to be answered – I’d highly recommend your reading this short and substantive piece and the links in there (trust me, it’s not political in the least): http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/28/bitcoin-is-evil/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
Comments
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/09/us-russia-bitcoin-idUSBREA1806620140209
http://news.msn.com/science-technology/russian-authorities-say-bitcoin-illegal?ocid=newssocial
Just because everyone abusing it is not going to jail does not mean it is legal.
Ah, illegal in Russia, but so are a lot of things (homosexuality, for example - so Apple blocks the gay dating apps in Russia). Apple has to follow the laws of each country, they already have infrastructure in place to block things on a per-country basis.
Having something be illegal in some other country is not a good reason to block it in the US.
Yes. My bath salts much be wearing off.
You stated it wasn't illegal. It being illegal in one place proves that it is illegal and in no way means it's not legal in at least one other place.
In regards to Apple are you now saying they don't have the right to protect their business and should only stop allowing bitcoin apps when the Supreme Court makes them or Congress passes a bill? Really?! Do you not think companies have the right to protect themselves? Do you really not see where this going?
You stated it wasn't illegal. It being illegal in one place proves that it is illegal and in no way means it's not legal in at least one other place.
In regards to Apple are you now saying they don't have the right to protect their business and should only stop allowing bitcoin apps when the Supreme Court makes them or Congress passes a bill? Really?! Do you not think companies have the right to protect themselves? Do you really not see where this going?
If you say "bit coin is illegal" without qualification, it is natural to assume you mean "illegal in the US". So the original statement is misleading.
I don't think that Apple is doing this to protect themselves, I think that they are going to buy PayPal eventually and they want to clear out any possible competition to their eventual payment system dominance. I realize that you don't agree, but I don't think your arguments have any merit.
He was also hit with a 'money laundering' charge, so it would give bitcoin some legitimacy as money or legal tender.
http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/01/27/feds-charge-bitcoin-start-up-founder-with-money-laundering/
1) I agree that it should be qualified which I did in my first response to you with the use of legal tender, which is what Apple accepts as payments for each country it runs its iTS.
2) You don't think Apple is protecting themselves but then in that very same sentence you create a scenario where Apple would be protecting themselves.
3) You created a scenario that you can't prove and have nothing to even make a halfway decent hypothesis so you've then manipulated it to mean that Apple is being anticompetitive. You haven't even made an argument as to why you think Apple needs PayPal, how PayPal competes with bitcoin, or how Apple buying PayPal (which I think is very unlikely and unnecessary) would mean they can't allow other apps. PayPal has legitimate competitors and yet all those service are still on the App Store. The only reasonable answer is the one you are choosing to ignore.
How does laundering money legitimize it? It's the same as using uncut diamonds to launder money. It's simply a means to an end.
2) You don't think Apple is protecting themselves but then in that very same sentence you create a scenario where Apple would be protecting themselves.
Protecting themselves from competition in exactly the same way as Microsoft did when they bundled IE with Windows...
1) This was debunked already as being a foolish analogy.
2) Again, your argument is plain wrong that even calling it specious would be going it too much credit. Let me know what Apple removes all apps that allow one to transfer funds to someone else, not just bitcoin apps, and you'll have a position you can finally defend.
I said this:
I don't think that Apple is doing this to protect themselves, I think that they are going to buy PayPal eventually and they want to clear out any possible competition to their eventual payment system dominance.
And you followed up with this:
2) You don't think Apple is protecting themselves but then in that very same sentence you create a scenario where Apple would be protecting themselves.
When you said "Apple is protecting themselves" in that context, the only possible meaning is "protection from competition".
I’ll just wait until you read the post again.
You're correct, I didn't see it from that POV.
protecting is defined as to "keep safe from harm or injury" which is the status quo for business. What you're suggesting isn't protection but an offensive measure that is illegal. That's a very different thing.
Again, let me know what Apple bans all apps that allow for payments to be transferred unless they go through Apple's server, which include my Starbucks app.
I think this argument is coming to an end. We have a group of people who don't understand bitcoin and refuse to educate themselves on it, using hypocritical arguments to justify Apple's equally hypocritical decision and ad hominems against anyone who disagrees.
I guess I can understand how anti-government types with an Androidian love for the term open can ignore these obvious risks to major corporations, but I what I don't get is how Apple's obvious reasoning is then transmogrified into some nefarious, anti-competitive scheme that now equates to removing all payment methods from the App Store and some plot to buy PayPal.
Explain to me how apple benefits from having bit coin apps.
The risks are as plain as day.
Convince me that the benefits to apple outweigh the risk......
Apple is in the business to make money. It is not their responsibility to make sure bitcoin suceedes
What risks? Seriously - It's. not. illegal. How many other ways can I say it?
Explain to me how apple benefits from having personal banking apps.
The risks for fiat currency are as plain as day.
You do realize Windows had 90% of the market. iOS doesn't have even half of that (or so the media says)
Now respond properly, not like a surly teenager.
Can you interview the inventor of banks or credit cards, [other meh]?
I suspect that John C. Biggins, of Flatbush National Bank, is already dead (http://bit.ly/1o7ECov). But I'm sure he wouldn't have mind to give an interview to you around 1947. Sheesh...
So far, most of the ignorant comments here seem to be from the bitcoiners. You guys seem to have a basic misunderstanding of the role of money in a macro-economy. (Hint: Legitimate 'money' is both a medium of exchange and a store of value -- all your pro-bitcoin arguments are solely focused on the former).
If you’d like to learn a bit more about why it’s not ready for prime-yet – it may get there at some point in the future, but many questions need to be answered – I’d highly recommend your reading this short and substantive piece and the links in there (trust me, it’s not political in the least): http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/28/bitcoin-is-evil/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
Ah, illegal in Russia, but so are a lot of things (homosexuality, for example ....
Don't spread FUD. Homosexuality was decriminalized in Russia in 1993.