Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Says It Has "No Current Plans Regarding Bitcoin"

samzenpus posted about 9 months ago | from the forget-the-coins dept.

Google 157

An anonymous reader writes "A popular Reddit submission today suggested Google's payment team was looking to incorporate Bitcoin, naturally sparking a lot of excitement in the virtual currency community. TNW reached out to Google regarding the claim and learned that it was indeed false. 'As we continue to work on Google Wallet, we're grateful for a very wide range of suggestions,' a Google spokesperson told TNW. 'While we're keen to actively engage with Wallet users to help inform and shape the product, there's no change to our position: we have no current plans regarding Bitcoin.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46053295)

Ahhhhhhh

Even if Google plans to accept Bitcoin ... (1, Insightful)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 9 months ago | (#46053445)

... it can't say it out loud before everything is in place.

Just because Google's PR piece gave that "No Current Plan Regarding Bitcoin" doesn't mean Google isn't weighting the possibility (or even planning to accept) that virtual currency.

Company as large as Google must weight the pros and cons before it venture into something controversial (I am not saying that Bitcoin is in itself controversial, what I am saying is virtual currency, which Bitcoin is part of, is still being treated as something very alien by the establishment), or risk seeing its stock price tank all the way down to the earth's core.

Re:Even if Google plans to accept Bitcoin ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46053739)

Thanks, Taco Cowboy. We can always count on you to leach onto a "First" post. Moderators, you know what to do...

Re:Even if Google plans to accept Bitcoin ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46054341)

in the real world, this is known as "pump and dump", taco, both by you and the reddit submitter.

Re:Even if Google plans to accept Bitcoin ... (1)

hummassa (157160) | about 9 months ago | (#46054947)

Anyway, TNW's article reveals some read comprehension error (on everyone's part?); according to Ramaswamy's email, “We are working in the payments team to figure out how to incorporate bitcoin into our plans” but TNW interprets this as "it would suggest Google was getting ready to support the virtual currency". NO. It suggests that Google is thinking about how it could possibly do that.

Why do nerds like the Boorgle? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46053301)

Google collects vast quantities of information about everything everyone does on the internet. And they do it by offering stuff to you for free. Isn't there a catch? Can we honestly believe that the only reason they give you Gmail is to push ads to you and the only reason Analytics is to hope that you'll buy the upgrade? Really?

And even if you trust Google 100%, hasn't it occurred to you that data storage is cheap and management is transient. Add those together, and it means that everything you do on the net is stored by Google, and some future management team can do whatever the heck they want with it.

Re:Why do nerds like the Boorgle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46053385)

Because Google throws them crumbs of open source software. That's enough to turn them into fanatical fangirls willing to defend them at every turn.

Re:Why do nerds like the Boorgle? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46053507)

And so another bout of Scroogling begins.

Don't you Microsofties have anything better to do with your time? Like developing an OS somebody will want to use?

Re:Why do nerds like the Boorgle? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46053819)

It's possible to dislike Google and Microsoft. I refuse to use either one.

Re:Why do nerds like the Boorgle? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46053429)

I always liked Google because the core search worked well. Been noticing a decline in relevant results since Hummingbird (actually since 2010 but it got worse since hummingbird). It frequently fails on the most basic searches and seems to discard my exact syntax at times.

Bitcoin? (4, Funny)

Zaldarr (2469168) | about 9 months ago | (#46053311)

We all know dogecoin is the future.

Dogecoin is performance art (4, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 9 months ago | (#46053549)

And not even particularly good performance art.

How long can a joke possibly go on before it grows stale? Dogecoin seeks to find the answer.

Re:Dogecoin is performance art (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46054071)

Made pretty good, actually, by unexpected (moderate) success.

"Dogecoin fans raise funds to send Jamaican bobsled team to Olympics" headline feels surreal, but the fact it's not a joke, but a fact, makes this world it happened in feel surreal.

"Ha-ha, guys, check out this joke answer to Bitcoin! - Ha-ha, somebody even buys it! - Ha-ha... It... keeps going?.. Guys?"

Re:Dogecoin is performance art (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 9 months ago | (#46054181)

"Dogecoin fans raise funds to send Jamaican bobsled team to Olympics" headline feels surreal, but the fact it's not a joke, but a fact, makes this world it happened in feel surreal.

Wait until they retire immediately afterward and start hawking alcoholic beverages.

Re:Dogecoin is performance art (2)

Salgat (1098063) | about 9 months ago | (#46055699)

Dogecoin has a huge community driving it. On reddit it /r/dogecoin has 40,000 subscribers versus /r/litecoin's 17,000 subscribers (/r/bitcoin has 98,000 subscribers). On top of that, they tip and donate like crazy. As of now hype and popularity are *everything* to the price and adoption of a cryptocoin. You'd be foolish not to recognize that Dogecoin is, at the very least, successful thus far.

It's called Gcoin now. (5, Funny)

RevWaldo (1186281) | about 9 months ago | (#46053325)

Try to keep up.

.

Re:It's called Gcoin now. (5, Interesting)

QilessQi (2044624) | about 9 months ago | (#46053479)

You know, if a company like Amazon or Google -- with their immense server farms for mining -- did come up with its own cryptocoin, it could tilt the masses towards accepting the idea of cryptocurrencies, while simultaneously taking a huge bite out of Bitcoin's future potential.

Imagine an Amazoncoin, AZC, providing everything that BTC provides plus...
- convenient support for payment to Amazon.com or transactions throughout the web
- theft-insurance-backed online wallets for people who are unwilling to manage wallets on their own
- nice incentives for mining companies willing to partner with them to support AZC transactions in the early days.

Who would sign on? (4, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 9 months ago | (#46053533)

if a company like Amazon or Google -- with their immense server farms for mining -- did come up with its own crypto coin

Approximately none of the users of Bitcoin today would switch for (rightful) fear of being tracked out the wazoo. The cash-like nature of Bitcoin would undoubtedly being severely undermined if coming from a company like Google...

It's a lot harder to prop up a currency that a significant number of people will accept than most people think.

Re:Who would sign on? (3, Interesting)

QilessQi (2044624) | about 9 months ago | (#46053703)

Because the current users of Bitcoin are generally computer-savvy and security-minded -- except for the ones who insist on using wallets hosted in the cloud, but we can assume that they're a minority.

As for the Great Unwashed, though, they're still using passwords like "123456" and shrugging their shoulders at Snapchat's gaping security holes while they sext with friends. Because convenience.

I can't speak for Google -- its business model is a little different -- but Amazon has the customer base, market penetration, and mindshare to prop up a currency. Imagine if they just started by basing Amazon Gift Certificates off the technology. Suddenly next Christmas, several hundred million teens and twenty-somethings would have wallets and be spending Amazoncoins. Amazon trumpets the numbers, using them as proof that Amazoncoins are popular, thus setting the stage for further acceptance by people who know nothing about Bitcoin but sure as hell know Amazon.
 

Re:Who would sign on? (4, Insightful)

dbIII (701233) | about 9 months ago | (#46054263)

computer-savvy and security-minded

That's what they LIKE to think about themselves, but unless they are early adopter perpetrators of this scam they are just deluded suckers instead.

I wonder if we can use the "security" window dressing in bitcoin to track down the ransomware virus people? That may finally be a good use for bitcoin.

Re:Who would sign on? (3, Interesting)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 9 months ago | (#46054607)

hey are early adopter perpetrators of this scam they are just deluded suckers instead.

So, I want to pay someone in the UK for helping with some development work, and I transfer them some Dollars by way of Bitcoin and they get it in their bank account as Pounds... Then how am I being a scammed deluded sucker instead of benefiting from Bitcoin's cheap (currently free) decentralized electronic global transaction system?

Re:Who would sign on? (1)

The_Noid (28819) | about 9 months ago | (#46055065)

Your partner would first have to find someone in the UK that changes BTC to GBP for an acceptable price.
And you'd have to hope that the value doesn't change too much while in transfer.

Re:Who would sign on? (2)

dbIII (701233) | about 9 months ago | (#46055149)

Free? Look at a real transaction instead of an imaginary one.

Re:Who would sign on? (1)

Dagger2 (1177377) | about 9 months ago | (#46055331)

You can usually get away with free for the Bitcoin transaction itself, but you're right that exchanging at either ends generally isn't free.

Still, I don't think that's quite enough to justify calling the people who do it scammed deluded suckers.

Re:Who would sign on? (1)

Vitriol+Angst (458300) | about 9 months ago | (#46055193)

This is the main threat of non-governmental currencies -- this transaction you describe is very much like the "tax and hassle free" inner economies of many multinationals.

IBM used to have a good import export business in Eastern Europe for food items for a while -- because they were offsetting investments and earnings. Basically, any company in many nations can transfer profits with internal distributions of goods (kind of the bit-coin model), then when there is an imbalance, they can overpay for a widget created internally by the source of goods. Or they can reap profits in a tax-free haven by overpaying for some internal accounting, financial instrument, or widget in the location with the lowest taxes.

The threat of virtual currencies is that they can shift OFF the burden that large companies shifted onto the public; paying for stuff. Exchange and Point of Sale and Payroll taxes have always been the "least forbidden" taxes in the US because they are popular with the Robber barons.

I once knew a Billionaire who had a Debit Card out of the Caymans. He never had to pay sales taxes or realize luxury taxes because he never actually bought ANYTHING -- it was a bank transaction that offset the balance of an unmarked account in an offshore bank which was a financial instrument based upon some over-paid widget coming out of Sweden. Nobody actually owned his nice car -- he just drove it.

Now I can think of a few ways to improve bit coins -- such as making a stock component that translates to real value, among other things,.. but I'm amazed that alarm bells from Robber Barons haven't gone off. If they can't sponsor some Pirates to pillage bitcoin -- look for a lot of anonymous "astro turf" complaints from groups like ALEC or Citizen's United to complain it's used to buy kids on the black market.

We can't have average people doing what the multinationals have been doing to us for decades. /s

Re:Who would sign on? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46055909)

The solution is hardly to have everyone do that, though! Some people don't pay taxes, so let's all not pay taxes - brilliant.

Re:Who would sign on? (1)

Bramlet Abercrombie (1435537) | about 9 months ago | (#46055723)

Only early adopters? Would somebody that bought bitcoins in 2016 be considered an early adopter in 2026?

...and then they get shutdown (1)

DrYak (748999) | about 9 months ago | (#46055037)

Imagine if they just started by basing Amazon Gift Certificates off the technology. Suddenly next Christmas, several hundred million teens and twenty-somethings would have wallets and be spending Amazoncoins. Amazon trumpets the numbers, using them as proof that Amazoncoins are popular, thus setting the stage for further acceptance by people who know nothing about Bitcoin but sure as hell know Amazon.

...and a few months later, the whole operation will get shut down on various grounds.
(Accusation of tax evasion or money laundering or whatever, or simply because they are not legally authorised to create their own money)

That's one of the main strong points of bitcoin: its distributed nature. You can't "shutdown bitcoin", because there's no single entity to go to in order to shut it down.
Whereas, in case of Amazon, obviously you just shut down AZC by going at Amazon and asking them.

Re:Who would sign on? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46053945)

> users of Bitcoin

> fear of being tracked

ahahahahahahahaha

it's almost like the entire world doesn't know exactly which wallet contains which bitcoins at all times

Re:Who would sign on? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46054293)

None of the users of Bitcoin today would switch because they won the lottery on this one, and they'd just be regular joes working for peanuts if it's controlled by a company.

Re:Who would sign on? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 9 months ago | (#46054931)

Approximately none of the users of Bitcoin today would switch for (rightful) fear of being tracked out the wazoo.

Your use of the word "rightful" does not make it so. Bitcoin is already highly trackable. You have to assume that governments are already tracking it. Therefore, there is no merit whatsoever to this attitude. Bitcoin is highly tracked no matter who is in charge. Bitcoin is immensely more traceable than USD because all exchanges have to go through an exchange. You're talking nonsense.

Re:Who would sign on? (1)

Salgat (1098063) | about 9 months ago | (#46055709)

A likely scenario would be a compromise in that a lot of the investor types would shift over BTC to Amazoncoin while others would always have a small amount in Amazoncoin when they want to make purchases. Furthermore, there would be a huge exchange market for this since people would be constantly selling off small BTC amounts to make Amazon purchases.

Re:It's called Gcoin now. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46053633)

You know, if a company like Amazon or Google -- with their immense server farms for mining -- did come up with its own cryptocoin, it could tilt the masses towards accepting the idea of cryptocurrencies, while simultaneously taking a huge bite out of Bitcoin's future potential.

Actually a good point, maybe that is why Google isn't going for virtual currency, the want to monopolize with there own. I guess the other argument/excuse Google would use is how insecure virtual currency really is, and if thats the case that would be just humorous considering how Google lacks any security in its products/services.

There will be regulations and other rules/laws that will make virtual currency just like every other physical currency, anyone that thinks this is a way around the banking industry or government regulations is sadly mistaken, for the time being it is, but you know --no-- government including there overlord banking firms, and monopolizing industries/companies are going to allow it to be a wide open currency.

Jedi Mind Trick? (3, Insightful)

multimediavt (965608) | about 9 months ago | (#46053681)

These aren't the Bitcoin miners you're looking for. First thing in my head when I read the title of the post.

Re:Jedi Mind Trick? (1)

multimediavt (965608) | about 9 months ago | (#46054867)

Move along, move along.

Re:It's called Gcoin now. (1)

rtb61 (674572) | about 9 months ago | (#46054045)

The idea is just so stupidly silly. Any major corporation that creates is own psuedo currency, simply provides a means by which credit can be earned from them and they provide services in return, this because they have real capital assets backing.

For example a major banking corporation instead of paying interest can offer services as a tax free percentage of that interest. Things like providing free tax returns (they have loads of lawyers and accounts and fully know the tax law, so it would make sense to offer that service in lieu of paying taxable interest, it keeps the money in it's electronic vaults), also the various forms of insurance can be offered.

For non-banking corporations like say Google and MSN, there is the options of adding banking features to their repertoire and credit say something like MSN credits in lieu of interest or other earned income and provide a whole range of services in exchange or even cashing out your earned credits (not the original capital which remains regular local currency and can be withdrawn at any time). Really the idea of specialist financial institutions is really just psychopathic capitalism, worthless parasitic middle men.

Re:It's called Gcoin now. (1)

QilessQi (2044624) | about 9 months ago | (#46055143)

For non-banking corporations like say Google and MSN, there is the options of adding banking features to their repertoire and credit say something like MSN credits in lieu of interest or other earned income and provide a whole range of services in exchange or even cashing out your earned credits (not the original capital which remains regular local currency and can be withdrawn at any time).

That's exactly what I'm talking about... something like "Amazon Gift Cards", but with an extended range of services so that you can use them for buying Amazon products (perhaps initially at a discount), pool or transfer portions of them electronically through Amazon's website, etc. Earn credits (i.e., interest) towards other Amazon purchases, etc. Perhaps even connect buyers and sellers as per EBay.

All with Amazon certifying the lion's share of the transactions, and hosting the biggest exchange, the wallet software, and backing everything with insurance such that transactions are reversed if goods are not delivered.

People always talk about one of the benefits of Bitcoin being the lack of the usual 2-3% transaction fees associated with credit cards. Marketplaces like Amazon have had to build those fees into their pricing structure. But if there were a way for them to securely transfer funds without such fees, they could keep their prices the same and keep the additional profits (less the costs of running the cryptocoin/wallet/etc. infrastructure).

In short: Amazon now has their own in-store "credit card", like many major department stores -- except it's a cryptocurrency, backing one of the largest department stores on the planet.

Eh... just a fun thought experiment. :-)

Re:It's called Gcoin now. (1)

mlk (18543) | about 9 months ago | (#46054285)

What does this give Amazon?

Re:It's called Gcoin now. (4, Insightful)

Patch86 (1465427) | about 9 months ago | (#46054379)

Loads of companies (perhaps even a majority of retailers) already do issue "their own currency"- in the form of in-store credit vouchers. In principal there's no reason why you couldn't go down to your local convenience store and pay for a loaf of bread and bottle of milk with iTunes vouchers- a currency which is "backed" by "real goods" (i.e., the currency can be redeemed at any time at the "central bank" in exchange for useful goods (music and whatnot), in the manner of a gold-backed currency).

The fact that nobody does this tells you a lot about the majority of the population's attitude towards corporate controlled private currencies. To most people, they seem like a completely unnecessary way of abstracting on top of an already perfectly valid currency system. There's no reason to assume people would feel any differently towards "Amazon Coins" than they do towards Amazon gift vouchers, regardless of the techy details behind it.

I still remain deeply sceptical that BitCoin is anything other than an enthusiast's curiosity and/or "get rich quick" scheme, and can't imagine it going the distance. I've been wrong plenty of times before, but...well, I'm not changing my mind on that one yet.

Some of the attraction of Bitcoin (2)

DrYak (748999) | about 9 months ago | (#46055083)

The fact that nobody does this tells you a lot about the majority of the population's attitude towards corporate controlled private currencies.

Bitcoin is attractive in that it's not a corporate private currency. It's not even controlled by anybody (which has some advantage in the eyes of some anarchist or people living with corrupt government, but which also means that currently BTC exchange rates are prone to much more fluctuation).

I still remain deeply sceptical that BitCoin is anything other than an enthusiast's curiosity and/or "get rich quick" scheme, and can't imagine it going the distance.

Well it has a value (at least the bitcoin protocol, not the BTCs themselves) as a system to send money abroad.
More or less the advantages that SEPA has brought to easily push money between european banks, bitcoin brings the same advantage to push around money between any 2 individuals on the internet:
- you're not bound a a peculiar bank (in case of SEPA) or to a peculier service (in case of bitcoin). Whereas if a merchant uses Paypal, the customer are forced to use Paypal too.
- no chargeback fraud
- no need to leave leakable/exploitable data at the merchant, you just have an account number/public key.
etc.

The value fluctuation of BTC is only problematic for people holding BTC to speculate on them.

Merchants aren't affected if they use a payment processor to convert BTC back into the currency they work with.
Same for customers (and they don't need to use the same service to convert currency into BTC, as mentionned above).

GAE Coin (1)

swb (14022) | about 9 months ago | (#46054859)

What happens when Google, EBay and Amazon decide to start offering a pseudo currency of their own? Forget the bitcoin mining aspects of it, the three of them decide to offer people "GAE" coin that's good for buying anything sold by either of those three companies.

The currency is backed by the size and scale of these companies and provides a deep utility considering there's not much you can't buy from any of these three vendors. If you sold something or were looking for a credit from Amazon and they offered you cash or their currency at a 25% premium it might be tempting for a lot of people to take the credit.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if at some point some consortium of companies did decide to collaborate on a cross-company store credit of some kind, especially as national currencies become bloated by fiat monetary policies.

Re: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46053631)

They just like to watch.

Still. (4, Insightful)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 9 months ago | (#46053335)

Here lately, more mainstream companies are coming out in favor of accepting it.

Casinos in Vegas was the last one I recall... maybe this thing has legs.

Can it be that our fiat monetary systems are so flawed that this is a reasonable alternative for some folks?

Re:Still. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46053693)

Blaw, blaw, blaw... fiat monetary system... Blaw, blaw blaw... "Strawman"...

In a few years you will graduate from collage and join the real world.

Re:Still. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46053737)

No, it's that people that sell drugs use bitcoin exclusively, thus drug dealers have a lot of purchasing power. It doesn't mean our money is broken at all, just that rich criminals happen to have a lot of bitcoins.

I'm glad Google is passing over bitcoin. Why provide services that are paid with money gained from the suffering of others?

Re:Still. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46053911)

Obvious troll.

Transaction system not a monetary system (5, Insightful)

perpenso (1613749) | about 9 months ago | (#46053761)

Here lately, more mainstream companies are coming out in favor of accepting it. Casinos in Vegas was the last one I recall... maybe this thing has legs. Can it be that our fiat monetary systems are so flawed that this is a reasonable alternative for some folks?

The casino and various other companies are accepting bitcoins as payment but they do not hold any bitcoins. For the casino your bill is computed in $US, they compute the current bitcoin equivalent when you are ready to pay, accept payment and immediately have the bitcoins converted to $US. The casino avoids the bank/credit card transaction fees and surcharges. The bitcoin payment processor used has no transaction fees, just a flat monthly fee.

It seems that bitcoins are more of a replacement for credit cards, in other words a transaction system rather than a replacement monetary system.

Re:Still. (1, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 9 months ago | (#46053879)

Can it be that our fiat monetary systems are so flawed that this is a reasonable alternative for some folks?

Going back to a deflationary/metallic currency is not possible, plausible, or remotely rational.
We've been there and abandoned that.

For all the flaws of "fiat" currency, no one has really proposed a viable deflationary alternative that compensates for problems we've already fixed.

Re:Still. (1)

Threni (635302) | about 9 months ago | (#46054393)

Bitcoins aren't really money; they're more like those tokens you buy in theme parks where you can spend them once you've converted them, but only on a the rides in that park, and you can't convert them back. Bitcoin is always going to be a secondary currency, and big companies are going to be wary of it because there's nothing to prevent a government banning it (specifically, banning companies from converting it back into real money), meaning you'll be stuck in the theme park with a lot of useless tokens, and they'll have wasted a lot of money supporting it. It'll always be one high-profile assassination away from being banned.

Re: Still. (1)

LF11 (18760) | about 9 months ago | (#46054851)

The reason we've abandoned deflationary currencies is because government can't steal our wealth by inflating them.

Time for a return to a currency that benefits the little people.

Re: Still. (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 9 months ago | (#46055183)

Actually it's because the places with deflationary currencies went into decline because it made more economic sense to sit on piles on money keeping the plebs from getting it instead of actually doing anything. Places where the the plebs could get wealth resulted in modern society.

That's why people laugh at gold standard advocates. You are nothing but useful idiots for old money.

Re: Still. (1)

LF11 (18760) | about 9 months ago | (#46055803)

> Places where the the plebs could get wealth resulted in modern society.

So, you are saying that it was the specific change to inflationary, centralized currencies that led to modern society, right?

<a href="http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2012/03/28/the-sixth-great-extinction-a-silent-extermination/">This is the price of your inflation-led modern society.</a>

I am not impressed.

I happen to believe firmly that we will never return to the ages of feudalism, even as we will inevitably return to a deflationary currency. However, I am quite certain you will like the reason for that belief even less than what you have already read. In a nutshell, feudalism is impossible when the populace is armed.

Re:Still. (1, Insightful)

bkmoore (1910118) | about 9 months ago | (#46053969)

....Can it be that our fiat monetary systems are so flawed that this is a reasonable alternative for some folks?

Even if it has to be "mined", Bitcoin is a fiat currency that is backed by absolutely nothing other than itself.

Re:Still. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46054217)

Like any currency it's actually backed by how much people think it's worth.

Re:Still. (1)

DiamondGeezer (872237) | about 9 months ago | (#46054709)

Digital tulips

Re: Still. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46054759)

Or, as put by somebody more clever than me, "dunning krugerrands"

Re:Still. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46054483)

or, could it be that some people hold bitcoins and are trying to pump them up on a public forum?

Match Plan (3, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 9 months ago | (#46053343)

there's no change to our position: we have no current plans regarding Bitcoin

In a strage coincidence, I have no interest in Google Wallet - so I guess that works out for everyone.

Re:Match Plan (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about 9 months ago | (#46053405)

there's no change to our position: we have no current plans regarding Bitcoin

In a strage coincidence, I have no interest in Google Wallet - so I guess that works out for everyone.

It would be a first, I guess, that someone does something without planning.

That's all they can say! (4, Insightful)

brxndxn (461473) | about 9 months ago | (#46053353)

Just because they say 'we have no current plans for Bitcoin' does not mean they don't have people working on exploring the technical aspects, the legal aspects, the social, and financial aspects. It would be a huge decision for a company like Google to say anything definitive about Bitcoin at this point - considering anything positive from Google would most likely double the Bitcoin price. And, doubling the Bitcoin price would do that much more to solidify its place in the financial world.

In other words, it will happen with or without Google - starting with much smaller companies first. Two years ago, the Bitcoin community was excited to see a $1million/year revenue company announce they are taking Bitcoin. Now, Overstock.com and Tigerdirect both take Bitcoin. Don't expect anything from Google for a while..

Re:That's all they can say! (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46053851)

It takes just a handful of clowns to work out those technical aspects. But it takes even fewer people with a sense of ethics to put the foot down, and avoid the international crime syndicate-enabling ponzi scheme that is bitcoin from spreading it's cancer.

Re:That's all they can say! (0)

brxndxn (461473) | about 9 months ago | (#46054253)

Those few people putting their foot down won't matter. Also, your understanding of Bitcoin is limited by the opinions you parrot.

Everything about Bitcoin - the algorithm, the source code, the markets, the Blockchain - is all out in the open. It's transparent, finite, and enables instant transfers of value anywhere in the world. IMO, sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting won't make it stop. It would be like trying to stop TCP/IP in 1992. Bitcoin is an entire protocol and understanding it may very well be as ubiquitous as typing is now. If not Bitcoin, then the next digital currency.

I would be so disappointed... (2, Funny)

westlake (615356) | about 9 months ago | (#46053431)

.... if a day passed without another Bitcoin story.

Re:I would be so disappointed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46054535)

This isn't a Bitcoin story, it's a Google story. You can tell from the icon.

Bitcoin, NSA, European regs, no Net Neutrality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46053493)

I can see where this is all headed... towards a subscription or micropayment model that will be tiered so that you'll still be able to get something for 'free' (i.e. your ISP fees, or Starbucks' while you drink their latte) but with no privacy, less content and little interactivity. If you want the full experience and still have the *expectation* of privacy (notice I didn't say 'guarantee') then you'll have to shell out. Still, lots of people won't mind, judging on what the going rate is for CATV subscriptions these days.

Translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46053505)

We're really doing something but not ready to tell anyone yet.

Pump and Dump (0)

Spy Handler (822350) | about 9 months ago | (#46053535)

Reddit is the Grand Central of bitcoin pump and dump

Bitcoin comes from the same place as Google (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46053557)

Google was created using government black-bag 'seed' money, as one of a whole series of projects to create potentially useful services in the 'private' sector. When Google became a massive IT success, its software and hardware designs became the standard in all major data centres used by the major intelligence operations of the West, most importantly the NSA and GCHQ.

Bitcoin is another 'skunk works' project by the US government. The dollar is ageing fast, has increasing political problems, and is a poor match for future global needs as electronic currency becomes the universal standard. Like Google, the success of Bitcoin could NOT have been predicted, but that wasn't the point. The smartest people in the US government knew exactly where failure was guaranteed, and that was with any OFFICIAL digital currency clearly created by the USA.

Bitcoin is still 'emerging' and its long term success far from certain. Having the 'other' project, Google, prematurely overlap would be conceptually a very risky idea- so Google will, oddly in the minds of those without a clue, appear to act cautiously while other conventional companies jump on the Bitcoin 'bandwagon'. GAME THEORY is a bummer, once you do nothing but think about your options according to the maths. Game theory is why Google will have to act unnaturally in this regard, even though Google's usual reputation is as an EARLY ADOPTER or trend setter.

Re:Bitcoin comes from the same place as Google (1)

bickerdyke (670000) | about 9 months ago | (#46054319)

[citation needed]

Re:Bitcoin comes from the same place as Google (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46054355)

Also, Google caused the WTC towers to fall by loading the planes with Bitcoin. The extra weight damaged the thermal balance of the support beams to spontaneously go super critical, something that would have been impossible without the US government's support.Satoshi Nakamoto did 9/11.

Here is how to get Google to support Bitcoin (3, Funny)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 9 months ago | (#46053561)

1) Buy 100 USB sticks.

2) Put a wallet on each with .01 Bitcoin, and the password in a text file.

3) Leave laying about Google campus.

Now all sorts of Google engineers have a vested interest in Bitcoin rising in value...

Re:Here is how to get Google to support Bitcoin (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46053897)

1) Buy 100 USB sticks.

2) Put a wallet on each with .01 Bitcoin, and the password in a text file.

3) Leave laying about Google campus.

Now all sorts of Google engineers have a vested interest in Bitcoin rising in value...

If you left $1000 USD worth of Canadian Dollars in Google's parking lot, they'd just take it to a bank and exchange it for $1000 USD.

Why would bitcoin be different, because they can spend it directly online? Then why wouldn't they do that?

I don't get it...
If I recommended investing in penny stocks, that would be a bad idea.
If I recommended stockpiling an unstable foreign currency, that would be a bad idea
Using any of the above to buy local goods, bad idea.

But bitcoin is cool because bitcoin.

Re:Here is how to get Google to support Bitcoin (1)

Trepidity (597) | about 9 months ago | (#46054431)

Considering the salaries Google employees get, you might have to put more than 0.01 BTC (at current exchange rates, $9.25) on a USB stick before they get too excited about it.

Re:Here is how to get Google to support Bitcoin (1)

thue (121682) | about 9 months ago | (#46055491)

Dropping USB keys in parking lots is a known way to infect a network. Any Google employee competent enough to use bitcoin should hopefully also know that picking up random USB keys is a bad idea.

https://www.schneier.com/blog/... [schneier.com]

of course (2)

drunk_punk (2841507) | about 9 months ago | (#46053601)

... Because where's the money in bitcoin anymore? They're more concerned with Gcoin. You heard it here first.

Stock market tricks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46053617)

Sounds like a typical pump-and-dump scheme - start a rumor that will push the price up and then sell until it renormalizes

Just fucking stop it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46053691)

They didn't "reach out," I guaranfuckindamntee you, they CALLED, or maybe they EMAILED.

How the fuck long do you think their actual arms are?

Every time you say "reach out," I picture some douchenozzle "reaching out" for an $8 designer hot dog from a hipster-approved food truck in San Jose.

Just blow me, OK?

Why are the new video ads so annoying? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46053715)

Why are the new video ads so annoying?
Like maybe 6 of them on the sidebar.
And why is it that most ads uninteresting.

And hopw much is delsyn paying to make a BIG negative impression?

Translating Googlespeak (3, Insightful)

TheloniousToady (3343045) | about 9 months ago | (#46053801)

As we continue to work on Google Wallet...we have no current plans regarding Bitcoin.

Translation: "We're ignoring the new monetary system that no one controls so we can push onto you the new monetary system that we control."

Re:Translating Googlespeak (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | about 9 months ago | (#46054517)

Translation: "We're ignoring the new monetary system that no one controls so we can push onto you the new monetary system that and the NSA we control."

Never forget that US companies are in bed with the NSA. They have to be if asked under terrorism related laws, both public and secret.

Re:Translating Googlespeak (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46055051)

Are you as think as I drunk you are?

Google cancelled Wallet for 3rd parties (4, Informative)

DogDude (805747) | about 9 months ago | (#46053831)

Google just folded up their Google Wallet service for merchants a few weeks ago. I think they've just finished up their venture into online payments to anybody other than themselves. I would think that anybody who actually had any real information about the current state of online payment stuff would know that,

Besides, the article is on Reddit, a website that currently has, as it's top story, "This actually happened on MSNBC today (youtube.com)"

This was a horribly uninformed Slashdot article, all around.

Re:Google cancelled Wallet for 3rd parties (1)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | about 9 months ago | (#46055281)

Besides, the article is on Reddit, a website that currently has, as it's top story, "This actually happened on MSNBC today (youtube.com)"

'Upworthy title' (google it) aside, you shouldn't judge a book by its cover. That story is actually about how a major news outlet interrupted an actually interesting segment on privacy and monitoring in the U.S., during an interview with a congresscritter, because Justin Bieber got booked for a DUI. That's exactly the sort of slap-in-the-face that people deserve to realize and think about a lot more - before they conclude that, yep, they do indeed care a lot more when glamour-du-jour farts than they do about things that, you know, actually matter. It wouldn't make a very good top story on Slashdot, of course, but it does deserve to be on the front page of Reddit and deserves to be upvoted.

That side, fine comment. Google did indeed fail in their pursuit of an online payment system to rival PayPal - which is unfortunate, as PayPal and credit cards are now just about the only way to pay for things online outside of nation-specific solutions (e.g. the Dutch iDeal system, or the odd store in the U.S. accepting bank cheques). Bitcoin could change that, but I'm not seeing the adoption rate have quite enough momentum for that to happen just yet.

Re:Google cancelled Wallet for 3rd parties (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46056125)

Bitcoin could change that, but I'm not seeing the adoption rate have quite enough momentum for that to happen just yet

I'm in Europe, but as far as I can tell, the extent of adoption in the United States is just about enough to consider Bitcoin as a solution, at least for online shopping. It's been enough for me to stop using Paypal altogether, but I find myself ordering from the US and China instead of Europe, since adoption by online merchants here is rather slow.

We don't need to do anything. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46053859)

Bitcoin's screwing stuff up just fine without us.

Google: "Nothing to see here, move along" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46053875)

Wait. GOOGLE is saying that? Google is saying there is NOTHING to see here? That there is nothing to SEE here? And why would they want us all to MOVE ALONG?

Developing....

Re:Google: "Nothing to see here, move along" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46053991)

Half Life 3 confirmed.

Thanks for seeing through the conspiracy.

Google explicitly prohibits it engineers from (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46053887)

Google explicitly prohibits it engineers from working on Bitcoin related software. Make of it what you will.

Posting as AC for obvious reasons.

No News is Still News Apparently (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46053899)

No News is Still News, Apparently

Google is working on incorporating Bitcoins. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46053913)

Google is reportedly working on Bitcoins. Here is the discussion on Reddit which includes screenshots of mails sent and received by JasonBored (http://www.reddit.com/user/JasonBored) from Google's Vic Gundotra : http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1vvfxz/google_confirms_their_payments_team_is_working_to/

I am so sick of bitcoin spam on /. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46053959)

I think its time to move on. Most articles are bitcoin ads or news coming from sources like "The register" so, there really is no longer news for nerds that matter. I dont hate the register, but I could just read the source rather than regurgitated news. Thanks /. its been a great number of years, but its time for this AC to move on.

Re: I am so sick of bitcoin spam on /. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46054231)

And nothing of value was lost

How about we... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46054087)

...go just oooooneeee single day without foaming at the mouth about Bitcoin or any other *coin for that matter. Mkay?

Sly Shibe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46054237)

Wow

Much PR speek

Such wafling

Google/Borg is Dogecoin miner?

Please keep all this under the bitcoin topic (2)

dbIII (701233) | about 9 months ago | (#46054261)

Could someone please pull Samzenpus into line and make sure that his daily bitcoin advertising story is blockable by topic instead of creeping into other topics.

Re:Please keep all this under the bitcoin topic (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46054377)

Could you please kill yourself instead of complaining all the time.

Full Disclosure, please (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46054363)

A lot of the comments here look like asset hyping. I wonder what this comment board would look like if commenters who were so hyping bitcoin here also had to disclose how much bitcoin they hold?

Argh (1)

Alioth (221270) | about 9 months ago | (#46054369)

No, they didn't "reach out to" Google, they contacted Google. It's not some emo teenager "reaching out to" their ex-girlfriend for love and support. Additionally, "contacted" is only one word instead of three and sounds better.

Re:Argh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46054489)

I'd call you a tool for latching on a single definition of "reach out" and forgetting that it also means "to begin or to attempt to communicate", but you'd probably just shout that "a tool" is an implement facilitating performing some specific task and you're not such implement.

A Non-Story (2)

weilawei (897823) | about 9 months ago | (#46055163)

Literally.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?