On 11/14/2015 07:28 AM, Ali Çehreli wrote:

> Print-on-demand books are non-returnable.

Correction: They are non-returnable in general, depending on where they were printed.

The other ISBN of this particular book is still print-on-demand but it is returnable just like any other book:

  Printed by IngramSpark
  ISBN: 9780692529577

Ali

On Tuesday, 10 November 2015 at 17:23:08 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On 10/30/15 3:29 AM, Joakim wrote:
>
>> But I don't see how bitcoin is similar to any of those, perhaps you have
>> _some_ explanation?  You don't have to keep the bitcoin, all those sites
>> will buy your bitcoin with dollars anytime you want.  It's just an open
>> way to trade value- in your case, just another payment/donation method-
>> I don't see the issue.  If it required setting up a bunch of software,
>> sure, but those websites make it easy to set up, as they run the client
>> for you.
>
> Begging the question, why not trade your bitcoin for dollars and buy it using those?

Simple, we're already invested in bitcoin: why waste money changing payment methods again, especially since it would be so easy for him to accept this new payment method?  Also, perhaps you're not aware but the fees on bitcoin are much lower than dollar transactions (most of the time, as there are a few low-cost dollar options like direct dwolla transfers if both are on the same payment network), so even if he ultimately wants dollars, it would be much cheaper to send him bitcoin and then he can sell it for dollars anytime he wants.

However, I don't know about the others, but for me personally the fees are not the biggest reason.  It's just that I'd like to try using bitcoin for such payments, as I believe such distributed crypto-currencies are the future, and surprisingly Ali is now the second person to refuse a bitcoin payment from me.  I was able to pay my email host using bitcoin, but the other guy who refused cited some vague security/ponzi concerns.

I find it strange that people would refuse a donation because they don't like the currency used, even though it can be easily resold in an extremely liquid market, but, oh well, if they don't want my money, their loss. :)

On 11/21/15 2:06 AM, Joakim wrote:
> On Tuesday, 10 November 2015 at 17:23:08 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> On 10/30/15 3:29 AM, Joakim wrote:
>>
>>> But I don't see how bitcoin is similar to any of those, perhaps you have
>>> _some_ explanation?  You don't have to keep the bitcoin, all those sites
>>> will buy your bitcoin with dollars anytime you want.  It's just an open
>>> way to trade value- in your case, just another payment/donation method-
>>> I don't see the issue.  If it required setting up a bunch of software,
>>> sure, but those websites make it easy to set up, as they run the client
>>> for you.
>>
>> Begging the question, why not trade your bitcoin for dollars and buy
>> it using those?
>
> Simple, we're already invested in bitcoin: why waste money changing
> payment methods again, especially since it would be so easy for him to
> accept this new payment method?

One could ask the same thing about any currency that isn't the one accepted at a store.

I looked with a tinge of fascination at what bitcoin was a while ago. I think there is a natural averse reaction to something that is valuable but that you cannot understand.

For example, if I told you that the phrase "jump in the fire" was valuable, and that you could accept it for payment, you would be hesitant to accept it I would imagine. Even if I explained that there were complicated algorithms behind it, and that some web sites would exchange this phrase for cash. Even if several experts and online articles explained how this is so.

I know bitcoin has real math and genius behind it, and this is a silly example, but for those who do not understand how it actually works (including myself), it seems very similar in nature. Dollars (or whatever local currency you use) are understandable, and generally accepted at places where I shop. It's easy to see how one cannot duplicate them without evidence of doing so (the fundamental characteristic of currency). Online bits don't seem so uncopyable.

-Steve

On Monday, 23 November 2015 at 12:11:36 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> One could ask the same thing about any currency that isn't the one accepted at a store.

Sure, online is much less of a hassle, but it's still a little time to sign up and administer.  Is that much of Ali's time worth spending for at least three donations, likely more?  I bet it would be.

> I looked with a tinge of fascination at what bitcoin was a while ago. I think there is a natural averse reaction to something that is valuable but that you cannot understand.
--snip--
> I know bitcoin has real math and genius behind it, and this is a silly example, but for those who do not understand how it actually works (including myself), it seems very similar in nature. Dollars (or whatever local currency you use) are understandable, and generally accepted at places where I shop. It's easy to see how one cannot duplicate them without evidence of doing so (the fundamental characteristic of currency). Online bits don't seem so uncopyable.

I'm by no means steeped in the tech, but it's pretty straightforward to understand the broad strokes.  It's just a giant distributed ledger with some crypto to keep it secure and hashing to avoid double-counting, ie the duplication you're worried about.  But ultimately that doesn't really matter, as almost nobody knows how Dollars or other local currencies are created or what makes them tough to copy either. ;)

All that matters for a currency is that many buyers and sellers will accept it, or at least exchange it quickly and easily for your currency of choice, and bitcoin certainly passes that bar.

On Monday, 23 November 2015 at 14:02:30 UTC, Joakim wrote:
> On Monday, 23 November 2015 at 12:11:36 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> One could ask the same thing about any currency that isn't the one accepted at a store.
>
> Sure, online is much less of a hassle, but it's still a little time to sign up and administer.  Is that much of Ali's time worth spending for at least three donations, likely more?  I bet it would be.
>
>> I looked with a tinge of fascination at what bitcoin was a while ago. I think there is a natural averse reaction to something that is valuable but that you cannot understand.
> --snip--
>> I know bitcoin has real math and genius behind it, and this is a silly example, but for those who do not understand how it actually works (including myself), it seems very similar in nature. Dollars (or whatever local currency you use) are understandable, and generally accepted at places where I shop. It's easy to see how one cannot duplicate them without evidence of doing so (the fundamental characteristic of currency). Online bits don't seem so uncopyable.
>
> I'm by no means steeped in the tech, but it's pretty straightforward to understand the broad strokes.  It's just a giant distributed ledger with some crypto to keep it secure and hashing to avoid double-counting, ie the duplication you're worried about.  But ultimately that doesn't really matter, as almost nobody knows how Dollars or other local currencies are created or what makes them tough to copy either. ;)
>
> All that matters for a currency is that many buyers and sellers will accept it, or at least exchange it quickly and easily for your currency of choice, and bitcoin certainly passes that bar.

Regimes vary in how they accommodate some kinds of financial innovation.  If you're dealing with dollars anyway, that's one thing, but quite another if you have to figure out the peculiar local tax treatment (which may well not yet be determinate or written down anywhere).  Plus in some places it might invite unwelcome scrutiny.

So I agree that bitcoin is a very interesting technology, and this may be the real world application of an idea that goes back to the 90s of the new monetary economics (a book by cowen and kroszner), where the unit of account, medium of exchange, and store of value functions of money become unbundled.  But its use unreasonable to expect people to behave in an optimising manner in every part of their lives, particularly when tax and regulation (and uncertainty surrounding them) get in the way.

On Monday, 23 November 2015 at 12:11:36 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> One could ask the same thing about any currency that isn't the one accepted at a store.
>
> I looked with a tinge of fascination at what bitcoin was a while ago. I think there is a natural averse reaction to something that is valuable but that you cannot understand.
>

Don't be confused. Krugman do not understand bitcoin, but Krugman think that terrorism and riots are good, that the internet will never work and that there was no bubble in 2008, so I think is it fairly secure to ignore him.

Many other economist have model that explain bitcoin's value.

> I know bitcoin has real math and genius behind it, and this is a silly example, but for those who do not understand how it actually works (including myself), it seems very similar in nature. Dollars (or whatever local currency you use) are understandable, and generally accepted at places where I shop. It's easy to see how one cannot duplicate them without evidence of doing so (the fundamental characteristic of currency). Online bits don't seem so uncopyable.
>
> -Steve

Most people to not understand fractional reserve, bond emission, or how credit card works. I think that's ok.

Back to the point, one of the value of bitcoin is to be able to transfer money internationally easily and for cheap. People that do have USD to spend on digital mars do not care. People abroad do care.

Now I don't expect that accepting bitcoin will create a giant wave of donation, but, if anything, it is always good PR and not complicated. There is also no reason to refuse a donation or to make it more complex to do a donation.

Andrei, Walter, if you need help to navigate the bitcoin ecosystem, you can reach me, I can help.

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 4:33 AM, deadalnix via Digitalmars-d-announce < digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:

> On Monday, 23 November 2015 at 12:11:36 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>
>> One could ask the same thing about any currency that isn't the one accepted at a store.
>>
>> I looked with a tinge of fascination at what bitcoin was a while ago. I think there is a natural averse reaction to something that is valuable but that you cannot understand.
>>
>>
> Don't be confused. Krugman do not understand bitcoin, but Krugman think that terrorism and riots are good, that the internet will never work and that there was no bubble in 2008, so I think is it fairly secure to ignore him.
>
> Many other economist have model that explain bitcoin's value.
>
> I know bitcoin has real math and genius behind it, and this is a silly
>> example, but for those who do not understand how it actually works (including myself), it seems very similar in nature. Dollars (or whatever local currency you use) are understandable, and generally accepted at places where I shop. It's easy to see how one cannot duplicate them without evidence of doing so (the fundamental characteristic of currency). Online bits don't seem so uncopyable.
>>
>> -Steve
>>
>
> Most people to not understand fractional reserve, bond emission, or how credit card works. I think that's ok.
>
> Back to the point, one of the value of bitcoin is to be able to transfer money internationally easily and for cheap. People that do have USD to spend on digital mars do not care. People abroad do care.
>
> Now I don't expect that accepting bitcoin will create a giant wave of donation, but, if anything, it is always good PR and not complicated. There is also no reason to refuse a donation or to make it more complex to do a donation.
>
> Andrei, Walter, if you need help to navigate the bitcoin ecosystem, you can reach me, I can help.
>
>
:D anyone could accept donations to Ali on his behalf and then send him dollars whenever it reaches a certain value.

Does the D Foundation have a bitcoin address?

On Wednesday, 25 November 2015 at 02:33:24 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> On Monday, 23 November 2015 at 12:11:36 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> One could ask the same thing about any currency that isn't the one accepted at a store.
>>
>> I looked with a tinge of fascination at what bitcoin was a while ago. I think there is a natural averse reaction to something that is valuable but that you cannot understand.
>>
>
> Don't be confused. Krugman do not understand bitcoin, but Krugman think that terrorism and riots are good, that the internet will never work and that there was no bubble in 2008, so I think is it fairly secure to ignore him.

I'm not 100% convinced by Krugman in many cases, but I'd say you'd have to be pretty confident in your own economics knowledge and intellect to dismiss him entirely, considering his standing among his - almost by definition also very knowledgable and intelligent - peers.

> Many other economist have model that explain bitcoin's value.
>
>> I know bitcoin has real math and genius behind it, and this is a silly example, but for those who do not understand how it actually works (including myself), it seems very similar in nature. Dollars (or whatever local currency you use) are understandable, and generally accepted at places where I shop. It's easy to see how one cannot duplicate them without evidence of doing so (the fundamental characteristic of currency). Online bits don't seem so uncopyable.
>>
>> -Steve
>
> Most people to not understand fractional reserve, bond emission, or how credit card works. I think that's ok.

I think a lot of the nonsense in the public discourse on economics and associated policy can be attributed to the speaker not understanding these basic systems, or the target audience not understanding. Most people don't even know what a bank really is, but they sure do hate them...

> Back to the point, one of the value of bitcoin is to be able to transfer money internationally easily and for cheap. People that do have USD to spend on digital mars do not care. People abroad do care.
>
> Now I don't expect that accepting bitcoin will create a giant wave of donation, but, if anything, it is always good PR and not complicated. There is also no reason to refuse a donation or to make it more complex to do a donation.
>
> Andrei, Walter, if you need help to navigate the bitcoin ecosystem, you can reach me, I can help.

I agree, bitcoin would be a good donation mechanism to support.

On Wednesday, 25 November 2015 at 09:20:53 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
> On Wednesday, 25 November 2015 at 02:33:24 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>> Don't be confused. Krugman do not understand bitcoin, but Krugman think that terrorism and riots are good, that the internet will never work and that there was no bubble in 2008, so I think is it fairly secure to ignore him.
>
> I'm not 100% convinced by Krugman in many cases, but I'd say you'd have to be pretty confident in your own economics knowledge and intellect to dismiss him entirely, considering his standing among his - almost by definition also very knowledgable and intelligent - peers.
>

That's a false dichotomy. I'm certainly not confident in my economics. But I'm confident that betting against Krugman is way safer than the reverse.

>> Andrei, Walter, if you need help to navigate the bitcoin ecosystem, you can reach me, I can help.
>
> I agree, bitcoin would be a good donation mechanism to support.

My offer still holds.

On Wednesday, 25 November 2015 at 20:10:37 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> On Wednesday, 25 November 2015 at 09:20:53 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 25 November 2015 at 02:33:24 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>>> Don't be confused. Krugman do not understand bitcoin, but Krugman think that terrorism and riots are good, that the internet will never work and that there was no bubble in 2008, so I think is it fairly secure to ignore him.
>>
>> I'm not 100% convinced by Krugman in many cases, but I'd say you'd have to be pretty confident in your own economics knowledge and intellect to dismiss him entirely, considering his standing among his - almost by definition also very knowledgable and intelligent - peers.
>>
>
> That's a false dichotomy. I'm certainly not confident in my economics. But I'm confident that betting against Krugman is way safer than the reverse.

Don't agree it's a false dichotomy, but as far as your opinion of Krugman goes, fair enough; it's not one I share, but in a discipline as difficult and loose as economics it can be reasonable to disagree.