To some of the common bitcoin concerns:
1) They're easy to steal! Look at this person who did $something_stupid and had all their coins stolen!
Yeah, sure...and if you had left $10,000 in cash just sitting on your table, the same thief could have stolen that as well. There are stories every single day of people having cash stolen from them. The people keeping that much value stored on their local machine are usually pretty crazy bitcoin evangelicals. These are not normal people who bought some coins on coinbase.
2) It doesn't do $things_credit_cards_do!
No, it doesn't! What you people seem to be missing is that it's a totally new way of transferring value. It has its own quirks, requires its own security models, etc. It also does $things_credit_cards_dont_do! That's why people have an interest in it!
2) Just because its new doesn't mean its better or makes more sense than the existing methods.
2) Agreed. There are no guarantees, however strong indicators it will improve. Remember e-commerce didn't make sense either back in the day (no salesperson, can't touch goods, security - all “rational” reasons) -- but all solved.
On that point I don't even view BTC as currency actually (my personal view).
It is first of it's kind with no precedent (is it currency, asset, ledger, protocol…?). Is it all of above? Or something else? Reminds me of when first iPad came out and people just viewed it as a “large iPhone” (true, in some ways - but it’s definitely not defined that way anymore. It’s own unique category now. Public aware of nuances). No precedent. Still defining by analogy to old paradigms.
BTC is similarly nuanced. I actually view it as more buying a stock in protocol. Yup sounds crazy/doesn't make sense using old paradigms. But I’ll leave that for another post (the gist of the idea is here: http://btcgeek.com/dawn-of-autonomous-corporations/).
Given that it's designed as a digital replacement for cash (not savings and checking accounts - cash), keeping more than a few hundred dollars around at a time would seem to be as advisable as storing the equivalent $100 bills, with the same level of extraordinary security measures needed.
2) What is a way that I can transfer value to somebody in a far away place that is easier (if both parties already accept coins) than bitcoin?
2) Is only easier if you ignore the process of getting bitcoins and the process of converting them to something else. If you do that then me sending you an email saying "IOU value" is easier.
2) If you had an easy way of converting that IOU into USD, or converting it into real goods (by, for instance buying something on newegg), then I would say that yeah, that would be just as good. In fact, that's a great analogy! Bitcoin is a very widely accepted system of IOUs (kindof like a banking system...or cash).
As far as I know, Coinbase has no insurance for their users' coins. If they go bankrupt, you'll lose all your money.
Coinbase is a startup. Failure is the norm, not the exception. Until they get insurance, you shouldn't store more than you're comfortable losing.
Since most consumers can't afford to lose very much, and since most consumers aren't comfortable using an offline storage solution like Armory, they'll need to stick with cash or credit to stay safe. This harms bitcoin adoption among consumers, because they don't have bitcoin on hand with which to buy things on a whim.
Hey thanks for the tip.
BTW, you shouldn't keep more cash in your wallet than you feel comfortable keeping in your wallet.
bitcoin is at a stage where it's not trivial to secure if you are not a technical person. There are companies that are working at making this easier by providing the security and even insuring the bitcoins if something happens. When services like this are out we will see a huge turning point IMO.
AFAIK there is only one company that has claimed the insurance angle(Xapo) and if you read the policy you basically need to have the person that stole them be arrested before they will pay out.
I can do all these things on my own without having some third party potentially fucking me over or charging me a monthly fee. I consider all these things great advantages.
It also doesn't mean I need to abandon credit cards or other forms of value transfer. But in those cases I now have an alternative I did not have had BTC not existed. It's a weird black and white kind of logic that HN has where it seems for Bitcoin to succeed it must replace everything currently in use. That's a false dichotomy. They can mutually coexist. Right tool for the job.
Boats are totally useless they only travel on water. Why would anyone prefer a boat to a truck for moving freight?
It's no wonder there is almost no consumer growth in the bitcoin world while new merchants are announced every other day.
"Since [...] October, along with the integration with Shopify in November, [...] the transaction volume has tripled." Source: http://blog.bitpay.com/2013/12/11/bitpay-exceeds-100-000-000...
I don't see any growth. Also, 70k transactions/day - one average shopping mall.
If it proceeds to double in size every year then the numbers will stop being 'incredibly low' very soon.
I'm surprised more retailers, particularly those specializing in tech, haven't begun accepting bitcoin. They can accept it on terms they dictate and it's easy publicity.
Bitcoin at its current stage cannot handle many transactions, as you point out. However, this doesn't mean there isn't a plan to make it handle many more transactions. See https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability for more.
I think people hugely overestimate how much volume is happening with this though.
this looks like a typical exponential curve to me
Which is what the "days destroyed" measurement looks to compensate for https://blockchain.info/charts/bitcoin-days-destroyed https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin_Days_Destroyed
It definitely says nothing about consumer adoption.
Transparency reasons, for example?
Notice bitpay stopped reporting 7 months ago?
Coinbase has also been called out on posting contradictory numbers on their blog posts in the past which lead to them deleting most of their posts related to numbers.
And they did not stop releasing numbers. They recently announced processing $1 million every single day. This is 3.3x their daily average of 2013. Source: http://www.pfhub.com/bitpay-processing-1-million-per-day-ove...
Notice how it is burried in the announcement of the $30M
funding round. This is probably why the fact was not picked up by more people.
BitPay had 1k merchants in Sep 2012 , 10k by Sep 2013 , 30k by May 2014 .
BitPay raised $2M in May 2013 , and $30M in May 2014 .
They had a single office in Atlanta in 2012, now they have 8000 sq ft in Atlanta , plus offices in Amsterdam, San Francisco, New York City.
BitPay had 7 employees in April 2013 , and 40 by May 2014 , and plans to have 100 by end of 2014 .
You can bury your head in the sand as much as you want, but their growth is obvious... Have you been to any Bitcoin conference? The number of new startups, flury of projects, funding rounds, etc, is mind-boggling. You belong to the super-minority who believes that "Bitcoin is seeing no consumer growth" (!)
Jan 1 - 170K
Jan 2-29 - $15K/day average
Next 36 days to March 4th they do $400K - $11K/day average
Next 83 days to May 27th they do $600K - $7200/day average
I think you are confused and thought I was talking about transaction volume on the Bitcoin p2p network.
1) Cashback (1-3%)
2) Chargebacks if needed
by using a credit card. Bitcoins are basically like cash in my mind - very easy to move around, but no protections in case of it being stolen, and no cashback. I think Bitcoin is very neat technology, and has some useful features (transferring money between people quickly and easily with basically no fees), but I fail to see the incentive for me to use it to replace my credit card. The business receiving it receives all of the benefits.
If stores passed the savings onto the consumer with 2 or 3% cashback, I could potentially see people using it. Especially if this was returned as points or something, similar to how it's treated for credit cards.
Additionally, I've been to one or two stores that will actually give a small discount on cash purchases. I hope that trend continues.
Well I don't care about the ability to do chargebacks from newegg, and I care a lot about the ability to not get my financials stolen by hackers, so the "consumer protection" Bitcoin offers here looks pretty good to me.
Now, Bitcoin also has its own security challenges (eg. how to secure a wallet), but there are solutions (hardware wallets) making it a fundamentally more secure way of transacting online.
The number of "I had all my bitcoins stolen, here is the list of 25 security precautions I've taken, where did I fuck up" articles is terrifying. I'm willing to sacrifice the 1% savings or whatever it is I'd theoretically get from bitcoin for that peace of mind.
See, people are used to, and are already pretty good at securing valuables such as cash (in a safe, at home, or on themselves). A paper backup presents to additional complexity to store securely. And Bitcoin offers extra advantages: losing your paper backup does not affect you ability to use the wallet, and you can have multiple backups, etc. So a hardware wallet is at least better than or equal to cash in terms of security.
Because we've evolved a hell of a lot of ways for people to offload responsibility over the last hundred or so years, particularly where money is involved.
In general I think it's a pretty good thing.
Sure, the bank/CC company will take responsibility for fraudulent charges. In return, they:
1. Randomly cancel your cards and mail you new ones to limit their risk. (No explanation other than 'security')
2. Refuse to let you use your cards to deposit on gambling sites (which are legal in Canada). They also charge extra fees for 'cash-like' transactions on things like forex sites.
3. Reject large purchases that are 'out of the ordinary' making you look like a jackass. This one happened to my dad while he was booking flights.
4. Skim 2-3% or more of each transaction.
5. Maintain onerous requirements for merchants. Square has helped a lot with this in the first world but in the rest of the world they don't even bother taking electronic payments because it's such a hassle to get approved, lease the machines, maintain a security deposit, etc.
Sometimes it makes more sense to just take the risk of getting scammed than deal with all of the above.
And you have to use a hard to obtain (bureucratic nightmare to exchange), volatile, dealing with shady "institutions" with no real history or assurances behind them (MtGox anyone?), and use a novelty currency for that?
There are "one use" recharchable virtual credit cards used all over the world, you can "fill up" one from your online banking and have it handle as much or as little money as you want (e.g just for one transaction).
This can be done wholly online, and takes like 1 minute.
If someone steals my credit card and runs up $8000 in charges on it, I'm not out $8000. There is a piece of paper somewhere that says I owe $8000, but that's not being out the money.
One might have a model of "net worth" as "total assets minus total debts," and normally it's a decent model, and this makes net worth go down. But illegitimate debts put a wrinkle in that model.
Never underestimate the advantage of having money versus being owed money. (This is a start-up lesson, too.)
I recognize this is an extreme story, but you cannot claim that CC info theft "does not matter". When it happens, there are many ways in which it can turn in a big pile of hassle for you.
For one, you can very much have the same happen to any bitcoin user, using their personal details online in such sites.
Your argument is like saying "seat belts in cars don't always make drivers safer, for one people may forget to buckle up and not benefit from increased safety".
Sure, but the end result is the same. It's irrelevant whose fault it is.
Or, reversely, nothing prohibits buying with credit cards online to be done differently and be safe from such fraud (e.g one-off credit card numbers with token generators).
But in the real world, credits cards are used the way we know, and merchants accepting bitcoin still ask for those details.
No it is not: with Bitcoin, an attacker knowing your billing info cannot steal your coins. With your CC info, he can make fraudulent purchases (obviously).
Even virtual credit cards are not safe from fraud. Some transactions over the maximum spending limit or expiration date might still go through . This makes none of them truly single-use since multiple charges can go through. Also, they are a PITA to use especially if you want to regenerate a one-off CC number for every transaction (which nobody does - there is no such thing as a "token generator" as you claim). For these reasons banks have been in fact discontinuing virtual CC services over the last few years, eg. see .
By contrast, a Bitcoin transaction is truly a one-time payment that is cryptographically authorizing a specific payment amount to a specific address, and nothing more.
Of course Bitcoin would be more secure (I own some myself). But from a users point of view this additional security doesn't really matter too much. I rather pay with my credit card and get 1% cashback.
This is also the case with ICC/EMV cards, though the USA hasn't caught up to that for some reason.
--edit-- of course this only applies to physical transactions, online transactions are still vulnerable, yes.
This is why I use PayPal whenever I can
Also cheaper still to buy gift cards via raise, cardpool, giftcardgranny, hundreds of other results for "discount gift cards" which are 3%-6% off AND get your 1% cash back.
I believe American Express settled later.
1) You don't have to provide private info like CC number.
2) If you bought bitcoins at X and now they are valued at 10X you may effectively enjoy 90% discount on all purchases.
All these mythical user-protecting chargebacks are almost never used by consumers for refunds (companies who care about brand help them settling refunds) and almost always for the cases when you CC details got stolen and used by someone else. Of course, bitcoin payments do not leak your private keys, so the entire class of problems goes away.
Companies who don't care about brand and companies who have not yet established a brand are, however, somewhat indistinguishable.
The chargeback facility (among others) provides a cushion and safety net to allow consumers to transact in cases where they are less than 100% certain who they are dealing with.
Removing it would kill the ability of smaller businesses to transact as people like me would never give them any cash, and I would advise my non-technical friends and family to behave similarly.
I know this disagrees with your view on the world, sorry.
2) True, but now once you've spent them does it make sense to buy them back and do it again?
Because most companies are afraid of chargebacks and will take steps to avoid them. Bitcoin payments don't but any minor lapse in personal computer security likely will.
Sweden for example does, and I believe Norway as well. Funny that, Scandinavian countries usually have similar legislation. ( http://blog.btcx.se/bitcoin-nytt/dags-att-deklarera-bitcoin-... )
Nonsense. Consumer protection laws apply no matter the payment method.
Of course, I have been passively protected by consumer protection laws, and yes, I would receive the same passive protections when paying via cash or bitcoin.... but when those laws are violated, it's almost never worth it to bring up a legal case. If I pay cash, and I get screwed, I complain to the vendor. However, if the vendor does not give me satisfaction, it's usually just not worth paying a lawyer.
It /is/ however, often worth it for me to call my credit card and get them to take the charge off.
While the credit card might not get me many (or any) more legal rights, it certainly gives me rather a lot more practical power if I have a dispute with a retailer (vs. using cash or bitcoin)
In the UK part of your protection is the fact that there is a third party involved (your credit card issuer) who has a variety of responsibilities to the consumer over and above the responsibilities of the retailer. In practice this means you get better protection as the money can be taken back from the retailer by a third party with a big stick.
Here in the UK the credit card company, as a party to an incurred debt, has a legal responsibility to the consumer that encompasses various things like product quality and returns/refunds. If the retailer does not live up to their responsibilities then the CC provider has a legal responsibility to return the money.
This is under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act.
You get the option of pulling the payment back unilaterally, but this is subject to those same consumer protection laws, so the merchant can still come after you if you do so without a valid reason as stipulated by the law.
I'm sorry, this is just not true here in the UK (which is what I originally said, it's not the same everywhere), you get assurances from another party in case the merchant disappears, goes bust or just finds a way not to play ball.
This goes well beyond chargebacks and can include things like the CC company being on the hook for repair charges etc. if the goods are not up to scratch, long after the original transaction.
If you need further information then try looking up Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act. It's all in there and there are loads of consumers' rights guides on the net that will give you the layman's interpretation of the law.
Yes, chargebacks are the usual method a CC company uses in a variety of circumstances, but that doesn't change the validity of my statement - in some places some payment methods will get you a whole load of extra rights compared to BTC or cash.
Edit: We're about to re-launch Bitrated in about a month, with a new system that's been written from the grounds up. If anyone reading this is interested in seeing what we've been working on and would like to provide some feedback before the public launch, please contact me (email in my profile). </shameless-plug>
There are quite a few metrics on http://www.bitcoinpulse.com/ that seem to indicate otherwise.
You're right though, it's not gaining consumer adoption, but it is gaining merchant, infrastructure and developer interest.
Until one day it all goes wrong, or management change and don't care about service so much.
And that also acts as a barrier for new entrants into the market, stifling competition. When you have to just trust that a new market entrant won't run off with your cash, why would you ever risk it?
There's a hell of a lot that consumer protections and existing payment instruments give us.
There are literally thousands of years of history to look at that will show you how naive and ridiculous this view is. Try doing a quick web search on "Caveat Emptor".
And for more recent examples, well try reading anything much about the last few years of bitcoin.
This is exactly a "schlep blindness" problem that a startup could be solving. Deliver a turnkey solution for consumers to store their own coins. Don't make them learn a labyrinthian set of rules, or worry about what's dangerous or what isn't. Protect consumers, and bitcoin adoption will follow. Large-scale bitcoin adoption can't occur until bitcoin is made safe.
Did you hear about the guy who took his macbook into an Apple store for some routine repairs, and one of their employees made off with his 15 BTC? The employee hooked his harddrive up to a different computer, scanned it for a "wallet.dat" file, saw it was unencrypted, and robbed him. Was it dumb of this customer not to be using encryption? Yes. On the other hand, was it dumb of him to be storing so much wealth in bitcoin right now, given how easy it is to lose your money? Objectively, yes.
This isn't an insurmountable problem, but people have to start working on it in order to solve it.
This will take time, however (the latter more than the former).
The reason it will take time is that the concept of storing your own money digitally, like is the case with Bitcoin, is an entirely new concept that software and hardware needs to adapt to. With all other solutions (VISA, PayPal, bank wires), you're asking someone else to transfer your money, with Bitcoin you're doing it yourself. Basically, each user needs a greater level of security than PayPal, VISA and banks have internally, since Bitcoin payments are generally irreversible after an hour or so (and often much sooner).
This isn't something that is done overnight, and people have started working on it, but it takes time to, first of all, develop the hardware, and, second of all, develop and implement the interface between the hardware wallet and the actual payment request (ie. when I arrive at a BitPay invoice payment page, how do I pay using my hardware wallet?).
> when can customers expect their money to be protected after they convert their savings into bitcoin, without trusting their coins to a third party service like Coinbase, and without spending a solid week learning how to safely store their coins themselves?
As you point out in your own statement, there are companies meeting the need for a "turnkey solution": you list Coinbase and they are an excellent example of a company doing that well and being quite successful at it.
You apparently reject them because working with Coinbase requires the customer to "trust their coins to a third party service". Trusting the third party service is pretty much mandatory for using ANY third party service. Imagine a hypothetical service that provided "turnkey" software to store wallets on your own computer -- you would still need to fully trust the provider of this service to ensure that they actually stored the money rather than siphoning it off someplace else.
The only way to (mostly) avoid having to trust a third party is to avoid using a "turnkey" solution that is fully packaged without user serviceable parts. You would instead need to learn on your own how to safely store the coins yourself. Which is ALSO a choice, and many people do it. You complain that it takes "a solid week" to learn how to do this -- and indeed, it does take a few days to become an expert on any subject; there are 10 minute tutorials, but I presume you (rightfully) reject them as being insufficient to really teach a user enough to be fully safe.
Honestly, I think that you are just being unreasonable in your expectations.
And if Coinbase goes bankrupt, all their users lose all their money.
I've written about this extensively several times before, so I won't rehash the old points. But the summary is, if you trust your money to an entity that doesn't have insurance, you're being very, very brave. Coinbase can go bankrupt for a multitude of reasons, some of which aren't fair.
One could counter this with, "Don't store very much money in Coinbase." Sure, but then consumers don't have much money on hand to buy things on a whim, which reduces consumer adoption. That's why I've been saying: Make bitcoin safe, and adoption will follow.
Bitcoin has been around for 4 years banks for several hundreds.
Your point is true but trivial and hardly says anything conclusive or useful other than you don't trust 3rd parties.
With time you wont have to.
This is a silly comparison. In the USA, all deposits under $200k are guaranteed by the FDIC . If the bank folds, you still get your money from the federal government.
I imagine many similar institutions exist in other countries.
Why there was no such institution in Cyprus baffles me. Perhaps they haven't had to deal with institutional bank failures before. The point is that deposits in Coinbase or other bitcoin institutions are not covered by any such insuring body. They are hence inherently far riskier.
It all comes down to likelihood of failure. When institutions like coinbase fail, we call that "thursday". But if the FDIC folds, you should be less worried about your money and more concerned about hoarding ammo and cigarettes.
It is because you don't understand the nature of bitcoin or it's colorful history with third party services like Coinbase. The question is a good one and not at all unreasonable if you understand bitcoin. The system is supposed to be trustless, and one aspect of this is that you don't need a trusted third party to conduct safe and fast transactions with another individual. Another aspect is that you don't have to trust someone else to hold your money, but then of course the security is up to you, which has so far been something of a problem.
As others have mentioned, multi-sig addresses are one part of the solution (doesn't BitGo support these now?), and another is potentially a hardware solution. But the current Coinbase offerings are inadequate, and those types of solutions will eventually be replaced or people will continue to lose their money when they trust someone else with their private keys.
There is no insurance for stolen, hacked, or otherwise lost keys. In the banking system, when money is "lost", the loss is spread out among everyone, which is nice if you were the affected party but is a pretty raw deal for everyone else (cf. banking crisis of the past 5+ years). When bitcoins are lost, there is no recourse.
Given the huge amount of developer interest, I'd be pretty surprised if several groups of smart people aren't kept awake at night by their awesome ideas about how to fix this.
the world does not need yet another 500 models of USB powered ventilators.
It has a payment processor, Bitpay, that accepts Bitcoin. As long as you have a competent engineer on staff, it's about as difficult as accepting PayPal.
It's nice that this is happening, but the headline should be, "BitPay lands Newegg as client". The maturity of the services around Bitcoin helps everyone that holds them, so it's not unimportant. It's just a very, very far stretch from a merchant directly accepting and holding a currency balance in BC.
Hah! Bitpay fails often, and it fails in mysterious ways. Manual intervention on up to 10% of payments is no beuno.
There will be a time where crypto-currency will be as normal as paying with credit card or cash.
For a retailer, if they think they can move units by partnering with someone who will convert BC to cash, sure whatever. It's like adding PayPal.
You don't see the 10,000,000 new consumers bought bitcoins!!! Who knew cryptocurrency could burn holes in pockets!??!?! articles because that's not happening.
The real problem was never "people don't have a place to spend bitcoin." It was "people don't have time or risk tolerance to manage bitcoin."
By the way, Overstock is now holding bitcoins (about 3% of their Bitcoin sales). I wouldn't be surprised if Newegg did the same after some time.
CoinPocket / NewEgg were within $0.15 of their exchange amounts on a $31.89 purchase. So, CoinPocket thought it was $31.89 that I was sending, and NewEgg thought I was sending $31.74.
All in All - Bitcoin made purchasing a lot more easy than having to type in a Credit Card number or login to Paypal.
By placing a huge number of buy orders at a time when the market is quite shallow, all within a few minutes (temporarily driving the exchange price up sharply) the BTC-denominated price of goods on Newegg can become very low in a 15-minute windows.
Huge numbers of orders ($millions) could then be placed at that low BTC price, included by a distributed group of people.
What protects against this? Moving the price for 15 minutes seems quite plausible but I don't know the details - and am not an expert.
Ex. The Bitcoin is on an uptrend and went up 30$ in the window between when I checked it ~8 hours ago and just now. Even if it managed to do that in a 15-minute window of time, that's only 30-dollars off of every 600 dollars you spend. A 100$ dollar order will only see a 5 dollar 'discount'. And if it goes the other way, they make a bit more, so over time I'm guessing it'll mostly even out, Maybe a bit more in the consumers favor if we assume the BTC price will end-up going up.
Edit: spaced the link https://bitcoinity.org/markets
1. Note you get bitcoins during your manipulation as well - so how much did you overpay for the bitcoins that it took to get you the $67K discount? I count that you achieved a 1.37% rise in price, so even if you put in your full $800K at the higher price, that cost you $10,960 in overpayment. There is a direct relationship between the amount of move that you cause, and the amount that you overpay. So the question is, what that relationship is - we have to compare it with the profits from the NewEgg orders at the manipulated price.
1b. Also note that there is a chance you can sell some of them back at a slightly increased price if NewEgg confirms your order quickly, as you've just filled all the lower-price bids on the exchange you just manipulated.
If nobody knows about your manipulation directly, you might even cause a bull run where people think the price is just going to go up and up - you only meant to manipulate it to a brief target price, not caring about the price fall after, but maybe you can sell at a profit as a follow-on effect.
2. On the other hand, $67,700 discount on $5M order is nothing – it doesn’t cause the price to fall below wholesale, so there’s no reason to do the manipulation, since NewEgg isn’t offering cash, it’s offering product. The question then becomes: how much would we have to increase „1a” (the $10K ”fee” you paid for a 1.37% drop) by, to cause an, e.g., 15% drop, 20% drop, 25% drop, 30% drop, 35% drop, 50% drop, 75% drop, 80% drop, 95% drop. That would be interesting in table form. The drop would have to be high, as the manipulator would have to get product below wholesale price.
3. $5M is not an upper limit. In a distributed way, there’s no way many customers couldn’t place $10M in orders together. However, they would to coordinate and play ball with each other: if any of them knows that manipulation will happen trying to corner a shallow exchange market, they can take the other side of the transaction. If they know that at a certain time, $15M will be spent on manipulating the spot price for 15 minutes, they can just set aside $15M to place on asks on the other side. So it’s quite dangerous, especially if the price movement is intended to be high. The element of surprise would have to be high.
This seems mostly a theoretical exercise, as in practice NewEgg could fail to honor prices that are outside the previous day’s intraday, or that sort of thing.
Still, I'm curious how the numbers would work.
You might temporarily drive up the exchange price sharply, but at the cost of buy a ton of BTC at an inflated price.
e.g. buying $800K worth of bitcoin in 15 minutes, so that you can increase the price of BTC and then buy $5M worth of goods NewEgg - would $800K in fifteen minutes press newegg's btc-denominated price well below wholesale on those same electronic goods? (including to cover what you overpaid for the btc to execute your position.)
“transactionSpeed” - "medium" An invoice is considered to be "confirmed" after 1 block confirmation (~10 minutes).
Payment processors like bitpay put cash right into bank accounts, and people at newegg will likely never even deal with a single bitcoin themselves.
If you're sorry a business has found another way to make money with little effort, you're probably not the audience for this forum.