I hate to say it, but this bitcoin issue has turned everyone into a bunch of Robert Wenzels. The one side says something stupid like there are people who use it = currency! The other, pulls this universally accepted thing.
Bitcoin is ridiculous because it's based on technology. Specifically, computer technology which doubles every few years. And they admit it:
"A great deal of careful thought and ingenuity has gone into the development of Bitcoin, but it is the first of its breed, a prototype, and vulnerable to more highly-evolved competitors. At present, any threatening rivals have yet to rear their heads; Bitcoin remains the first and foremost private virtual currency, but we can offer no guarantees that it will retain that position. It would certainly be in keeping with internet history for a similar system built from the same principles to supersede and cast Bitcoin into obsolescence, after time had revealed its major shortcomings. Friendster and Myspace suffered similar fates at the hand of Facebook, Napster was ousted by Limeware, Bearshare and torrent applications, and Skype has all but crushed the last few disciples of the Microsoft Messenger army."
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ#What_if_someone_creates_a_new_block_chain.2C_or_a_new_digital_currency_that_renders_Bitcoin_obsolete.3F
So, store your wealth in obsolete infrastructure. Bill Still and his ilk will come by to congratulate you for using his ideas in an even more asinine and predictably catastrophic manner.
Malachi:no I mean the issue of you not understanding what makes something money and reveling in that ignorance.
Well, let me know when you've used Bitcoins as money. In the mean time, I'm going to shop for vinyl at Juno Records. If I find something I like, I'll be using USD because not surprisingly, they don't accept Bitcoins as a form of payment.
Maybe you could have them sign up for a bitcoin service, convert your USD to bitcoin and pay them with it, then have them convert it back to USD.
Blargg, that's not a bad idea; adding an extra step to the process, instead of simply giving them USD, makes a ton of sense!
jmorris84: Malachi:no I mean the issue of you not understanding what makes something money and reveling in that ignorance. Well, let me know when you've used Bitcoins as money. In the mean time, I'm going to shop for vinyl at Juno Records. If I find something I like, I'll be using USD because not surprisingly, they don't accept Bitcoins as a form of payment.
look here, freakshow, this discussion is not about you and me. I dont know if youre abnormally stupid or you have apersonal vendetta or youre here to spread lies and disinformation, or your just a troll. what I do know is that if cigarettes and bags of chips are money in prison, then bitcoin is money at freedom fest in new hampshire. so go trade your federal reserve fiats for trendy anachronistic media and hiss and scratch your way to snotty self-superiority because you dont understand cryptocurrency and money in general, or have critical thinking issues and an underlying personality disorder. I dont care.
and left unanswered would be the question "why you do care so much, when bitcoins are of no value to you?"
Wow, you're pretty upset over this whole thing.
The one side says something stupid like there are people who use it = currency!
look man, I never said it was good money, or that it would endure. its money, plain and simple. copper and salt both have serious drawbacks as money but both were used at various points in history.
jmorris84: Wow, you're pretty upset over this whole thing.
yes, this thing where a stranger on the internet wants to know more about me? I'm positively terrified.
I never said I give a s*it if it's currency. I traded in a VW for a Mini, does that make it currency? I bet more people have traded in Volkswagens than bitcoins...
thats the only argument about bitcoin. some paleotechs refuse to apply the word "money" to it. thats fine, thats their decision. but they dont want anyone else to use the word "money" to describe bitcoins either, so you get what we have here: trolls.
Sure, I constantly rag about how everything needs to get ground into fine dust in 'libertarian' or Austrian circles. And making a life quest out of disproving that bitcoin as a currency is a bit silly, but writing a 90-page thesis on vaporware is a legitimate, intellectual pursuit? I'm saying this nonsense is going both ways and the fact that anyone is taking it as seriously as they are is Wenzelrific.
but writing a 90-page thesis on vaporware is a legitimate, intellectual pursuit? I'm saying this nonsense is going both ways and the fact that anyone is taking it as seriously as they are is Wenzelrific.
begging your pardon, sir, but youre begging the question. emergent technology is an appropriate topic for a thesis. if it happens to be lengthy, the so be it. of course your implied criticism of myself is well taken and I am indeed off to do better things. good day to you.
Then don't bitch when other people turn around to criticize thse theses, even if those critiques are lengthy?! It's only alright to talk about nonsense software if you're in favor of it? It's starting to look like Zeitgeist currency.
not sure where you got that. anyone who wants to criticize the actual thesis, or bitcoin, go right on ahead. we dont get that, we get personal attacks and the hater three step.
first it has to be universally accepted. then it has to be commonly accepted local to the speaker. then the personal attacks start because neither of those criteria are in fact necessary criteria to become money. the more literate opponents retreat to an area defense consisting of denial and fallacious interpretations of the regression theorem. the less verbose resort to argumentum ad hominem. if you show them a bitcoin user they will deny his existence, look here, Anenome uses bitcoins and still we must wonder, are bitcoins a medium of exchange?
but of course we cant even have the argument because all bitcoin opponents have implicitly contradicted themselves. cigarettes are money in prison. fiats are money as long as they are accepted by some people, regardless of X number of people who do not use that specific fiat.
which again, is why its so puzzling that these haters would even post on such a topic. if youre going to talk about it, talk about it. why bother to post if youre just going to make an irrational mess of things?
jmorris, are you going to even attempt to answer my questions?
Graham Wright:If the bitcoin userbase keeps growing as it has, then there is undeniably a possibility of it reaching that "commonly accepted" criterion that qualifies it as money. And if it is so useful for all the above things (and reasons that I haven't even thought of, or nobody has yet thought of), why would its userbase not keep growing as it has - even to become money? Or, even if growth does stop and the userbase hits a ceiling for some reason or starts declining, why wouldn't it continue to be used as a not-commonly-accepted medium of exchange? Why would it fail? What will cause people who find bitcoins useful now to stop finding them useful?
Government Explained 2: The Special Piece of Paper
Law without Government
Many months ago I started visiting these forums and hadn't heard much about Bitcoin. My exposure has mainly been all the people here. I don't really care about it, but all the "it's the second coming of Christ"-type of posts and the attacks on critics has been a driving force for me to be dismissive of it. If you're interested in Bitcoin doing well, this frothing-at-the-mouth kind of attack on critics is the last thing you'd want to be doing.
If you're interested in Bitcoin doing well, this frothing-at-the-mouth kind of attack on critics is the last thing you'd want to be doing.
What would you do if you spent a lot of money of something that will only give ROI if you proselytize it? It's all very predictable. Just check back every year or so with a bag of popcorn.
Blargg, Can you clarify who you were directing your comments towards?
Caley McKibbin: What would you do if you spent a lot of money of something that will only give ROI if you proselytize it? It's all very predictable. Just check back every year or so with a bag of popcorn.
Are you suggesting that bitcoin doesn't offer the lowest transaction costs for online and distance exchanges against all competing currency options?
That is the killer feature. Blaming its success on hype puts cart before the horse.
oh dont bother, Anenome. first it starts with someone who doesnt understand. once you explain things a few dozen times, they devolve into personal attacks. if you go away they "claim victory" and have "won the debate" (we should have left anyway). if you remain, then some other idiot thinks you submit to verbal abuse because bitcoin somehow needs to be defended verbally to be a success. we should just let them wallow in their hatred and ignore the topic unless someone brings up an argument that hasnt been addressed, or its a newbie. this is ridiculous.
Anenome:Are you suggesting that bitcoin doesn't offer the lowest transaction costs for online and distance exchanges against all competing currency options?
How in the world did you gather this from what he said?
The arguments from pro-bitcoiners get worse by the day. I'm out.
Since bitcoin is a means of online/semi-anonymous transaction, and an investment/currency-like entity, when one is criticizing one aspect, people sometimes defend the other aspect. It reminds me of when someone is criticizing how people are being mistreated, someone always brings up people who are being treated worse, or the starving kids in <third world country>, and why we are focusing on such a minor problem when these greater ones exist.
jmorris84: Anenome:Are you suggesting that bitcoin doesn't offer the lowest transaction costs for online and distance exchanges against all competing currency options? How in the world did you gather this from what he said?
the part where he said it would only give you an r.o.i if you proselytized it. in other words, implying bitcoin has no benefit over other money transfer services like paypal. in effect, he suggested that people like my self and Anenome who explain bitcoin to people who dont or wont understand, were nothing more than free advertisement. unlike yourself, he made an argument of sorts. Anenome addressed it by asking if he was totally ignorant of some of the benefits of bitcoin. and for someone who acts as though he has followed the debate, and might want to learn more, you seem surprisingly uninterested in anything but the people involved.
like I said, smiling dave's idiotic strawmen convinced you and you turned off your intellect. too bad.
Since bitcoin is a means of online/semi-anonymous transaction, and an investment/currency-like entity, when one is criticizing one aspect, people sometimes defend the other aspect.
are you trying to obfuscate the issue? since when did those become seperate categories of thought?
It reminds me of when someone is criticizing how people are being mistreated, someone always brings up people who are being treated worse, or the starving kids in <third world country>, and why we are focusing on such a minor problem when these greater ones exist.
kind of like the hater three step I outlined above, huh
Visa/Mastercard/Debit/Paypal are means of online payment, but aren't any kind of currency/investment entity. And something like physical money isn't very useful for online payment, since you have to mail it and it's insecure.
One can't "hold on to" a visa card payment for very long; it turns into money in a bank account. Vendors using bitcoin who immediately convert it to some other currency aren't using the currency aspect of bitcoin, just using it as an equivalent to Visa etc. I've seen discussion of ways merchants can minimize value loss due to sudden changes in bitcoin's valuation (or for example the recent post here about Freesomething's not holding bitcoin for a long time, converting it to gold instead).
Completely separately from the online payment aspect, many people buy and sell bitcoin as an investment. Some hold on to it as a store of value and to buy things. This is the currency/investment use. Seems quite distinct to me from the online transfer aspect. That is, even if it could only be done offline, these same people would probably be using it. And vice-versa; if it didn't have these uses (investment, store of value), it would still be useful as an implementation detail in semi-anonymous, low-overhead online transactions.
true
One can't "hold on to" a visa card payment for very long; it turns into money in a bank account.
Vendors using bitcoin who immediately convert it to some other currency aren't using the currency aspect of bitcoin
false
just using it as an equivalent to Visa etc.
they are not "just" using it as an "equivalent" to visa, they are using it because they prefer it. this doesnt serve to somehow isolate those other aspects of bitcoin just like gold doesnt cease to be pretty when you make into coins.
I've seen discussion of ways merchants can minimize value loss due to sudden changes in bitcoin's valuation (or for example the recent post here about Freesomething's not holding bitcoin for a long time, converting it to gold instead).
right, because of bitcoin's volatility they seek to be on the right side of swings. point being?
Completely separately from the online payment aspect, many people buy and sell bitcoin as an investment.
nonsense. people make investments because they wish to make a return on investment. that return is based on value or on trends. value investors appreciate bitcoin for its sound fundamentals, i.e. the pseudonymous transfer features it provides, the low transaction costs, etc. if you can find me a technical investor who plans to unload his bitcoin holdings in physical form, you have found me one, not "many."
Some hold on to it as a store of value and to buy things. This is the currency/investment use. Seems quite distinct to me from the online transfer aspect.
how exactly? buying things with bitcoin is usually an online transfer. you seem ignorant of the fundamentals of value investing.
That is, even if it could only be done offline, these same people would probably be using it. And vice-versa; if it didn't have these uses (investment, store of value), it would still be useful as an implementation detail in semi-anonymous, low-overhead online transactions.
so youre saying bitcoin is useful in two different ways so when people criticize its usefulness they should explain its usefulness in a way that the criticizer can understand? I agree.