Topic: 2013-11-28 Guardian: Is Bitcoin a Weapon of Mass Economic Destruction? (Read 3817 times)
November 30, 2013, 07:20:55 PM
Mutually Assured Decentralisation
November 30, 2013, 07:15:53 PM
As far as Krugman goes, he said
Quote
...the only way we could have anything resembling a middle-class society — a society in which ordinary citizens have a reasonable assurance of maintaining a decent life as long as they work hard and play by the rules — would be by having a strong social safety net, one that guarantees not just health care but a minimum income, too.
The fact that he is applauded by the authoritarian, statists, says enough, but Paul, who are you going to force to provide this "minimum income"? Or are you just going to print the money to secretly steal the money from everyone? Or is there some magic tree you intend to pick it from? The world tried forcing people to provide for others and it was rejected nearly everywhere as abhorrent. It still is. Merely changing the name does not make it palatable. The fact that he believes that the life of one person is his to do with as he pleases merely because he thinks he knows best says enough about his morality and ethics that everything he writes should be immediately suspect.
Buffett has an issue, as does Krugman, when they say it is a war and the rich are winning. It isn't that "the rich" are winning, it is the educated that are being rewarded. Instead they like to turn things into a class-warfare, "us-vs them" situation, while doing the opposite of what they want everyone else to do? (e.g. Buffett creating a huge tax-exempt foundation to protect his wealth while advocating everyone else who has much fewer assets than he does are to be taxed at much higher rates.).
November 30, 2013, 07:11:02 PM
maybe a lot of people here are in it for a get rich quick scheme, but there are a lot of generous people here (much moreso than you'd see from the wealthy elite).. i've seen people donate a lot of money away just for the hell of it (that or they want to encourage new people into the game).
November 30, 2013, 06:53:32 PM
"Surely it is akin to a counterfeiting scam promoted by people who like the idea of their computer making them rich without lifting much more than a finger?"
FINGER!?
People have been putting down hearth and soul on BTC. Electricity bills that are way more expensive then what they've gotten back since the start of BTC. Its time these people get their payment. Fucking scumbags who've written the article. The person writing this must be jealous as fuck. BTCBTCBTCBTC
FINGER!?
People have been putting down hearth and soul on BTC. Electricity bills that are way more expensive then what they've gotten back since the start of BTC. Its time these people get their payment. Fucking scumbags who've written the article. The person writing this must be jealous as fuck. BTCBTCBTCBTC
November 30, 2013, 06:35:20 PM
I suppose its only to be expected here but thus far I've not read any responses that actually comprehensively refute the issues the article raises, which is quite disappointing.
Hash-trogen bomb?
November 30, 2013, 06:04:05 PM
I suppose its only to be expected here but thus far I've not read any responses that actually comprehensively refute the issues the article raises, which is quite disappointing.
And I find the response that glorian posted, while containing some interesting information, actually reads as an elitist and rather poorly written rant. It certainly doesn't address the fact that the last GFC was indeed caused not by regulations, but by lack of regulations. The idea that anther unregulated market is going to turn out the same is highly likely.
As Buffet says "there's an economic war going on and the rich are winning" - I'd suggest most btc-coiners simply want to make sure they are on the right side. This forum is probably the most visible representation of btcoiners and let's be honest there are more users motivated by personal greed than altruism.
This was also a below the line response and I can refute some parts of it myself.
However, the current phase of 'bitcoin mania' as represented in the popular press at present certainly does reflect Kindleberger's description.
It's difficult for us to escape our collective behaviour and, as I see it, the only way to do so is to change our individual behaviour.
I've been following btc since late 2011 so I'm neither a noob nor a zealot nor a sceptic - just interested. But it does seem that this community is high on fervour, low on rationality. So, wouldn't it be a good idea to actually engage with critics in a calmer manner and not dismiss potential issues, either practical or conceptual, technical or moral, without exploring the validity of our own position?
And I find the response that glorian posted, while containing some interesting information, actually reads as an elitist and rather poorly written rant. It certainly doesn't address the fact that the last GFC was indeed caused not by regulations, but by lack of regulations. The idea that anther unregulated market is going to turn out the same is highly likely.
As Buffet says "there's an economic war going on and the rich are winning" - I'd suggest most btc-coiners simply want to make sure they are on the right side. This forum is probably the most visible representation of btcoiners and let's be honest there are more users motivated by personal greed than altruism.
This was also a below the line response and I can refute some parts of it myself.
Quote
What is Bitcoin supposed to be to make it valuable? Is it a currency, is it a technology, or is it a commodity?
If it's a currency, what real wealth is it backed by? What entity, state or otherwise, stands behind it and what are that's entity's resources, history and trustworthiness? What in the real world is it a claim against?
If it's a technology, how does buying individual Bitcoins buy you a share in that technology? The first steam engine was a tremendous piece of economically transformative innovation. That didn't make the steam coming out of it any more valuable than clouds.
If it's an asset, what is there about it that makes it valuable beyond expectations of its future price? A house I can live in. Pork bellies I can eat. What can I do with a Bitcoin?
Anybody thinking about buying into this nonsense should to my mind be forced to sit down with a copy of Kindleberger's Manias, Panics and Crashes, read chapter 2 in its entirety, then reflect on how perfectly Bitcoin and current economic conditions fit a pattern he traces back centuries.
If it's a currency, what real wealth is it backed by? What entity, state or otherwise, stands behind it and what are that's entity's resources, history and trustworthiness? What in the real world is it a claim against?
If it's a technology, how does buying individual Bitcoins buy you a share in that technology? The first steam engine was a tremendous piece of economically transformative innovation. That didn't make the steam coming out of it any more valuable than clouds.
If it's an asset, what is there about it that makes it valuable beyond expectations of its future price? A house I can live in. Pork bellies I can eat. What can I do with a Bitcoin?
Anybody thinking about buying into this nonsense should to my mind be forced to sit down with a copy of Kindleberger's Manias, Panics and Crashes, read chapter 2 in its entirety, then reflect on how perfectly Bitcoin and current economic conditions fit a pattern he traces back centuries.
However, the current phase of 'bitcoin mania' as represented in the popular press at present certainly does reflect Kindleberger's description.
It's difficult for us to escape our collective behaviour and, as I see it, the only way to do so is to change our individual behaviour.
I've been following btc since late 2011 so I'm neither a noob nor a zealot nor a sceptic - just interested. But it does seem that this community is high on fervour, low on rationality. So, wouldn't it be a good idea to actually engage with critics in a calmer manner and not dismiss potential issues, either practical or conceptual, technical or moral, without exploring the validity of our own position?
November 29, 2013, 06:02:43 PM
Banker Busters!
you dont like banksters i guess
Just doing some "Weapons of Mass Economic Destruction" puns. Try one.
Inter-continental ballistic monetary system
November 29, 2013, 05:35:01 PM
Read user "glorian"'s wonderful evisceration of this chucklehead's analysis: http://discussion.theguardian.com/comment-permalink/29332868
Fantastic.
Fantastic.
It is! Definitely worth a repost here for posterity:
Quote
glorian
28 November 2013 7:49pm
Eighty-seven percent of the nation’s top economists think that the digital currency, Bitcoin, has “limited usefulness.”
Wow. So a technology that eliminates transaction fees, Internationally, over the Internet, has "limited usefulness"
Anyone can create what amounts to a checking account, for free. Only no overdraft is possible. Payments clear in minutes. Your boss can pay you with "direct deposit" in seconds (no special service required). You can pay anyone else in the world, and they can pay you. Securely, with no double spends, no charge backs, no bad checks. Wells Fargo charges me 10 bucks a month for a dim shade of that, but it seems accountslike this are of "limited usefulness".
Bitcoin solves the micro payment problem. You can actually make very small payments with smaller yet transaction fees, and it just works. but that is of "limited usefulness".
As long as you can figure out how to secure your private keys (by printing them and putting the only copies in a safety deposit box, memorizing them, or engraving them inside a ring), your Bitcoins will be protected by 256 bit encryption. Banks use 128 bit encryption, but the difficult of breaking encryption doubles with each bit. That means if BS = Bank Security, then Bitcoin Security = BS x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2. Obviously increasing security like that is of "limited usefulness"
Bitcoin is going to inflate, just like the Dollar, for another 30 years, only WAY slower. Since 2008 the Federal Reserve has printed TWO Dollars for free for every Dollar you worked to earn, or saved, or acquired through taking the risk of investing. Actually for every dollar that existed prior to 2008. In just a year or two. Bitcoin has predetermined inflation programed into it so you can know what is going on. And those newBitcoin are given to the people "mining", who are actually doing all the verification and validation of the ecosystem. Huh. Giving people Bitcoin for actually doing something useful for everyone else. That is clearly of "limited usefulness".
Bitcoin may make early adopters rich. Like early investors in Apple, or in Plastics (watch "It's a Wonderful Life" again!), or in Microsoft, or IBM, or Exxon... Heck in anything successful. Don't let Economists tell you it isn't fair to be an early adopter! Figuring out why a technology changes the game, and getting in early (to them) is of "limited usefulness".
Maybe just trying to reply to this is of "limited usefulness". ;-)
28 November 2013 7:49pm
Eighty-seven percent of the nation’s top economists think that the digital currency, Bitcoin, has “limited usefulness.”
Wow. So a technology that eliminates transaction fees, Internationally, over the Internet, has "limited usefulness"
Anyone can create what amounts to a checking account, for free. Only no overdraft is possible. Payments clear in minutes. Your boss can pay you with "direct deposit" in seconds (no special service required). You can pay anyone else in the world, and they can pay you. Securely, with no double spends, no charge backs, no bad checks. Wells Fargo charges me 10 bucks a month for a dim shade of that, but it seems accountslike this are of "limited usefulness".
Bitcoin solves the micro payment problem. You can actually make very small payments with smaller yet transaction fees, and it just works. but that is of "limited usefulness".
As long as you can figure out how to secure your private keys (by printing them and putting the only copies in a safety deposit box, memorizing them, or engraving them inside a ring), your Bitcoins will be protected by 256 bit encryption. Banks use 128 bit encryption, but the difficult of breaking encryption doubles with each bit. That means if BS = Bank Security, then Bitcoin Security = BS x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2. Obviously increasing security like that is of "limited usefulness"
Bitcoin is going to inflate, just like the Dollar, for another 30 years, only WAY slower. Since 2008 the Federal Reserve has printed TWO Dollars for free for every Dollar you worked to earn, or saved, or acquired through taking the risk of investing. Actually for every dollar that existed prior to 2008. In just a year or two. Bitcoin has predetermined inflation programed into it so you can know what is going on. And those newBitcoin are given to the people "mining", who are actually doing all the verification and validation of the ecosystem. Huh. Giving people Bitcoin for actually doing something useful for everyone else. That is clearly of "limited usefulness".
Bitcoin may make early adopters rich. Like early investors in Apple, or in Plastics (watch "It's a Wonderful Life" again!), or in Microsoft, or IBM, or Exxon... Heck in anything successful. Don't let Economists tell you it isn't fair to be an early adopter! Figuring out why a technology changes the game, and getting in early (to them) is of "limited usefulness".
Maybe just trying to reply to this is of "limited usefulness". ;-)
I read this one over and over, smiling all the while. It's a classic. I try not to do "me too" posts, but... glorian for Fed Chair! (Who is glorian, anyway? Can't find a trail on the Net but he/she is a Superhero).
November 29, 2013, 04:50:06 PM
Banker Busters!
you dont like banksters i guess
November 29, 2013, 03:55:14 PM
LAN-ed mines?!!
November 29, 2013, 03:54:28 PM
Banker Busters!
November 29, 2013, 02:50:07 PM
Read user "glorian"'s wonderful evisceration of this chucklehead's analysis: http://discussion.theguardian.com/comment-permalink/29332868
Fantastic.
Fantastic.
It is! Definitely worth a repost here for posterity:
Quote
glorian
28 November 2013 7:49pm
Eighty-seven percent of the nation’s top economists think that the digital currency, Bitcoin, has “limited usefulness.”
Wow. So a technology that eliminates transaction fees, Internationally, over the Internet, has "limited usefulness"
Anyone can create what amounts to a checking account, for free. Only no overdraft is possible. Payments clear in minutes. Your boss can pay you with "direct deposit" in seconds (no special service required). You can pay anyone else in the world, and they can pay you. Securely, with no double spends, no charge backs, no bad checks. Wells Fargo charges me 10 bucks a month for a dim shade of that, but it seems accountslike this are of "limited usefulness".
Bitcoin solves the micro payment problem. You can actually make very small payments with smaller yet transaction fees, and it just works. but that is of "limited usefulness".
As long as you can figure out how to secure your private keys (by printing them and putting the only copies in a safety deposit box, memorizing them, or engraving them inside a ring), your Bitcoins will be protected by 256 bit encryption. Banks use 128 bit encryption, but the difficult of breaking encryption doubles with each bit. That means if BS = Bank Security, then Bitcoin Security = BS x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2. Obviously increasing security like that is of "limited usefulness"
Bitcoin is going to inflate, just like the Dollar, for another 30 years, only WAY slower. Since 2008 the Federal Reserve has printed TWO Dollars for free for every Dollar you worked to earn, or saved, or acquired through taking the risk of investing. Actually for every dollar that existed prior to 2008. In just a year or two. Bitcoin has predetermined inflation programed into it so you can know what is going on. And those newBitcoin are given to the people "mining", who are actually doing all the verification and validation of the ecosystem. Huh. Giving people Bitcoin for actually doing something useful for everyone else. That is clearly of "limited usefulness".
Bitcoin may make early adopters rich. Like early investors in Apple, or in Plastics (watch "It's a Wonderful Life" again!), or in Microsoft, or IBM, or Exxon... Heck in anything successful. Don't let Economists tell you it isn't fair to be an early adopter! Figuring out why a technology changes the game, and getting in early (to them) is of "limited usefulness".
Maybe just trying to reply to this is of "limited usefulness". ;-)
28 November 2013 7:49pm
Eighty-seven percent of the nation’s top economists think that the digital currency, Bitcoin, has “limited usefulness.”
Wow. So a technology that eliminates transaction fees, Internationally, over the Internet, has "limited usefulness"
Anyone can create what amounts to a checking account, for free. Only no overdraft is possible. Payments clear in minutes. Your boss can pay you with "direct deposit" in seconds (no special service required). You can pay anyone else in the world, and they can pay you. Securely, with no double spends, no charge backs, no bad checks. Wells Fargo charges me 10 bucks a month for a dim shade of that, but it seems accountslike this are of "limited usefulness".
Bitcoin solves the micro payment problem. You can actually make very small payments with smaller yet transaction fees, and it just works. but that is of "limited usefulness".
As long as you can figure out how to secure your private keys (by printing them and putting the only copies in a safety deposit box, memorizing them, or engraving them inside a ring), your Bitcoins will be protected by 256 bit encryption. Banks use 128 bit encryption, but the difficult of breaking encryption doubles with each bit. That means if BS = Bank Security, then Bitcoin Security = BS x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2. Obviously increasing security like that is of "limited usefulness"
Bitcoin is going to inflate, just like the Dollar, for another 30 years, only WAY slower. Since 2008 the Federal Reserve has printed TWO Dollars for free for every Dollar you worked to earn, or saved, or acquired through taking the risk of investing. Actually for every dollar that existed prior to 2008. In just a year or two. Bitcoin has predetermined inflation programed into it so you can know what is going on. And those newBitcoin are given to the people "mining", who are actually doing all the verification and validation of the ecosystem. Huh. Giving people Bitcoin for actually doing something useful for everyone else. That is clearly of "limited usefulness".
Bitcoin may make early adopters rich. Like early investors in Apple, or in Plastics (watch "It's a Wonderful Life" again!), or in Microsoft, or IBM, or Exxon... Heck in anything successful. Don't let Economists tell you it isn't fair to be an early adopter! Figuring out why a technology changes the game, and getting in early (to them) is of "limited usefulness".
Maybe just trying to reply to this is of "limited usefulness". ;-)
November 29, 2013, 02:09:58 PM
inb4 domestic drone strikes of suspected economic terrorists
November 29, 2013, 11:54:26 AM
Read user "glorian"'s wonderful evisceration of this chucklehead's analysis: http://discussion.theguardian.com/comment-permalink/29332868
Fantastic.
Fantastic.
November 29, 2013, 11:39:25 AM
Weapon of Mass "Bankster" Destruction
November 29, 2013, 11:02:50 AM
Quote
In the meantime, businesses should shun the currency. It is no surprise that Virgin boss Richard Branson, who loves to pose in anti-establishment garb, has embraced Bitcoin. That does not mean anyone else should. Shareholders should demand real money in exchange for goods and services, for the good of society at large.
No, shareholders DO demand a ROI, which is accomplishes by reducing waste and expenses and increasing profits. (Smart) businesses move to Bitcoin because it increases their bottom line with lower fees, and is a superior solution to the legacy banking.
Sorry, Phillip, but you can't just say "ignore the superior solution" because it challenges the status quo. That's called technological evolution, and it will succeed by natural selection.
And BTW, the original supporters of Bitcoin should not be criticized for making a profit because of Bitcoin's success; they were the original true believers; the ones that spent time, effort and their own money to support a system that they believed in. They put up with ridicule (from family, friends and media), an uncertain future, and weathered the roughest early days. They put up with fraudsters and scammers and tried to improve the community and the image of Bitcoin, all in order to show people what it is capable of. I guarantee that those who stuck with Bitcoin from the beginning and still believe in it still have a stake, and that stake is being rewarded. Those who didn't took profit early and got out. Should you criticize the people who work long hours at a startup that ultimately succeeds?
Bottom line:
Whatever Bitcoin will do, it will do because the need is there. Nobody is forced to use it; it it works, the world has to wake up to the fact that there was a problem. Don't blame Bitcoin, the early adopters or the current supporters.
FFS...
November 28, 2013, 07:56:18 PM
Yes, it's, why did you just realize it, it's too late, where is your laughter now?
About the macroeconomist, they are only relevant as long as can interfere the economy, otherwise who will give them a damn if the free market can figure things out on its own?
About the macroeconomist, they are only relevant as long as can interfere the economy, otherwise who will give them a damn if the free market can figure things out on its own?
November 28, 2013, 05:34:42 PM
Quote
As Paul Krugman, the Nobel prize-winning economist, wrote more than two years ago: "What we want from a monetary system isn't to make people holding money rich; we want it to facilitate transactions and make the economy as a whole rich. And that's not at all what is happening in Bitcoin."
I don't know if he noticed, that it is not working as intended. Because people who have money will invest them in houses or other things, they not only get richer while others don't they also increase price of houses for other people so they can't afford one when they need them for living and not for investment. And it is not only for houses but for everything people invest money in to not lose value of they fiat.
Remember, Paul Krugman may not be quite the visionary he's made out to be. He also made this prediction about the internet:
"By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's."
November 28, 2013, 02:19:48 PM
Lmao I'm afraid of a change in the status quo
IT MUST BE A WED
Weapon of Mass Economic Destruction
New terminology
Something that revolutionizes finance in ways not expected that has huge effect on the way business is handled
Just like the internet
IT MUST BE A WED
Weapon of Mass Economic Destruction
New terminology
Something that revolutionizes finance in ways not expected that has huge effect on the way business is handled
Just like the internet
November 28, 2013, 01:45:50 PM
The end (of obsolete banskters) is near
Jump to: