Topic: Article Discrediting Bitcoin (Read 2408 times)

I read Torrentfreak.com daily, so yes I heard. I heard about infamous Davenport Lyons law firm who bullied a lot of random people.

The thing is - you either have brains & money to defend or not. The way I see it is we are in process of re-distribution of wealth - as always there will be fat cats and hungry dogs.

At this very moment there are people out there in the pub drinking beer and doing nothing - every day and every evening. I'm behind computer and seeking for opportunities.

Is it fair if everybody should be at the same level (financial wise) while some folks did nothing?

The ascii machine costs a few thousand dollars if it gives me power to control something (competitive advantage) I will buy it or will find someone to buy it for me and we will split the profit.

There is always a solution for any problem, so I would not say that any of what you said is relevant (at least not in my book), though I admit I might be terribly wrong.

Ever heard of people caught  downloading copyrighted content from P2P networks? Many of them were caught by knowing who IP address belongs to.
Say you are using Verizon as an ISP. Under court order they may have to reveal that on such and such date range certain IP belonged to your account.

A negative against not the usage of BTCs (any currency can be used for anything) but against, say, stashing all your retirement savings into BTC is:

it is well known that more than 50% of the network is in old, dormant coins. Moreover, relatively few entities own the majority of all coins. The trade that is currently going on is just a comparatively pitiful number of BTCs going through a huge number of transactions. Only relatively few number of miners can and will be able to continue to mine, as not everybody can afford ASICs. With increasing difficulty the network is increasingly maintained by a smaller and smaller number of people who have the means that you can't afford.

So, in principle, the BTCs and the network were, are and will effectively be owned and controlled by comparatively few "rich people" or "reserves". You better hope they are benevolent.

Note that I am not saying that it is not the same with fiat anyway. I have already heard the "argument" : if it is a scam I'll rather give it to Satoshi than to Ben Bernanke.

I am just saying that concentration of "power" in a few entities is definitely not a positive, at least not in my book.
 

Thanks for posting the article - I was looking for something really bullish.

The problem is - it does not poke any holes in the BTC.

Anonymity is limited only if you are acting really dumb (or you are extremely unlucky). IP address does not mean anything and can "hide" several thousand people. It only shows who pays the Internet bill.

Claiming that BTC leads to hyperinflation only proves that the authors knows nothing about BTC. If you imagine a gold bars and as you start cutting them into tiny slices, does it mean that it's inflation commodity? Same works for BTC. And it's obvious nonsense.

Claiming that it's problem is because it relies on electricity, Interner and cell phone is also a joke. Which bank doesn't?

Other currencies do exist, yes, but are in similar position as other payments methods apart from PayPal - they are (as Kevin O'Leary says) cockroaches. LTC and all the others are cockroaches as well.

Please do post something that speaks really against usage of BTC. It just sounds too good to be true, unfortunately I can't find anything negative about it.

Thanks!  I wound up posting this response to my blog at http://dataplumber.blogspot.com/2013/03/economists-on-bitcoin-fud-part-two.html

Great analogy.

Why do people concentrate solely on the currency itself?  It'd be absolutely not worth mentioning if not for its backing network.

The true value brought by Bitcoin is not in some imaginary inherent value in the private key that can unlock a transaction, it's in the network backing that transaction.  I don't believe in the value of a given Bitcoin per se, but I do have a lot of confidence in the long-term value of a Bitcoin in its corresponding eponymous network.

In short, neither the Bicoin currency nor the Bitcoin network have any particular value separately, but together they break new ground. 

People who have their attention focused solely on the monetary aspects are understandably confused.  It's like wondering why people think television breaks ground when the audio quality is no better than radio.

Bitcoin doesn't fit with what that guy read in his books, so therefore it can't work. At least he put his money where his mouth is:


http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/7761841-patrik-korda/1616371-bitcoin-bubble-2-0

Why is he trying to force Bitcoin into some old farts classification scheme?   Perhaps the scheme is incomplete?

Nobody ever mentions that money (money subtitutes, tokens, whatever) needs marketing.  Word of mouth is a form of marketing.  Network effects help.  Rising price also helps, we already have two events of that kind:  bitcoin price rises, new people join.

He doesn't mention that since the Bitcoin mining market is a market that is as efficient as any market will ever be, and as a consequence of that, Bitcoin will start with 15 million or so Bitcoins worth of electricity spent (once all 21m are mined.)  The dollar value of that cost depends of the price of bitcoin at the moment when the miner cashed out.

That cost will fall on those that bought the coins on the exchange, and higher the price, more of that cost the buyer will suffer.  How is it that the price of bitcoin is irrelevant, again?

That's what I think when glancing through this article, honestly, from what I read he doesn't seem to be all that against it, but he does seem to have a lot of questions and confusions about it. The people I've seen who are outright against it though are usually against it not because of it threatening what they've invested but because of what Bitcoin actually is. A working example of decentralised money scares the hell out of neo-Keynesians because it directly challenges their own reality and view on how an economy should be run if at all. I suspect seeing Bitcoin grow and over-take their beliefs will cause them to react in ways as if aliens had decided to openly visit the planet.

I suppose it's a bit like if those stupid Christian fanatics ever saw a homosexual couple living happily with children, that sort of thing, people who are rigidly set in their beliefs and/or are old don't like it when their world views get openly challenged with a real life example before their eyes.

Peter Surda has already written a very detailed and good reply back to Patrik Korda's original article.

http://www.economicsofbitcoin.com/2013/03/re-bitcoin-bubble-20-by-patrik-korda.html

http://www.economicsofbitcoin.com/2013/03/the-classification-future-of-bitcoin.html

http://www.economicsofbitcoin.com/2013/03/is-bitcoin-money-substitute.html

Warm Regards

A ponzi has an illusion of production.  Bitcoin makes no such (false) promises.

Personally, I think Bitcoin is a variation on a Ponzi scheme but I do't think this author has written anything that is worthy of consideration.
 
He is so stuck in understanding and explaining his own citations that he can't make up his mind what is he really trying to say.

The comments option for that blog was closed. How convenient. FUD.

We've all seen a thousand articles discrediting bitcoin from misinformed authors or biased ones who clearly have invested heavily in assets that bitcoin threatens, but I came across this one from TheBitcoinChannel which seemed a bit more thought out. It's a long read, but I'm interested in hearing some of the community's opinions on it.

http://bullmarketthinking.com/bitcoin-bubble-2-0-from-a-monetary-standpoint-they-are-on-par-with-the-stuff-you-find-at-chuck-e-cheese/