Topic: Bitcoin in TIME magazine (Read 1927 times)

Good press (and there is some) would be better obviously, but press can't do long term damage imo. They could write that Satan uses Bitcoin sauce to barbecue kittens and babies, and all that would mean is that people who are afraid of helping Satan cook don't get the advantages until later when it's obvious that Satan uses the dollar as a marinade.

I told my family that they should look into Bitcoin, my brother responded with a Guardian article about how some politician wanted to make Bitcoins illegal and that the value went from $35 to $20 when people found out.

TIME to cancel my subscription...oh, wait - I never had one!

Yeah imo the over-the-top hit pieces are actually a good thing.  People who believe them blindly and dismiss Bitcoin will be even more pissed off when they eventually discover they'd been lied to.

the truth while show given time, in 6 months half the people who were scared by the time article will feel stupid. Had the article been positive we would have a fraction of new users now. Its like the sesame street episode where the banker convinces one of the puppets to store marsh mellows in a bank. err or something like that

I actually find this article offensive; the whole argument of a picking a currency to use as a global reserve uses false premises, and the argument that any currency could be decoupled from an economy makes no sense whatsoever, and the final argument that the example of Bitcoin shows that decoupling currency from an economy does not make it any more stable is just plain riddiculous - the only comparison the hack on Mtgox could claim is when predators speculate on currencies and lower the price many times below it's actual value.

The value of gold is relative to the scarcity/abundancy of it and difficulty/ease of mining it. The whole conception of gold being a "hard asset" is flawed, although the flawed conception is not apparent either in theory or practice today. From the 16th century and onwards, gold primarily facilitated trade. Adam Smith showed that mercantile nations, which hoarded gold instead of freely circulating gold for trade pruposes, restricted trade. The object of political economy thus became to increase exports and restrict foreign goods for home consumption, which increased the gold reserves.

Regarding issuing paper money to facilitate trade, Smith and David Ricardo and others argued that, a paper currency which falls below the value of gold and silver does not sink the value of those metals; they exchange for an equal amount of goods as when paper money was of equal value.

i.e.:

1 oz gold = 1000 USD; 1 oz gold = 100 hours labour; 10 USD = 1 hours labour
1 oz gold = 1200 USD; 1 oz gold = 100 hours labour; 12 USD = 1 hours labour

However, with the decoupling of gold from USD, gold is no longer a facilitator of trade, but instead becomes a goods that falls or rises in value in comparison with USD. If the gold standard was returned macroeconomic stability would be enhanced (well, at least if the US closed its borders, but for the sake of the argument I exclude foreign trade).

The traditional explanation of inflation is when the amount of money put into circulation exceeds the amount of new goods/services in circulation. With a gold standard, inflation is restricted, or almost not possible. However, if government contracts debt of say 200 USD, and the creditor wishes to withdraw the gold, the gold reserve is depleted. The more debt that government contracts, the more the gold reserve is depleted, which was the cause of going of the gold standard.

Now to the title of the article: Bitcoins: Does an Internet Currency Mean the Doom of the Dollar

It could. As the amount of Bitcoins is known a priori, and can be calculated to minute detail at any given moment, Bitcoin could certainly replace dollars, and also replace gold. In fact, I believe it would be better than gold. All other commodities and services would simply adjust, more often lowering in value than increasing, relative to the amount of Bitcoins. The problem with cycles, depression and prosperity, stems largely from hoarding/releasing gold, issuing/contracting USD (through many means), which is hopelessly obfuscated in neo-liberal economics.

+1

Corporations spend huge amounts on advertising and PR for good reason.

This whole thing about all press is good press is nonsense.
The media is scaring the shit out anyone who might even consider using BTC.
How does that look for BTCs user base over the long term......

http://mcat-review.org/exponential-decay-graph.gif


This article was crap anyway, by the end of the article it became a declining dollar article. 
surficial drama reporting, 

this is an uninformed person.

let me fix that:


bank-sucking idiot...

No press is bad press 

Either way you want to look at it, I hope it gets more people involved that didn't know much about bitcoin before.

Not if you read the article lol


Honestly didn't read too bad, but if I had to give it a rating of positive or negative to Bitcoin, I would lean more toward the negative.  At the least I respect it for providing more information than opinion when posing a question to the reader.

http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2011/06/29/bitcoins-does-an-internet-currency-mean-the-doom-of-the-dollar/

could be good press...