Bitcoin Mention in CNN | Bitcointalksearch.org

hawks5999

full member

Activity: 168

Merit: 100

Quote from: AngelusWebDesign on July 19, 2011, 11:51:13 AM

Quote from: hawks5999 on July 19, 2011, 11:04:40 AM

I primarily disagree with your use of "myself" instead of "me" in the sentence beginning "For all those who disagree with myself,"

It made me forget everything else you had written.

Grin

Come on, you're giving Bitcoiners a reputation for being anal. Wink

Why bother reading this forum then... I'm certainly not the poster with the poorest command of the English language, even among the native speakers.

A bunch of crypto-currency hardware torturing or elliott wave trading geeks anal? Never!

All you're grammar are belong too us.

error

hero member

Activity: 588

Merit: 500

Quote from: Apolo29 on July 19, 2011, 12:31:57 PM

I`d like to know if this is the 10,000 btc pizza guy

It is not.

Apolo29

newbie

Activity: 29

Merit: 0

I`d like to know if this is the 10,000 btc pizza guy

AngelusWebDesign

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Quote from: hawks5999 on July 19, 2011, 11:04:40 AM

I primarily disagree with your use of "myself" instead of "me" in the sentence beginning "For all those who disagree with myself,"

It made me forget everything else you had written.

Grin

Come on, you're giving Bitcoiners a reputation for being anal. Wink

Why bother reading this forum then... I'm certainly not the poster with the poorest command of the English language, even among the native speakers.

LeonGeeste

newbie

Activity: 48

Merit: 0

Good points, but I have to nitpick one thing:

Quote from: MrJoshua on July 18, 2011, 08:13:26 PM

If you hold 1% of Apple, it will always be 1% of apple, even if they issue more stock, ...

If Apple issues more stock, that dilutes your share to less than 1%. The value may not change, though, since they'll usually get money for the new stock, which increases the value of the assets you own a share of, but you will own a smaller fraction of the company.

Generally, owning a number of shares is no guarantee that your percentage ownership will stay constant because of e.g. exercise of stock options, conversion of debt, etc.

hawks5999

full member

Activity: 168

Merit: 100

I primarily disagree with your use of "myself" instead of "me" in the sentence beginning "For all those who disagree with myself,"

It made me forget everything else you had written.

Grin

AngelusWebDesign

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Quote from: noedaRDH on July 18, 2011, 04:50:50 PM

Another biased report; mentions of the word "Ponzi scheme", "illegal activities" and etc without explaining such arguments ("some say...").

Maybe we should all stop using cash? Since cash is probably the most popular method of illegal transactions, ie drug dealing.

The fuction of a currency has nothing to with stopping it from being used for illegal or shameful purposes. As long as people want drugs or porn or whatever else, they will find ways to use any currency as a trading tool, be it cash or Bitcoins or golden nuggets. It's not Bitcoins' job, it's an issue with people.

For every hint of a "pro" Bitcoin argument, they present a dozen useless negative fallacies about Bitcoin. Why don't they mention how Bitcoin cannot be willingly printed at mass out of thin air? The guy from WIRED didn't mention any of the security aspects of Bitcoins and how it cannot be easily counterfeited.

Yes, it looks like only a few people are tuned to how the media works. They throw out little digs, under the guise of "balanced reporting", even if those digs are completely unfounded. "Some say Bitcoin is a scam..a ponzi scheme..." without bothering to say why, or why it isn't.

Do you know the best way to destroy something, media wise (or on a discussion forum)?

A) to be a completely obvious troll, ripping on it for all it's worth
B) pretend to be fair and balanced, admitting some obvious strong points while throwing in a dozen possible bad points, including unfounded charges
C) pretend to be the PRO, while subtly undermining it

With the media, you have to watch a clip and ask yourself, "What do I take away from this video? What general FEELING or impression do I have?"

For this specific video, you might add, "How do I feel about Bitcoin? Would I be likely to go out and get involved?" If not, ask yourself WHY -- what ideas have been planted in your head to lead to that feeling?

And you often times can figure out what the media has just "done".

For all those who disagree with me, and the post I'm quoting --
Think about it. That's all I ask. Think about it.

MrJoshua

member

Activity: 76

Merit: 12

Quote from: CurbsideProphet on July 18, 2011, 10:02:57 PM

Your ownership percentage in a company can absolutely go down. It's called stock dilution.

True, under certain circumstances. I didn't want to complicate the issue. The upshot is is that Bitcoins are even better then stock in that respect.

BusmasterDMA

member

Activity: 118

Merit: 10

Of course it was a fluff piece. Everything on CNN is fluff these days (with the exception Fareed Zakaria). Given the target audience though, I think it was still balanced coverage and overall some good PR for Bitcoin. (I would have expected them to have opted for a more sensationalist story, focusing on black markets and what not.)

And honestly if they had started diving into the more technical benefits, the typical viewer would have tuned out. Instead they showed someone buying lunch with an iPhone, which will appeal to many more people. And the story mentioned how Bitcoin ideologically opposes fiat, which should appeal to any Teapartiers who happen to be watching CNN instead of Fox. Collectively, iPhone owners (and would-be owners) and Teapartiers should easily account for the large majority of the American population.

evoorhees

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1023

Democracy is the original 51% attack

Quote from: error on July 18, 2011, 10:29:37 PM

Quote from: Bitcoin Swami on July 18, 2011, 09:39:17 PM

So it was on tv apparently. The intro was full of wrong infromation but oh well. Here is teh intro.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OcTFOQpz0c

I believe that YouTube channel is owned by Meze Grill's owner. Sure, the intro wasn't so great, though it wasn't THAT wrong.

I liked when he said "the company's valuation is $100m"... like it's a stock or something. It's very hard for people to REALLY get their heads around the idea of a de-centralized currency. It's truly a paradigm shift... and thank goodness it's arrived.

error

hero member

Activity: 588

Merit: 500

Quote from: Bitcoin Swami on July 18, 2011, 09:39:17 PM

So it was on tv apparently. The intro was full of wrong infromation but oh well. Here is teh intro.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OcTFOQpz0c

I believe that YouTube channel is owned by Meze Grill's owner. Sure, the intro wasn't so great, though it wasn't THAT wrong.

CurbsideProphet

hero member

Activity: 672

Merit: 500

Quote from: MrJoshua on July 18, 2011, 08:13:26 PM

In legitimate investments you are buying a percentage of something. If you hold 1% of Apple, it will always be 1% of apple, even if they issue more stock, or split the stock that is already issued. This is not true of ponzi schemes in which the scheme continues to sell shares, the shares have no relationship to a percentage of ownership (even of the scheme itself). With bitcoins what you hold is a fixed percentage of the 21 million bitcoins that will exist. Just like owning stock in a company. What you own will _always_ represent the same percentage, distinctly unlike ponzi schemes, and fiat currencies.

I really want people to understand this point, so that we can kill this ponzi argument once and for all.

Your ownership percentage in a company can absolutely go down. It's called stock dilution.

Bitcoin Swami

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 100

So it was on tv apparently. The intro was full of wrong infromation but oh well. Here is teh intro.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OcTFOQpz0c

MrJoshua

member

Activity: 76

Merit: 12

Quote from: swusc2 on July 18, 2011, 05:30:01 PM

Quote from: Vod on July 18, 2011, 05:26:50 PM

Quote from: swusc2 on July 18, 2011, 05:07:45 PM

b) Money inherently is a Ponzi scheme whether it be Fiat(USD) or pseudo-fiat(Bitcoin). They all derive their value from the # of people willing to use and accept it whether as currency or just a method of wealth storage.

That is not even close to the definition of a Ponzi. A simple definition would be using today's money to pay yesterday's bills. Bitcoin is not a Ponzi, although money (USD) is.

"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors."

Other than the word fraudulent, I stand corrected.

All forms of money are Pyramid based, the value increases as per more investors. If there are less investors the value decreases, the people who most recently invested in it lose money. Whether or not is a "scheme" is a another story.

TO BE CLEAR:
I'm not saying Pyramid based currency is a bad thing. All of them are, some people just associate the Pyramid/Ponzi idea as negative and don't understand what they really mean. The only difference between Bitcoin and a Ponzi Scheme, is intent.

Not to derail the thread but you're missing a key feature that distinguishes ponzi schemes from legitimate investments, and bitcoins. It is more then just intent.

In legitimate investments you are buying a percentage of something. If you hold 1% of Apple, it will always be 1% of apple, even if they issue more stock, or split the stock that is already issued. This is not true of ponzi schemes in which the scheme continues to sell shares, the shares have no relationship to a percentage of ownership (even of the scheme itself). With bitcoins what you hold is a fixed percentage of the 21 million bitcoins that will exist. Just like owning stock in a company. What you own will _always_ represent the same percentage, distinctly unlike ponzi schemes, and fiat currencies.

I really want people to understand this point, so that we can kill this ponzi argument once and for all.

Jered Kenna (TradeHill)

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

Quote from: Timo Y on July 18, 2011, 03:48:00 PM

Quote from: pennytrader on July 18, 2011, 03:41:22 PM

First NPR, now CNN. For some reason, it seems the more exposed we are, the lower price we are headed to

Exposure was bigger in May and June than this month.

In fact, there is a good correlation between Bitcoin popularity and price, as evidenced by google trends and alexa rankings.

Hi ForeverD,

Yeah, the G-trends correlation was really tight.

There has been a slew of papers in the last year showing how Google trends data can be used to anticipate stocks moves. Some researchers from the Central Bank of Chile wrote a paper showing these methods even work in emerging markets where internet saturation is still low.

What have you found?

Thanks,
Adam - Tradehill

enmaku

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 500

Quote from: elk-tamer on July 18, 2011, 06:54:00 PM

Their animated explanation was great. I'm going to use it next time I have to explain the concept to someone.

... it's the "what is bitcoin" video from http://www.weusecoins.com/

elk-tamer

member

Activity: 87

Merit: 10

Their animated explanation was great. I'm going to use it next time I have to explain the concept to someone.

Smalleyster

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

I yam what I yam. - Popeye

Seemed relatively "fair and balanced" to me.

swusc2

sr. member

Activity: 304

Merit: 250

Do your part for Bitcoin!

Quote from: Vod on July 18, 2011, 05:44:29 PM

Quote from: swusc2 on July 18, 2011, 05:30:01 PM

"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors."

"Subsequent" is the key word. Once you stop getting new investors, a Ponzi scheme will collapse, even if every single person in the world has taken part.

Bitcoin is not like that. Once it matures and finds its place, it will not need any new influx of coins or users to keep it running or keep it valued.

Incorrect. A Ponzi scheme does not necessarily collapse without new investors. The value of the investment in a Ponzi scheme does not change as long as the people at the top are not siphoning off value.

Vod

legendary

Activity: 3668

Merit: 3010

Licking my boob since 1970

Quote from: swusc2 on July 18, 2011, 05:30:01 PM

"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors."

"Subsequent" is the key word. Once you stop getting new investors, a Ponzi scheme will collapse, even if every single person in the world has taken part.

Bitcoin is not like that. Once it matures and finds its place, it will not need any new influx of coins or users to keep it running or keep it valued.

Topic: Bitcoin Mention in CNN (Read 6713 times)