the problem is the article is partially correct.
If we continue down this path of stealing, hacking and robbing each other regarding bitcoins, it WILL fail. I spent large amounts of money building flexcoin... I'm betting big that we'll be okay.... but in order for that to happen there cannot be another "150,000 coins stolen / robbed " every 10 minutes....
think about it.
1 - dude saw 25,000 coins vanish from his desktop
2 - Goxed
3 - polish exchange 17,000 coins
4 - mybitcoin 150,000 coins
---- this list goes on....
I understand hackers... but what's happening with most of those cases isn't hackers... it's criminals and thieves... that's not the same thing... not even close.
hacking always meant (at least when I grew up) to try to break something... just to see if you can.... and if it turns out to be a security flaw you told the developer before publishing it.
This? These are people that steal bitcoins and in essence destroying what they are stealing, hence they are idiots.
Picture this... a company builds a program that secures stock transactions on NASDAQ and is listed on the said exchange.... hackers target the company, and hack their software where they "steal a bunch of shares of it" ... then the criminals try to dump it as everyone else is because their "secure" software isn't so secure.
In a nutshell, each time they are stealing it it's destroying the very nature of what makes it appealing... hence destroying it's value.
It's my feeling that these people are not actually motivated by money... they have a goal.. and that includes destroying bitcoins.
I'm going to read the article after I make two comments. Since I opted to quote "the founder", I state my second comment, first.
In a nutshell, each time they are stealing it it's destroying the very nature of what makes it appealing... hence destroying it's value.
Please correct me if my example's incorrect:I'm a modern artist, and my work is highly sought after. To date, I have created 10 pieces of art that had a fairly high and stable value--until a break-in occurred and two of the artworks were destroyed by people who don't like art. Now there are only 8 of my masterpieces in the world and their value went up because there's fewer works of art with my name on them. Granted, I have more art in the pipeline, therefore seeing the value of those remaining 8 pieces of art worth less when my new art enters the marketplace.
In a nutshell, if there's 7 million bitcoins, and 1 million are destroyed, doesn't that increase the value of the other 6 million?
Comment 2 (before I read the article):From Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ForbesForbes.com now employs a new slogan – "Information for the World's Business Leaders". According to Forbes.com, the Web site is among the most trusted resources for senior business executives, providing them the real-time reporting, uncompromising commentary, concise analysis, relevant tools and community they need to succeed at work, profit from investing and have fun with the rewards of winning.
My question(s) (although you may have been expecting a comment): Aren't Forbes articles mainly read by investors seeking out places to invest their money? Aren't Bitcoin now on the radar of even more investors due to this article? Aren't some investors favor a downturn in some investments, seeing a future correction because the fundamentals are sound? (Thank god all my high school English teachers
aren't around
any-more!)
Now, don't bother me while I go and read the article. I sure the hell hope it
aren't long, for I have lots of stuff to do.