Regarding the "No" column, generally I've learned to ignore any criticism that starts with Bitcoin is "illiquid" and "volatile" because these are not properties of Bitcoin itself, but instead properties on how humans currently interact with Bitcoin.
Which is precisely what the author of the "Yes" column said. Just look at the title. 
Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 474. (Read 2032286 times)
full member
Activity: 660
Merit: 101
Colletrix - Bridging the Physical and Virtual Worl
Regarding the "No" column, generally I've learned to ignore any criticism that starts with Bitcoin is "illiquid" and "volatile" because these are not properties of Bitcoin itself, but instead properties on how humans currently interact with Bitcoin.
When any "expert" starts an analysis with these properties, it means that they are focusing not on what Bitcoin is, but on how Bitcoin is used today. This analysis is fundamentally flaws because how we use Bitcoin can and will change over time. The only analysis that matters are ones that instead focus on what Bitcoin is and come to conclusions based on that.
Bitcoin is Bitcoin and has the same properties whether or not our interaction with it creates a liquid market or illiquid market. "Experts" that can't see that I've found never have anything useful to say.
Current volatility and illiquidity are serious problems and they make BTC unusable as a currency RIGHT NOW.
What you are saying is that people should use something that NOW is unusable as a currency (or a store of value for that matter) with the hope that it will get better in the future. That doesn't make sense IMHO.
For volatility and illiquidity do drastically decrease bitcoin needs to be useful as a currency but to be useful as a currency volatility and illiquidity (among other things) need to decrease. Paradox.
The insane volatility is not going away anytime soon.
And you are using the exact same flawed logic to say this.
I never said that people should use bitcoin as a currency NOW (you said that).
I said that to properly guess what the future will look like, it is necessary to look at the innate properties of Bitcoin. Bitcoin's innate properties are what will determine how it is used in the future, not what it's usage pattern looks like today.
Bitcoin is not perfect, and there are issues, but its current usage is a transitory property that can and will change.
Using your logic, in 1985 everyone should have sold MSFT stock because very few people had PCs "right now", but the smart people looked to what the future could look like and determined valuation based on their predictions of a changing future, not what the present looked like. You, like Krugman and all the other "experts", are predicting Bitcoin failure based solely on the present world, not a rapidly changing future world.
Regarding the "No" column, generally I've learned to ignore any criticism that starts with Bitcoin is "illiquid" and "volatile" because these are not properties of Bitcoin itself, but instead properties on how humans currently interact with Bitcoin.
When any "expert" starts an analysis with these properties, it means that they are focusing not on what Bitcoin is, but on how Bitcoin is used today. This analysis is fundamentally flaws because how we use Bitcoin can and will change over time. The only analysis that matters are ones that instead focus on what Bitcoin is and come to conclusions based on that.
Bitcoin is Bitcoin and has the same properties whether or not our interaction with it creates a liquid market or illiquid market. "Experts" that can't see that I've found never have anything useful to say.
Current volatility and illiquidity are serious problems and they make BTC unusable as a currency RIGHT NOW.
What you are saying is that people should use something that NOW is unusable as a currency (or a store of value for that matter) with the hope that it will get better in the future. That doesn't make sense IMHO.
For volatility and illiquidity do drastically decrease bitcoin needs to be useful as a currency but to be useful as a currency volatility and illiquidity (among other things) need to decrease. Paradox.
The insane volatility is not going away anytime soon.
I predict a few big hacks this year and bye bye: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/mar/02/apple-pay-mobile-payment-system-scammers
great article. thanks.
Regarding the "No" column, generally I've learned to ignore any criticism that starts with Bitcoin is "illiquid" and "volatile" because these are not properties of Bitcoin itself, but instead properties on how humans currently interact with Bitcoin.
When any "expert" starts an analysis with these properties, it means that they are focusing not on what Bitcoin is, but on how Bitcoin is used today. This analysis is fundamentally flaws because how we use Bitcoin can and will change over time. The only analysis that matters are ones that instead focus on what Bitcoin is and come to conclusions based on that.
Bitcoin is Bitcoin and has the same properties whether or not our interaction with it creates a liquid market or illiquid market. "Experts" that can't see that I've found never have anything useful to say.
I predict a few big hacks this year and bye bye: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/mar/02/apple-pay-mobile-payment-system-scammers
Gold Collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
And we're just getting started.
And we're just getting started.
-snip-
I could get 4pcs 64GB microSD cards below $100 each two years ago. For the third and last time moores law is about cost per transistor (Which is analogous to cost per flash cell).
the 4 x 64GB would not have the same transistors density (since split into 4 separate sd cards) as the 200GB. ergo moore's law.
nuff said
meh, thats just a brilliant argument.
You are saying 200GB SDcard isnt the result of moore's law because i lack education.
Who the fuck are you to juge?
Moore's law implies increasing transistors density whilst reducing (production) costs.
Its not because you'll pay an extra money as a dumb late consumer downstream that it is not valid.
But whatever i'll leave it to your ego.
since everyone prefers to look at charts that only go up, here's DZZ: back over the top!:
Led by bitfinex. Gotta love shorts rushing to cover. This could get ugly for them.
i love it when shorts gotta chase. squeeze time.
Led by bitfinex. Gotta love shorts rushing to cover. This could get ugly for them.
grinding higher. i love grinding.
and where is the next page?
nice, what page was that?
Finally, this is one more demonstration that proposals to require telecommunications providers and device manufacturers to build law enforcement backdoors in their products are a terrible, terrible idea. As security experts have rightly insisted all along, requiring companies to keep a repository of keys to unlock those backdoors makes the key repository itself a prime target for the most sophisticated attackers—like NSA and GCHQ. It would be both arrogant and foolhardy in the extreme to suppose that only “good” attackers will be successful in these efforts.
http://www.cato.org/blog/how-nsa-stole-keys-phone?utm_content=buffer4a05b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
http://www.cato.org/blog/how-nsa-stole-keys-phone?utm_content=buffer4a05b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Currently, both with sim-cards and one-time-password systems like password generating devices and the google authenticator, the secret must be shared between the card/device and the service provider (telecom/bank).
The time has now come for devices where the user generates the secret, it never leaves the device, and the identification is served by signing a challenge message. For security, the device should have a screen and some minimal input capability. Hey! I just reinvented the Trezor!
Steve Gibson's SQRL project works along this line whereby users login to websites using a private key on their device after being presented a new, freshly generated QR code at each login. it gets rid of the entire username/pwd concept.
I am sure useful devices will arrive on the market the next few months.
Finally, this is one more demonstration that proposals to require telecommunications providers and device manufacturers to build law enforcement backdoors in their products are a terrible, terrible idea. As security experts have rightly insisted all along, requiring companies to keep a repository of keys to unlock those backdoors makes the key repository itself a prime target for the most sophisticated attackers—like NSA and GCHQ. It would be both arrogant and foolhardy in the extreme to suppose that only “good” attackers will be successful in these efforts.
http://www.cato.org/blog/how-nsa-stole-keys-phone?utm_content=buffer4a05b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
http://www.cato.org/blog/how-nsa-stole-keys-phone?utm_content=buffer4a05b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Currently, both with sim-cards and one-time-password systems like password generating devices and the google authenticator, the secret must be shared between the card/device and the service provider (telecom/bank).
The time has now come for devices where the user generates the secret, it never leaves the device, and the identification is served by signing a challenge message. For security, the device should have a screen and some minimal input capability. Hey! I just reinvented the Trezor!
Steve Gibson's SQRL project works along this line whereby users login to websites using a private key on their device after being presented a new, freshly generated QR code at each login. it gets rid of the entire username/pwd concept.
Finally, this is one more demonstration that proposals to require telecommunications providers and device manufacturers to build law enforcement backdoors in their products are a terrible, terrible idea. As security experts have rightly insisted all along, requiring companies to keep a repository of keys to unlock those backdoors makes the key repository itself a prime target for the most sophisticated attackers—like NSA and GCHQ. It would be both arrogant and foolhardy in the extreme to suppose that only “good” attackers will be successful in these efforts.
http://www.cato.org/blog/how-nsa-stole-keys-phone?utm_content=buffer4a05b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
http://www.cato.org/blog/how-nsa-stole-keys-phone?utm_content=buffer4a05b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Currently, both with sim-cards and one-time-password systems like password generating devices and the google authenticator, the secret must be shared between the card/device and the service provider (telecom/bank).
The time has now come for devices where the user generates the secret, it never leaves the device, and the identification is served by signing a challenge message. For security, the device should have a screen and some minimal input capability. Hey! I just reinvented the Trezor!
Jump to: