Topic: Is Bitcoin getting the wrong kind of attention? (Read 1874 times)

So what?

I don't see SilkRoad as a problem.  I have no interest in purchasing drugs from them, but I think it's great that people are able to do so.  The prohibition on drugs is a failed experiment which has resulted in mass incarceration, violence, and death.  If the SilkRoad decreases the harm that the drug war is inflicting on society, I'm all for it.  It also works as a proof that real transactions can take place using Bitcoin.  Honestly, I much prefer stories about the SilkRoad to stories about Bitcoin speculation.

Any currency can be used for illegal activity. I don't understand why the attitude is any different with bitcoin. You can buy credit card details for liberty reserve, does that make liberty reserve evil? You can buy drugs/ccv for western union, moneygram, liberty reserve over the internet. Why does it matter that you can now also do it with btc? That does not condemn the whole currency.

I have to agree with Mr. Anarchist.  MSM coverage is either irrelevant or positive.  Negative reporting on an issue like BTC simply draws more attention from average people who want to see what it's about.

These kind of threads are always a little retarded to me. First off, why should anyone care what kind of attention something gets in the media? What the media peddles is irrelevant, because they are all full of shit. The whole point of bitcoins and cryptoanarchy is to replace them with better alternatives, so the current mainstream media's days are numbered anyway.

You forgot to knock on wood.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/08/16/1241233/australian-watchdog-frets-over-bitcoin-mmos-money-laundering-potential

I fail to see a downside, a massive amount of value that is currently in the bitcoin market comes from people pumping the price up, by getting money for silkroad, if more people begin to use it, and they will, the value can only increase.

I personally don't care if a part of the money in the market was at one time drug money, its not like bitcoins get tainted by people snorting cocaine through them. 

Additionally, at this stage, any attention is positive attention, because the people who would buy anyway wouldn't be scared off by hype. Its just like how I can still buy groceries with dollars, even while dollars are used elsewhere illegally.

Reminds me of back in the mid-90s when people were afraid of the Internet.

I remember this cover back in the day: https://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_ldrqtm2iCf1qapb8bo1_400.jpg
Looks like it was published in 95... I was just a kid playing on the net then and I remember shuddering whenever I saw that cover during the week(s) that it was lying around.

"no"

in australia, bitcoin isnt getting any attention, and i like it that way.

Bitcoin's greatest strength is the fact that it works regardless of whether it's "illegal" or "illegitimate".

It makes no sense to attempt to propagandize Joe Public's opinions on that.

Bitcoin will eventually dominate the marketplace because of it's inherent technical advantage of lower price.

Time is on our side.

Link came up dead. "We've temporarily limited requests for old items."

I think lobbying by banks and transaction services is not impossible.  It's kinda like how UIGEA wasn't really passed because fundamentalists dislike gambling (although they claim to), but because physical casinos could not compete with the online ones. I think you could see something similar here, where a law and order politician demagogues about how terrible Silk Road is--and they are suddenly supported by all the banking lobbyists.

Bitcoin needs to become legitimate before it becomes outlawed. That's my take, and it's why I'm encouraged by real venture capitalists backing bitcoin ventures: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4177605

Frankie,

That was a rather gloomy forecast for BTC but not unwarranted.

If bitcoin grows popular enough for credit card companies and banks to notice they will lobby government to put the lid on BTC. Once they realize that they will not collect on transaction fees, overdraft fees, finance charges, account management fees and ect... They would use the negative aspects of BTC to scare the sheeple and gain their support. We all know that our government (and subsequently our tax dollars) is in the pocket of these institutions so they wouldn't hesitate to drop the hammer.

I feel that the Bitcoin Community would not have the organizational structure or the finances to weather that storm. Maybe if we can get politicians to accept BTC Campaign donations...

 

Early adopters taking the risk of investing their time and fiat when the currency have almost no value and security is unfair?

Maybe early adopters and miners of gold are also unfair?


Price of gold between 1955-2011
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_as_an_investment#Gold_Price_History_1955-2011

Central banks printing and lending money out of thin air thus devaluing your accumulated fiat is more fair?

A peer-to-peer currency distributed via an open source software and mathematical algorithm is unfair?

Botnet might be unfair but the security/anti-virus sector is flawed/unfair and it has nothing to do with BTC. Think about CC and identity theft.

This article is pure media propaganda at his best.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0IJCGuNtqk&feature=channel&list=UL

This is not quite true. Poker is probably not illegal in many states that ban gambling; it's not a banking game, skill has a significant impact, etc. Moreover, poker is not even illegal in all the states. The reason they dropped the hammer on Poker Rooms is the passage of UIGEA, which did make financing poker room illegal, even though the underlying activity was not necessarily illegal.

Can you imagine something similar happening to bitcoin? Yes, easily. Without the ability to get checks, wire transfers, ACH, Dwolla, etc., bitcoin becomes very difficult to use--not just for drug dealers, but for everyone.

Lots of people have said that bitcoin would survive the loss of Silk Road, but I think it depends. If Silk Road is infiltrated by law enforcement and coordinated high-profile arrests made, I think the site might become too scary for customers to use, and that is dries up in the US. In that case, I think Bitcoin survives. But if they go after it with something like and anti-bitcoin UIGEA (call it ABU), I think Bitcoin could honestly die out.

Maybe you think that an ABU would not pass because there are legitimate for it, I say bullocks. Judging by Silk Road and this forum, the top three uses of bitcoin seem to be illegal drugs, gambling, and Ponzi schemes. It's not as if they are commonly accepted on eBay, for example. Bitcoin desperately needs high-profile legitimate uses. Moreover, compared to Poker Rooms, Silk Road (and the Armory) are terrifying to ordinary citizens. Most people didn't see anything wrong with poker, and UIGEA itself probably would not have passed without land-based casinos lobbying for it. It is true a lot of people think pot should be legal, but just the splash screen of Silk Road shows a whole lot more. If a politician demagogues on Silk Road, I bet something even more draconian than UIGEA gets passed, no problem.

But would this destroy bitcoin?  I mean, it would still be tradeable overseas.  I think it does kill bitcoin as a real currency (as opposed to quirky hobby).  We'd see the mother of all bank runs as US bitcoiners cash out. When this happens, not only with the price drop precipitously, but some of the exchanges will not have enough cash on hand and won't be able to cover claims. This will terrify non-US bitcoiners as well, and at the end of the day I think bitcoin is trading in the range of pink sheets, and the exchanges may all be belly-up. It won't make sense to mine, rigs will be sold off, and bitcoin becomes a cute novelty susceptible to attacks--kinda like Litecoin. And unlike bitcoin circa 2010, there isn't much of a chance for it to rise from the ashes--not with an an anti-bitcoin UIGEA in place, stifling the US market.

I'm pro-bitcoin, so I hope (1) flashy legal uses come to fruition quickly, and (2) the Silk Road is seriously compromised by LEO so that it doesn't become an excuse for demagoguery.

Reason #7 is pretty valid IMO...

Sure you can hold, trade and mine them but would you be able to but them anonymously?
Could you maybe have an agreement with someone to buy something through sites like ebay, but receive btc instead of whatever item?

We definitely needs more press on the good side, how about a notable charitable donation made in btc.
Given to a media friendly cause it doesn't have to be a huge amount, just a useful amount.

I dont think BTC is getting *enough* attention to be honest.

I think that would be enough suspicion in most countries to freeze an account. There are however ways to exchange bitcoin anonymously so that a name or history of drug use will never be associated with an account. That's one of the wonderful things about bitcoin