Topic: Just an Observation (Read 1743 times)

What was that again? What?

Nice handwaving.

And this anonymity is of no real consequence to those who constitute the mainstream which YOU very much need to adopt this, if it is to have any chance at being a long term product. Rattle off all you want Mel-Gibson-Freedom! style, but the fact remains that this pseudo-anonymous characteristic is not just of no interest to the mainstream, but actually a source of worry (Silk Road, etc.). Its no coincidence that Garzik and co. have begun tout the traceability of Bitcoin in their attempts to make nice with the authorities. You are the one missing the point.

I am too tired to address the rest of your posts, but will do so soon. I understand that your championing of.  "the next big thing" has much to do with how emotionally (and financially) invested you are.  I'm just amazed at how far people go to ignore the obvious weaknesses in their master plan.

If you hate on bitcoin so much, why do you hang around here?

Standard rebuttal because it's valid, and it does not presume that Bitcoins will be as successful as cars. The rebuttal is simply drawing a reasonable comparison that all great inventions had massive challenges to overcome, many of which the people of the day said were insurmountable.

The difference between Bitcoin and Bernie Madoff's scam, was that Madoff's scam was a scam, and anyone looking deeply at the records could figure that out. Now, might there be something hiding in the Bitcoin code that we've missed? Sure! But you're presenting problems that are entirely solvable, and basing your conclusion that Bitcoin will fail on those problems. Again, it's like saying we'll never go to space because there's no air.

Bitcoin could fail for a fault in its code. It could fail because the government totally stomps it out. It could fail if a better system came along. It could fail if Austrian economics is completely wrong. However, it will not fail because wallets aren't yet encrypted, nor because Mt. Gox has a hard time handling the present volume of transactions.

Shinobi, how can you not see that it takes but a few skilled entrepreneurs to solve the problems you pose? Already TradeHill was created just a couple weeks ago. Dozens more will pop up. I must ask, were you similarly confounded by the seemingly insurmountable problem of a car's inability to drive in the rain, before the marvelous windshield wiper was invented?



You miss the entire point of Bitcoin. Much of its value is the very fact that there is no central group or organization responsible/liable for it. If GoogleCoin came out tomorrow, I might buy some for speculation, but I would not sell my Bitcoins. The unbranded, decentralized, no-single-point-of-failure-or-arrest that is Bitcoin is the brilliant, revolutionary concept. My goodness, it should not be so hard to grasp.

And lest again I point out the wobbly, full-of-problems "internet" in the early 90's, when the powerful, branded, backed-up America On-Line was available.

This seems to be the standard rebuttal. Anyone who disagrees is either too stupid or too old-fashioned and lacking in enough foresight to see the potential. The primary flaw with this rebuttal is that it presumes that Bitcoin is going to be as successful as the advent of cars. You know, there was someone just like you making the same exact argument to those who doubted the viability and sustainability of Bernie Madoff's 30% returns.

An observation doesn't imply that I'm positing "facts". The very fact that I make a prediction i thought would make it clear.

I only have six posts because Ive spent the most of my time allocated to this project to reading and learning. It quickly became clear to me that Bitcoin operates as a circlejerk, for lack of a better term. Theres no real money being poured in, and think about it, how could there be. The liquidity of Bitcoin (insofar as its exchange to real currency, which is, incidentally, all that us happening since there is no real goods market) is controlled by an exchange with blatant and questionably-fixed security holes and a USD->BTC service that takes DAYS (a WEEK for some) to have cash made available for investment. it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that you guys are spinningvyour wheels.

Given that the proof-of-concept is there for the  world to see (open-source no less), any sincere mainstream interest would involve creating their own equivalent and properly branding it from the get-go. What is the incentive to prop up Bitcoin with it's baggage, then?

Theres nothing wrong with playing around with this for fun, but those of you spending significant sums of time and money on this project are only going to suffer in the end. I applaud and understand your desire to "be a part of something new", but this isn't it.  

don't know shit from Shinobi...

You don't understand, every single feature (such as wallet encryption) must be created immediately, along with all the other aspects of the client, before it even reaches version 0.4. When software isn't 100% complete by the time some people start using it, it is dooooooooomed!

I post here just so I can come back and laugh at the guy when he is wrong. If he is right you won't see me on this forum anymore. Win win for me.

Yes let's compare Bitcoin's security holes to those of the internet itself in the 90's, and still today.

I have an awesome solution for your "game ending security hole" of unencrypted wallets... the solution is to encrypt wallets!

The OP is the same kind of person who would've dismissed the crazy motor car because gasoline explodes. Do you know that in my great grandmother's college science textbook, it told her that man would never venture into space because there was no air?

Give free markets a chance to solve problems and they tend to do so.

That is an opinion, not an observation of fact like the title says. Not that I think I can argue for a more optimistic case very well (still consider myself to be in a relatively early learning phase), but you didn't argue here you just said "I think this" and did not explain how you came to that conclusion.

Maybe your guess will turn out to be right and is in founded in something more solid, or maybe you are just being pessimistic.

I can understand why people might suspect you are a troll though, I mean you only have six posts, why did you join if you think the future for bitcoin is grim or very disappointing? Its unlikely you had a change of heart from six posts ago.

Id say its a valid thesis, now we wait to see how true the opinion may be.

I'm selling some beanie babies, come visit my Geocities!

This is Aol 3.0.

Not going to feed troll.

This topic is closed.

What Bitcoin has been:

1. An incredible, and the most viable, attempt so far, to create an alternative currency (and associated market).
2. The first iteration of what will eventually prove to be a viable digital currency.



What Bitcoin isn't and will never be:

1. A truly viable alternative (much less replacement) to existing currencies.

What Bitcoin will prove to have been:

1. A way in which a few early adopters made significant sums of money at the expense of later buy-ins.
2. An experiment in which more than a few gung-ho anti-establishment types and greedy computer nerds lost a lost of money.
3. The reason for a glut if video cards on eBay being sold at half-price or lower.


While this has been fun, i think its become quite clear that this is a geek obsession and nothing else. Those of you who are trying to "get in on the ground" have already missed the boat for the real profit and are only trying to convince yourself of the longevity of this particular attempt. The game is over, and the security holes (unencrypted wallets, Mt. Gox's absurdities) sealed the deal. There was a small window to get public perception on Bitcoin's side, and that has closed.

Noone real is going to accept Bitcoin, and noone - because of the deflationary promise - is going to spend it either. So continue to enjoy tiny trade volumes and retarded volatility.