The value of BitCoins will be limited to:
1. The future infrastructure to deal with the massive number of potential transactions.
2. The security of personal computers.
If these two things can be overcome, BitCoins could theoretically replace the current currencies. If not, BitCoin will be relegated to the fringe.
Topic: Mises on BitCoin - page 3. (Read 5906 times)
Myself, I believe the inherent value of gold is the fact that no one can manufacture it out of thin air (yes, they can mine it, but there are significant costs to that), it can be traded anonymously, relatively small amounts of it have a high value (which is due to its scarcity on earth), and it has world wide marketability. It does have some value as a conductor and jewelry, but I believe that is insignificant relative to its value as a money. I believe BTC has these same monetary attributes and hence I believe the view of this poster (that a money needs some tangible asset backing) is incorrect. I am curious what people here think.
Well, I just think exactly the same.
So if the NYT's runs an op-ed about bitcoin and the author estimates more than 10K people using it at any given time period, you when? How could you lose, is there a time limit? Does the Mayberry Register qualify, or TheBlaze.com? I could esimate that more than 10K people have used bitcoins for something since Jan 2009 right now.
10,000 people by 2015.
Myself, I believe the inherent value of gold is the fact that no one can manufacture it out of thin air (yes, they can mine it, but there are significant costs to that), it can be traded anonymously, relatively small amounts of it have a high value (which is due to its scarcity on earth), and it has world wide marketability. It does have some value as a conductor and jewelry, but I believe that is insignificant relative to its value as a money.
This is one of the best descriptions I've ever read about the value of gold as a currency. Thank you.
How is "success" defined for this wager?
10,000 people using it. Media coverage said or perhaps estimate.
So if the NYT's runs an op-ed about bitcoin and the author estimates more than 10K people using it at any given time period, you when? How could you lose, is there a time limit? Does the Mayberry Register qualify, or TheBlaze.com? I could esimate that more than 10K people have used bitcoins for something since Jan 2009 right now.
How is "success" defined for this wager?
10,000 people using it. Media coverage said or perhaps estimate.
How is "success" defined for this wager?
It's a success if kiba can one day sell the $500 worth of BTC that he bought for more than $500.00 :-)
If something doesn't have use value it can't bootstrap to having trade value.
Oh wait, nevermind
Oh wait, nevermind
I made a 500 dollars bet on the success of the bitcoin economy.
How is "success" defined for this wager?
I made a 500 dollars bet on the success of the bitcoin economy.
Someone on the Mises Institute forum had this to say about BitCoin:
"One day, while I was learning about cipherspace, I discovered BitCoin. BitCoin is a completely decentralized, anonymous online monetary system that relies on a distributed database to facilitate transactions. The creator put a great deal of effort into ensuring that the system is secure and reliable. Unfortunately, there are no real assets backing he currency of BitCoin (and no coercive government backing it either). Thus ends BitCoin."
(url to the post is here: http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/9853.aspx)
Myself, I believe the inherent value of gold is the fact that no one can manufacture it out of thin air (yes, they can mine it, but there are significant costs to that), it can be traded anonymously, relatively small amounts of it have a high value (which is due to its scarcity on earth), and it has world wide marketability. It does have some value as a conductor and jewelry, but I believe that is insignificant relative to its value as a money. I believe BTC has these same monetary attributes and hence I believe the view of this poster (that a money needs some tangible asset backing) is incorrect. I am curious what people here think.
"One day, while I was learning about cipherspace, I discovered BitCoin. BitCoin is a completely decentralized, anonymous online monetary system that relies on a distributed database to facilitate transactions. The creator put a great deal of effort into ensuring that the system is secure and reliable. Unfortunately, there are no real assets backing he currency of BitCoin (and no coercive government backing it either). Thus ends BitCoin."
(url to the post is here: http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/9853.aspx)
Myself, I believe the inherent value of gold is the fact that no one can manufacture it out of thin air (yes, they can mine it, but there are significant costs to that), it can be traded anonymously, relatively small amounts of it have a high value (which is due to its scarcity on earth), and it has world wide marketability. It does have some value as a conductor and jewelry, but I believe that is insignificant relative to its value as a money. I believe BTC has these same monetary attributes and hence I believe the view of this poster (that a money needs some tangible asset backing) is incorrect. I am curious what people here think.
Jump to: