Topic: Peter Schiff vs. Stefan Molyneux - Gold v. Bitcoin Debate (video) (Read 2362 times)

Peter Schiff has hardcore doubts about Bitcoin and keeps comparing it to gold, which hasn't been money in any form for many decades and stands no chance of being adopted in place of national fiat systems. Also he keeps assessing Bitcoin as an investment commodity, which is like looking at railroads in the 19th century as speculative stocks instead of a great technology to move people and stuff from place to place. I love Peter, but this technophobia on the part of a generation is getting increasingly implausible.

Everyone should listen to this!

Peter Schiff's repeats most all of my points, but he says a gold-backed private bank issued digital currency would be superior. Schiff misses the point that such a private bank issued digital currency isn't decentralized, and thus it is highly vulnerable to government control. Other than that, Schiff and I agree on most of his points, including the coming political threat:

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/11/social-logins-for-government-services.html

Schiff's main flaw is he thinks a backed-currency is better. If I debated him, I would demolish his logic on this point. You can see my upthread comments (I think starting on page 11) on why fractional reserves and gold-backed private bank issued notes was a failure. The intrinsic value of a decentralized currency is that it is a currency (unfortunately Bitcoin isn't). 100% pure physical gold has never been a currency and never will be-- was always either debased by shaving, impurity, or fractional reserves in order to distribute widely as a currency. Refer to my debate with MoonShadow before page 11.

We already demolished the "it is a standard" argument.

Schiff is correct that it is much easier for the government to track on the internet, and anonymity is very, very difficult. That doesn't mean anonymity is impossible. But for example CoinJoin or coin mixers really won't work unless the other people you are mixing with never reveal their identity accidentally any time in the distant future.

It is true that all of us want a better option than fiat currency. We just don't have it yet.

I couldnt stand thro the garbage spew out by Peter after 10min of watching.

The idiot doesnt understand bitcoin, i'm sure he tried to but its hard when hes followed Gold religion.

What if society itself is actually the ideal venus project central computer?   Want a house?  Call a home building expert.  Want food?  Go to restaurant.  Imagine that.  Maybe your central computer can make a burger like five guys, but I doubt it, since the 5 guys would be lounging on the beach all day in the venus project world instead of figuring out how to program a computer to make great burgers.  WE are the experts, so we call on EACHOTHER to do things that we can't do ourselves.  

Unfortunately, we tossed physical slavery a while ago, and slavery to a central computer isn't much better, so the only catch is that you'll have to get off your ass develop some skills of your own, or have someone else support you with their skills.   It all boils down to the fact that life requires work to stay alive, and to suggest that it's anyone's responsibility but your own is to endorse slavery, be it to other humans or a central computer.  

Probably the same as you did, engaging in the eco-genocidal death spiral of capitalism. Because I didn't know any better. I may have to one day. Undoubtedly, but unfortunately no one can survive all on their own.

How did you get the stuff in the first place?  Why did you work to get stuff if you're just going to give it away?  Why not work to find your own food, clothes, and shelter?  Surely there are better hunters, clothes manufacturers, and home builders, but you're free to do it without that "forced voluntary trade" you talk about.   

Actually I would give away my stuff but I cannot because I must pay to live, so I am forced to accept money in trade or die in the streets.

Actually by definition, "voluntary trade" always benefits both parties.  You provide a service that I value more than these bitcoins (which I received for my unique service), and you value these bitcoins more than the time and effort it takes to provide your service.  Win/Win.  Otherwise it would be coercive / involuntary trade - which is what we have today in many areas (healthcare, taxation, subsidies, etc.)

I am forced to engage in "voluntary trade" with others, each of us seeking to gain advantage over the other in order to obtain more than what is being offered by the counter party, a form of mental combat.

well, he did say 'if i could buy bitcoins at $30 like when it was before, i'd do it." which is a stupid point to bring up, since it's complete hindsight. what happened was that he was bearish on BTC when it was $30 or so, and he didn't think it was worth it, but he wouldn't admit that.

Indeed, his bias and butt-hurtedness is glaringly evident.