Pages:
Author

Topic: Peter Thiel on Bitcoin (Read 7864 times)

newbie
Activity: 54
Merit: 0
May 17, 2013, 04:20:23 PM
#51
Mr. Thiel sooner than most.

Prescient comment in light of Peter Thiel's investment in BitPay.

http://www.coindesk.com/peter-thiel-founders-fund-lead-2m-funding-round-in-bitpay/

Is the founder of PayPal bigger than any one of his progeny, or is he just finagling for a board seat at the competition?
hero member
Activity: 836
Merit: 1007
"How do you eat an elephant? One bit at a time..."
May 07, 2012, 11:16:07 AM
#50
legendary
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1021
Democracy is the original 51% attack
April 26, 2012, 07:35:34 PM
#49

What about the jobs lost moving the money around? What about the companies that loose money because they no longer sell armored trucks? I don't really think you gain as much as you say. There no doubt would be some gain, but most of the "gain" is really just moved from somewhere else. You only need to move money around as fast as product is made. anything faster is just convenience for the most part (there is some marginal benefit, but i am not seeing anything as big as you describe.).

There's a story Buffet tells about his visit to china where they are showing him this big civil construction project in progress.  Its a bridge or a canal or something.  Anyhow he points out that they could replace 50 or so of the chinese workers digging wtih shovel with one big earth moving truck and 2 operators.  The chinese dignitary looks at him slanted as if Warren were out of touch, and tells him that in China they have a need to create as many jobs as possible.

Warren replies, if this is all about created work for people then why give them shovels?  Give them spoons.

The point is that doing more with fewer workers raises the standard of living.  The automation of the factory has put so many workers out.  Did you know that GM builds about as many cars as the did in the 80s.  But now they do it with half as many workers.  Cars are now more affordable.  hell they even have all kinds of complex things the cars from the 80s didn't, ubiquitous auto trannies, anti lock breaks, air bags, crumple zones etc.  There are many more parts and much more assembly required.  Yet all the car companies do it with about half the labor the needed a few decades ago.

Never cry for 'lost' jobs when a more efficient and better innovation comes along.  We'd still be living in caves. 

Now to beat the dead horse, what about the mechanized tractor/plow/planter?  Put a lot of farm hands out of work.  But they moved to the cities and took up manufacturing jobs.  coinciding wiht a general rise in the living standard.  Now they have gps guided planters that don't even need a driver.  They put more farm hands out of work.   The benefit is cheaper food.   Who can argue with feeding people for less?

That story is about Milton Friedman, not Warren "I'm a God Damned Socialist" Buffet. Warren would be the one advocating the spoons.
legendary
Activity: 1330
Merit: 1000
April 26, 2012, 03:10:37 PM
#48
Who can argue with feeding people for less?

People who understand the concept of resource depletion.
legendary
Activity: 3598
Merit: 2386
Viva Ut Vivas
April 26, 2012, 01:59:02 PM
#47
Reminds me of an excerpt from the book "Jonathan Gullible (http://www.jonathangullible.com/translations/UK_Comnt040222.pdf)":

"Jonathan looked up and
saw two men dragging a young woman, kicking and yelling, down
the trail. By the time he caught his breath, the trio had disappeared.
Certain that he couldn’t free the woman alone, Jonathan ran back up
the trail looking for help.
A clearing opened and he saw a group of people gathered around
a big tree – beating it with sticks. Jonathan ran up and grabbed the
arm of a man who was obviously the supervisor. “Please sir, help!”
gasped Jonathan. “Two men have captured a woman and she needs
help!”
“Don’t be alarmed,” the man said gruffly. “She’s under arrest.
Forget her and move along, we’ve got work to do.”
“Arrest?” said Jonathan, still huffing. “She didn’t look like, uh,
like a criminal.” Jonathan wondered, if she was guilty, why did
she cry so desperately for help? “Pardon me, sir, but what was her
crime?”
“Huh?” snorted the man with irritation. “Well, if you must know,
she threatened the jobs of everyone working here.”
“She threatened people’s jobs? How did she do that?” asked
Jonathan.
Glaring down at his ignorant questioner, the supervisor motioned
for Jonathan to come over to a tree where workers busily pounded
away at the trunk. Proudly, he said, “We are tree workers. We knock
down trees for wood by beating them with these sticks. Sometimes
a hundred people, working round-the-clock, can knock down a
good-sized tree in less than a month.” The man pursed his lips and
carefully brushed a speck of dirt from the sleeve of his handsomely
cut coat.
He continued, “That Drawbaugh woman came to work this
morning with a sharp piece of metal attached to the end of her stick.
She cut down a tree in less than an hour – all by herself! Think of
it! Such an outrageous threat to our traditional employment had to
be stopped.”
Jonathan’s eyes widened, aghast to hear that this woman was
punished for her creativity. Back home, everyone used axes and
saws for cutting trees. That’s how he got the wood for his own
boat. “But her invention,” exclaimed Jonathan, “allows people of all
sizes and strengths to cut down trees. Won’t that make it faster and
cheaper to get wood and make things?”
“What do you mean?” the man said angrily. “How could anyone
encourage an idea like that? This noble work can’t be done by any
weakling who comes along with some new idea.”
“But sir,” said Jonathan, trying not to offend, “these good tree
workers have talented hands and brains. They could use the time
saved from knocking down trees to do other things. They could
make tables, cabinets, boats, or even houses!”
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
April 26, 2012, 12:04:10 PM
#46

What about the jobs lost moving the money around? What about the companies that loose money because they no longer sell armored trucks? I don't really think you gain as much as you say. There no doubt would be some gain, but most of the "gain" is really just moved from somewhere else. You only need to move money around as fast as product is made. anything faster is just convenience for the most part (there is some marginal benefit, but i am not seeing anything as big as you describe.).

There's a story Buffet tells about his visit to china where they are showing him this big civil construction project in progress.  Its a bridge or a canal or something.  Anyhow he points out that they could replace 50 or so of the chinese workers digging wtih shovel with one big earth moving truck and 2 operators.  The chinese dignitary looks at him slanted as if Warren were out of touch, and tells him that in China they have a need to create as many jobs as possible.

Warren replies, if this is all about created work for people then why give them shovels?  Give them spoons.

The point is that doing more with fewer workers raises the standard of living.  The automation of the factory has put so many workers out.  Did you know that GM builds about as many cars as the did in the 80s.  But now they do it with half as many workers.  Cars are now more affordable.  hell they even have all kinds of complex things the cars from the 80s didn't, ubiquitous auto trannies, anti lock breaks, air bags, crumple zones etc.  There are many more parts and much more assembly required.  Yet all the car companies do it with about half the labor the needed a few decades ago.

Never cry for 'lost' jobs when a more efficient and better innovation comes along.  We'd still be living in caves. 

Now to beat the dead horse, what about the mechanized tractor/plow/planter?  Put a lot of farm hands out of work.  But they moved to the cities and took up manufacturing jobs.  coinciding wiht a general rise in the living standard.  Now they have gps guided planters that don't even need a driver.  They put more farm hands out of work.   The benefit is cheaper food.   Who can argue with feeding people for less?
donator
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1006
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
March 06, 2012, 10:52:52 AM
#45
What about the jobs lost moving the money around? What about the companies that loose money because they no longer sell armored trucks? I don't really think you gain as much as you say. There no doubt would be some gain, but most of the "gain" is really just moved from somewhere else. You only need to move money around as fast as product is made. anything faster is just convenience for the most part (there is some marginal benefit, but i am not seeing anything as big as you describe.).

That labor capital would now be free to do something productive. It's like asking what about the hundreds of farming, or factory assembly jobs that were lost because of tractors and robots? Bitcoin will essentially free up people that used to dig up and fill in holes, and allow them to do something much more productive.
This is true. Where would people find the time for casinos and drug dealers if they were slaving away at jobs? Let's not even talk about the seedier occupations.

Doing accounting for growing businesses and entrepreneurs, security for people and places that actually need it, software development for ideas that manage other things besides currency tracking. You make it sound as if bankers are all just blue collar workers who can only either do bank related jobs, or have to resort to desperate seedy jobs. Where are all the farmers, factory workers, and more recently phone support people who's jobs got outsourced, now? Dealing drugs and gambling? Do you honestly believe that when something disruptive comes around and destroys a certain type of job, that everyone who held that job becomes useless and permanently unemployed?
Run tell dat
legendary
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
March 06, 2012, 10:28:25 AM
#44
What about the jobs lost moving the money around? What about the companies that loose money because they no longer sell armored trucks? I don't really think you gain as much as you say. There no doubt would be some gain, but most of the "gain" is really just moved from somewhere else. You only need to move money around as fast as product is made. anything faster is just convenience for the most part (there is some marginal benefit, but i am not seeing anything as big as you describe.).

That labor capital would now be free to do something productive. It's like asking what about the hundreds of farming, or factory assembly jobs that were lost because of tractors and robots? Bitcoin will essentially free up people that used to dig up and fill in holes, and allow them to do something much more productive.
This is true. Where would people find the time for casinos and drug dealers if they were slaving away at jobs? Let's not even talk about the seedier occupations.

Doing accounting for growing businesses and entrepreneurs, security for people and places that actually need it, software development for ideas that manage other things besides currency tracking. You make it sound as if bankers are all just blue collar workers who can only either do bank related jobs, or have to resort to desperate seedy jobs. Where are all the farmers, factory workers, and more recently phone support people who's jobs got outsourced, now? Dealing drugs and gambling? Do you honestly believe that when something disruptive comes around and destroys a certain type of job, that everyone who held that job becomes useless and permanently unemployed?
donator
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1006
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
March 06, 2012, 01:47:42 AM
#43
What about the jobs lost moving the money around? What about the companies that loose money because they no longer sell armored trucks? I don't really think you gain as much as you say. There no doubt would be some gain, but most of the "gain" is really just moved from somewhere else. You only need to move money around as fast as product is made. anything faster is just convenience for the most part (there is some marginal benefit, but i am not seeing anything as big as you describe.).

That labor capital would now be free to do something productive. It's like asking what about the hundreds of farming, or factory assembly jobs that were lost because of tractors and robots? Bitcoin will essentially free up people that used to dig up and fill in holes, and allow them to do something much more productive.
This is true. Where would people find the time for casinos and drug dealers if they were slaving away at jobs? Let's not even talk about the seedier occupations.
legendary
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
March 06, 2012, 01:14:57 AM
#42
What about the jobs lost moving the money around? What about the companies that loose money because they no longer sell armored trucks? I don't really think you gain as much as you say. There no doubt would be some gain, but most of the "gain" is really just moved from somewhere else. You only need to move money around as fast as product is made. anything faster is just convenience for the most part (there is some marginal benefit, but i am not seeing anything as big as you describe.).

That labor capital would now be free to do something productive. It's like asking what about the hundreds of farming, or factory assembly jobs that were lost because of tractors and robots? Bitcoin will essentially free up people that used to dig up and fill in holes, and allow them to do something much more productive.
sr. member
Activity: 350
Merit: 251
March 05, 2012, 11:05:15 PM
#41
The less you debate about Bitcoin the more gets done > more applications > more users > more profit.

That is great advice. It would really be nice if Bitcoin were a 'silent giant'. The best businesses are those no one even knows exist.

One thing to keep in mind with Bitcoin is that it is a sterile asset, even more so than gold in my opinion, and as such and any increase in the value of bitcoins is a result of wealth that was already produced and stored in some other form being transferred to the holder of the bitcoins. Why even let people know their wealth is being siphoned away as Bitcoin grows?

That's not true. For example we need tons of staff and huge secure buildings and trucks to secure dollar transactions. When we switch to Bitcoin we save are wealthier and more value is stored in Bitcoin than previously was stored in dollars. From a more individual perspective we are wealthier when we move our commerce into the Bitcoin realm because we save tx fees.

Bingo. A bitcoin-based economy moves resources more efficiently, meaning less is lost and more is produced. Thus, humanity itself is wealthier, and if one could do a proper accounting of this phenomenon I'd imagine that wealth gain would be quite extensive.  Compare it to letters and email... society gained massive wealth by utilizing email instead of paper letters.

What about the jobs lost moving the money around? What about the companies that loose money because they no longer sell armored trucks? I don't really think you gain as much as you say. There no doubt would be some gain, but most of the "gain" is really just moved from somewhere else. You only need to move money around as fast as product is made. anything faster is just convenience for the most part (there is some marginal benefit, but i am not seeing anything as big as you describe.).
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
March 05, 2012, 02:02:30 PM
#40

The next time one of you gets an opportunity to explain Bitcoin to Peter Thiel, please give him more of a "big picture" view of things, and don't let him go astray down the primrose path where people still think of Bitcoin and Gold as "one or the other" sort-of-things, when in fact each has unique properties, and its own part to play in a larger, overall vision.


Fellowtraveler - your post regarding gold and bitcoin was one of the best I've seen. Really well stated, and absolutely correct.

Gold and Bitcoin are both valuable due to their specific attributes, some of which are in common and some of which are unique between themselves. Far from being mutually exclusive, they are beautifully complimentary, and anyone who understands the reasons gold is "real" money ought to understand (with a bit of explanation) why Bitcoin is also real money, and vice versa.

yeah, i remember Fellowtraveler making a key argument last Spring on a podcast about the "liquidity" of Bitcoin.  he actually uses the term in an incorrect manner if you're thinking in financial terms but i understood him quite well in meaning that Bitcoin can move around the globe seamlessly and instantaneously without friction.  i like his way of thinking and totally agree.
legendary
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1021
Democracy is the original 51% attack
March 05, 2012, 11:48:39 AM
#39
The less you debate about Bitcoin the more gets done > more applications > more users > more profit.

That is great advice. It would really be nice if Bitcoin were a 'silent giant'. The best businesses are those no one even knows exist.

One thing to keep in mind with Bitcoin is that it is a sterile asset, even more so than gold in my opinion, and as such and any increase in the value of bitcoins is a result of wealth that was already produced and stored in some other form being transferred to the holder of the bitcoins. Why even let people know their wealth is being siphoned away as Bitcoin grows?

That's not true. For example we need tons of staff and huge secure buildings and trucks to secure dollar transactions. When we switch to Bitcoin we save are wealthier and more value is stored in Bitcoin than previously was stored in dollars. From a more individual perspective we are wealthier when we move our commerce into the Bitcoin realm because we save tx fees.

Bingo. A bitcoin-based economy moves resources more efficiently, meaning less is lost and more is produced. Thus, humanity itself is wealthier, and if one could do a proper accounting of this phenomenon I'd imagine that wealth gain would be quite extensive.  Compare it to letters and email... society gained massive wealth by utilizing email instead of paper letters.
legendary
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1015
Strength in numbers
March 05, 2012, 11:20:35 AM
#38
The less you debate about Bitcoin the more gets done > more applications > more users > more profit.

That is great advice. It would really be nice if Bitcoin were a 'silent giant'. The best businesses are those no one even knows exist.

One thing to keep in mind with Bitcoin is that it is a sterile asset, even more so than gold in my opinion, and as such and any increase in the value of bitcoins is a result of wealth that was already produced and stored in some other form being transferred to the holder of the bitcoins. Why even let people know their wealth is being siphoned away as Bitcoin grows?

That's not true. For example we need tons of staff and huge secure buildings and trucks to secure dollar transactions. When we switch to Bitcoin we save are wealthier and more value is stored in Bitcoin than previously was stored in dollars. From a more individual perspective we are wealthier when we move our commerce into the Bitcoin realm because we save tx fees.
legendary
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1021
Democracy is the original 51% attack
March 05, 2012, 11:11:39 AM
#37

The next time one of you gets an opportunity to explain Bitcoin to Peter Thiel, please give him more of a "big picture" view of things, and don't let him go astray down the primrose path where people still think of Bitcoin and Gold as "one or the other" sort-of-things, when in fact each has unique properties, and its own part to play in a larger, overall vision.


Fellowtraveler - your post regarding gold and bitcoin was one of the best I've seen. Really well stated, and absolutely correct.

Gold and Bitcoin are both valuable due to their specific attributes, some of which are in common and some of which are unique between themselves. Far from being mutually exclusive, they are beautifully complimentary, and anyone who understands the reasons gold is "real" money ought to understand (with a bit of explanation) why Bitcoin is also real money, and vice versa.
legendary
Activity: 980
Merit: 1014
March 05, 2012, 10:48:30 AM
#36
  • lots of gold-owners in the crowd
  • "Creating something completely different from scratch is something very hard to do" <- let me quote JFK: "we choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard". and also: dude, we kinda did it already, didn't we?
  • how would this gold-based currency "idea" of yours work online and why are pecunix and e-gold (started early last decade) not reaching the tipping point yet, then?
  • I agree that Thiel did not do his homework on bitcoin.



Yeah, nobody use gold for anything BUT storing it as wealth protection.
donator
Activity: 2772
Merit: 1019
March 05, 2012, 10:36:15 AM
#35
Quote from: Thiel
The challenge with creating alternate currencies is that it's very hard to get the network effect going. My own theory would be: the only kind of place you could create alternate network effect, if you really want to create alternate currency, would be for it to be gold-based. That's something where I think there are enough people that already believe in gold, so you could probably get it to a tipping point. Creating something completely different from scratch is something very hard to do.
I have a lot more thoughts on it, but I think you wanna go with gold. [cheers from the crowd and applause]

Uhuh, ok, some remarks of mine:

  • lots of gold-owners in the crowd
  • "Creating something completely different from scratch is something very hard to do" <- let me quote JFK: "we choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard". and also: dude, we kinda did it already, didn't we?
  • how would this gold-based currency "idea" of yours work online and why are pecunix and e-gold (started early last decade) not reaching the tipping point yet, then?
  • I agree that Thiel did not do his homework on bitcoin.

donator
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1006
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
March 05, 2012, 10:05:54 AM
#34
Really? You think everyone should carry gold coins in their pockets again?

Gold is so 17th Century. Gold coins have been counterfeited since they've been invented and are still today.

Counterfeited gold coins HAVE to be made of gold to a (not small) degree. If not then alloy density will simply mismatch too much. USG scanners show structure of insides; even wolfram based fakes will not pass such a test.

For a comparison, paper currencies are counterfeit to a much higher degree already. And found fake banknotes lose all their value immediately. So gold coin (even when faked) is much safer.
Yet they are often counterfeited even today. Do you expect everyone to own USG scanners?

For a comparison, Bitcoin cannot be faked, even a little. It is much safer.

Much of it can be found at the bottom of the ocean where it was unsuccessfully protected by the ships that carried it.

Even today we have catastrophes of many kinds; people die and/or lose all their wealth. Do you mean that because there is always some kind of risk we should dismiss ways of wealth preservation?

Bitcoin is 100% secure for anyone bothering to encrypt and duplicate their secure wallets. No natural disaster can make you lose them. Only carelessness can destroy bitcoins.

You may assay gold to a point, but you are not assured 100% results.

No - gold as physical element has enough unique properties to be 100% sure it's gold. Unless an assayer is completely incompetent.

What do you call an assayer that graduates at the bottom of his class? An assayer.

Gold is just not a convenient form of exchange. Every time it changes hands there is risk of it being stolen.

Every time you are going to use cash there is chance it may be stolen. Every time you are making credit card transfer there is a chance it may be stolen. Basically every time you are getting out a house you may get robbed, too. So what you really says is that bad accidents do happen? Yes they do - it's just life like it is...
This forum is about Bitcoin. I never said anything about cash or credit cards. Soon we will have Bitcoin based checks and cards. A Bitcoin based instrument not only cannot be used if stolen, but your identity will never be required to be shown for anyone to steal. They will even be safe for children to carry, because m-of-n signature capabilities can keep their parents/guardians in the loop.

Holding gold is nothing more than enabling the irrational behavior it elicits. I just don't see any reason to treasure gold any more than the artwork much of it was melted from. Who knows, maybe guys like Thiel will bring back pirates and highwaymen armed with metal detectors and weapons? Lock your doors and hide your gold well. Or you can always trust the banks to keep it safe, look how well they treated your paper money, after all.

?

Then I don't understand your previous statements... As anything else BTC has it share of associated risks too.

Only carelessness can put Bitcoin at risk. Well, that and the destruction of the internet.
newbie
Activity: 15
Merit: 0
March 05, 2012, 07:47:46 AM
#33
Gold is so 17th Century. Gold coins have been counterfeited since they've been invented and are still today.

Counterfeited gold coins HAVE to be made of gold to a (not small) degree. If not then alloy density will simply mismatch too much. USG scanners show structure of insides; even wolfram based fakes will not pass such a test.

For a comparison, paper currencies are counterfeit to a much higher degree already. And found fake banknotes lose all their value immediately. So gold coin (even when faked) is much safer.

Much of it can be found at the bottom of the ocean where it was unsuccessfully protected by the ships that carried it.

Even today we have catastrophes of many kinds; people die and/or lose all their wealth. Do you mean that because there is always some kind of risk we should dismiss ways of wealth preservation?

You may assay gold to a point, but you are not assured 100% results.

No - gold as physical element has enough unique properties to be 100% sure it's gold. Unless an assayer is completely incompetent.

Gold is just not a convenient form of exchange. Every time it changes hands there is risk of it being stolen.

Every time you are going to use cash there is chance it may be stolen. Every time you are making credit card transfer there is a chance it may be stolen. Basically every time you are getting out a house you may get robbed, too. So what you really says is that bad accidents do happen? Yes they do - it's just life like it is...

Holding gold is nothing more than enabling the irrational behavior it elicits. I just don't see any reason to treasure gold any more than the artwork much of it was melted from. Who knows, maybe guys like Thiel will bring back pirates and highwaymen armed with metal detectors and weapons? Lock your doors and hide your gold well. Or you can always trust the banks to keep it safe, look how well they treated your paper money, after all.

?

Then I don't understand your previous statements... As anything else BTC has it share of associated risks too.
sr. member
Activity: 330
Merit: 397
March 04, 2012, 06:44:41 AM
#32

Soon it becomes very clear that gold was never "declared" to be a form of money by any "authorities" but rather, became money due to natural market forces.

Interestingly enough, this is actually false - gold coins were originally used by kings as a way of forcing their citizens to support local armies by making it the only legal tender for taxation. Genuine decentralized societies tended to use proto-Ripple-style credit systems. Read David Grabeber's Debt: The First 5000 Years.
Pages:
Jump to: