Topic: This article is too awesome... Bitcoin FTW at Money2020 (Read 7302 times)

100% agreed

That's good

*This article has been updated to reflect a disputed quote.

No more CP in text, only P.

I thought the reference to CP was the most glaring (and damaging) error in the article. SR does not allow trade in CP. In fact, this is the first reference I've ever seen that btc are being used for CP ... is there any evidence whatsoever to back this statement up?

From What are the Bitcoin market drivers?

Also full of handwaving, but much better quality handwaving than the Shamir-initiated nonsense.


This is factually incorrect.


Calling something "poorly designed" does not make that something poorly designed. On the face it would seem the design is in fact correct, and the whining about it merely a reflection of incompetence/laziness.


If I send myself 5 BTC out of a 25k BTC block you will quite possibly see 25k bitcoins sent in those 24 hours, out of which the transaction was 5 BTC. The vast majority of "bitcoins sent" reflect nothing but the internals of the protocol (which I won't call "poorly designed" because in fact it isn't) and only some very naive noneconomist would seriously propose it as a basis for discussion. Transaction count is in any case a better indication of economic activity in BTC than transaction "volume".

I think the proper statement, "nobody knows for sure what most bitcoins are spent on." Because we don't. Certainly some is spent on gambling, some on drugs, and some on porn. These three together might make up 90%, or 10% of the transactions, but we don't know.

The more important question than "what do people use it for" is "what can people use it for?"  If you talk about what Bitcoin can be used for, then it's far more interesting. Case in point: three years ago, Bitcoin wasn't used for anything, really.... but even then, just as now, what it could be used for was extremely interesting.

Anyone focusing on the present of Bitcoin is missing the point. Bitcoin is developing, quickly, and if you want any reasonable impression of it then you must look to the future, and see where it might be going.

As Wayne Gretzky said regarding his excellent hockey skills, "don't look where the puck is, look where it's going"

If that were just some fringe incidents, okay. But I have got an impression that many in the "community" indeed have irresistible urge to crack such really unhelpful jokes or comments, and are condoned by others. Believe it or not, doing business is best done by well dressed and prepared approach, everyone knows how it goes about first impression. Otherwise, why waste time with them? Showing them we have bigger dick, or such?

Everyone advocating Bitcoin is getting better at PR. Slowly but surely.

I'd rather have more stories like this one than the lack of news we've had in years prior.

The way I see it, there are 3 major differences between Jesse's and Andrew's versions of Jesse's words:
1. Porn vs. CP.
2. Mostly vs. only.
3. Gambling vs. no mention of it.

#1 is important because all 3 uses Jesse mentioned are merely controversial, while CP is universally shocking.
#2 is important because, while the word "only" is of course not to be understood literally, there is a difference between "any other use is unheard of" and "the bulk of activity is these, leaving plenty of room for more legitimate activities".
#3 is important because the inclusion of gambling tilts the scale towards the possible truth of the statement.

It was fairly clear from Andrew's story, and Jesse confirmed, that some humorous effect was intended, which also should be taken into account. The statement may or may not be true, and I wouldn't be happy about it being true, but it's a reasonable way to lampshade Bitcoin's negative portrayal in popular media. It's not the first thing I would say about Bitcoin, but to each his own methods .

Bitcoins sent alone is meaningless.  You're right.  There is no clear, undisputed, conclusive, all-encompassing, recent, peer reviewed academic research that I am aware of that corroborates that statement.  It's not plain fiction.. let's just say based on a true story.  I've been around Bitcoin long enough to make not an entirely incompetent guess, based on my observations of various Bitcoin marketplaces, conversations with people who use Bitcoin and operate Bitcoin-related businesses, etc.  So, yes, the evidence is largely anecdotal, based on my own experience, and based on the undeniable fact that at one point in Bitcoin's history the statement was true, and no sufficient evidence has been presented that would make me think things have changed.

I am always clear that we don't really know who is using Bitcoin for what, how much is changing hands, how many people have a Bitcoin wallet, etc.  All we've got are best guesses and my best guess is that those 3 activities combined make up at least 50% of all the Bitcoin that changes hands for non-investment purposes today.  Whether that is remarkable is another question entirely.  It might be that all cash USD used for purchases in the US shares this distribution.  Maybe it should be expected given that the advantage of Bitcoin in those markets is most obvious, and that consumers/merchants in those markets are rather innovative, forward thinking and used to dealing with hassles.

Yes do more of the dirty work so the rest of us can post on this forum and say "good job".

lol 

SatoshiDICE exceeds 50% of block chain transactions currently, but transaction count is not relevant to any economist.  Consider, you can have 100,000 SD gamblers each betting 0.01 BTC daily, and nobody would claim that such gambling represents a large part of the economy.  Large transaction count just reflects on a poorly designed solution that spams the block chain with "dust spam" for each losing SD bet.

The number of bitcoins sent in the past 24 hours is 1,162,027 BTC (bitcoinwatch.com), including change.
The average daily SatoshiDICE BTC-in is less than 8,000 BTC (dooglus).  Double that for conservative BTC-out.


You have dodged the question.  On what evidence?

If you are making the claim "the majority of bitcoin business is drugs, porn and gambling" the burden of proof is on you.  Lacking actual evidence, it is inadvisable and bad PR to make claims based solely on anecdotes.

Nothing personal.  I asked the same question when people went around claiming that "speculation is the majority of bitcoin usage."  Absent evidence, it is just a pleasant fiction that sounds good to you.


If you did not say CP, then I retract the ad hominem attack, and stand corrected on that point.

Charlie you and Eric and Roger and the guys on the dev team do a great job ( most of the time).  But there needs to be a concerted effort to educate the community about how to position bitcoin. And these talking points can be used regardless of whether someone is speaking on a panel, being interviewed by a journalist or just chatting with friends over cocktails. And the bitcoin PR page on the wiki is a great start!  
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Public_relations

1.  So what's the measure?  # of transactions or value transferred?  Maybe it's no longer the case that these types of exchanges make up the majority of Bitcoin transactions and/or value exchanges.  If you've got evidence that there has been a significant shift in market distribution, I'm all ears.  For the time being, it's my best educated guess based on all the available information.  I'd love to be able cite some proof to the contrary.

2.  I said what I said I said.


Now I'm sure you're trolling.

From what I've read about the comments in the genesis block about QE2, a statement like to these guys may have come from Satoshi himself.  Kudos, Mr. Powell - I say well done!  

Yes you can control the facts. The bitcoin community must understand this and maneuver with this in mind. Or else bitcoin gets played just like OWS.

1) Evidence?  SatoshiDICE transaction may consume 50%+ of the blockchain, but the value transferred is quite small, certainly nowhere near 50%.  The few Silk Road studies attempted were full of easily disproven hand-waving, and the media reports written based on those studies even more inaccurate.  The revised version of Adi Shamir's paper even seems to contradict this.

2) Every recent reply seems to be dancing around this, so, to be clear, did you say "child porn" or just "porn"?

I think we do a pretty good job.

Sure, there are some bad moments, but overall Bitcoin is making great progress.

I can't control the facts.  This journalist who I invited to dinner ended up writing a very positive story about Bitcoin, didn't he?  A bunch of dudes from the IFC now have a very positive view and strong understanding of Bitcoin that they didn't have before, don't they?  When is the Bitcoin community going to get a clue indeed.  I almost forgot why I don't keep up with these forums anymore.

When is the Bitcoin community going to get a CLUE about how to handle professional pr and journalists??  Every shop fucking ends up needing a crisis management team.  WTF.