* Being a "newbie" (who has been poking around for only three months, instead of all of three years) has its advantages, methinks. It seems that some people got convinced early on of certain "truths" by arguments that seemed strong at the time, but have lost their weight in the last six months.
Lost their weight or merely their popularity?
For example, the "demand/supply formula", by which one used to "prove" that bitcoins will one day be extremely valuable, has been considerably weakened in the last six months by the existence and persistence of other crypto-coins. If one replaces "bitcoin" by "crypto-coin" in the argument, the denominator becomes infinity, and the resulting price is zero.
And if I your kneecaps were replaced by fish, you'd have a hard time standing up as well. It doesn't matter, however, because you stand on kneecaps. There are infintely many Dogecoin. If anything that only increases the value of Bitcoin, as you have to acquire Bitcoin in order to buy Dogecoin. The absurdity of your argument is manifest by its own conclusion: Since there are infinitely many cryptocoins, and this does not in fact render Bitcoin worthless, the argument that the existence of infinitely many cryptocoins renders Bitcoin worthless is a fallacious argument, of no more relevance than the imaginary fish which seek to render you paralegic.
If you are refering to Fisher's quantity theory of money, it is an inescapable law, and remains profoundly compelling. I can't imagine on what basis you could honestly think otherwise, unless you were deluded by an agenda. The bitcoin economy continues to grow, and the value of bitcoin continues to grow with it.
Ditto for the "network effect" and "first-player advantage" that were supposed to prevent the appearance of alternative coins.
Supposed by whom? Clearly these factors do not inhibit the creation of infinitely many worthless coins. Nor do those worthless coins inhibit the aggregation of value to the Bitcoin economy.
Or the myths about crypto-payments being untraceable and impossible for governments to restrict, tax, or regulate.
These are media myths, and have never been promulgated as such by any knowledgable members of bitcoin community, during the history of my involvement. They have little enough bearing on the value of Bitcoin. Indeed the fact that taxes are imposed on fiat is often used as an argument in favor of the value of fiat. (Hopefully we can agree that it is a specious argument.)
Methinks that Silk Road and China disproved those claims in the clearest possible way --- yet there are still people who not only repeat them, but see them as the most important advantages of crypto-coins.
All Silk Road demonstrated was that poor VPN hygiene makes you traceable. All China demonstrated was that communist totalitarian states will repress free enterprise if it threatens their total control over the population.
Although anonymity is not inherent in cryptographic currency, if you use any form of currency suitably, you can transact anonymously. That is a consequence of what we understand by "currency". What crypto adds as currency is the ability to transact instantly anywhere in the world at vanishing cost.
Anonymous transactions will be facilitated by crypto when someone builds a suitable application for that purpose. For now, it's possible but not easy to transact anonymously, and bitcoin doesn't really change the picture relative to paper currency in that regard.
Anonymity is profoundly beneficial to those who need it, and of no import to those who do not. This has always been true in the Bitcoin economy and remains true today.
Another random example of this "newbie's advantage", I think, is being open minded about the role of the Chinese exchanges (and Chinese bank holidays, and, yes, even Chinese sleep hours) in determining the market price of bitcoin -- a possibility that some old-timers apparently won't even discuss, perhaps for sentimental or political reasons.
Let me know when you learn something useful.
And, of course, a newbie who does not own any bitcoins will probably have a more dispassionate view of probabilities and possibilities than an old-timer who invested several years of work in the project, and owns a few thousand coins.
However, we know that you are not dispassionate in the least, as your extensive postings have proven. You have an anti-Bitcoin agenda. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous.
* I am not a libertarian.
So you say. I think you are a libertarian, for your self, and a fascist, for others. I doubt you even understand what "libertarian" means when you attempt to draw a contrast by saying
I do not trust governments, even those that I voted for; but I believe that they are essential, and should be democratized, opened, and held on a short leash, rather than abolished.
because libertarianism does not seek to abolish governments, make them autocratic or closed, or liberate them from restraint.
But, fortunately, I have no fear that bitcoin will do that.
I have hope that when banks and governments collapse in chaos, bitcoin will provide an independent anti-fragile means of promoting trade and well-being in their absence. Indeed I am quite certain that it is an effective safety-net for us all in that regard. Bitcoin may yet save your life. And you will be resentful, I suspect.
...technological solution will be banished...
Not everyone is so stupid as to outlaw fire, the wheel, double-entry accounting, the telephone, the internet, and magnetic recording. You can't stop the signal. Once the idea is out, the technology exists, and those who lever it will always out-compete and destroy those who resist it.
So I see absolutely zero chance that governments and banks will just sit there, sucking their thumbs and whining, while a small ill-coordinated band of nerds robs them of their powers and profits. If that is what bitcoin means to you, prepare to be severely disappointed.
"governments" and "banks" are not malign monolithic conspiracies. They are made of people doing their jobs and pursuing their agendas. Your view is paranoid.
