Comments on: Why bitcoin’s rise is nothing to celebrate A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: relay23 Mon, 08 Apr 2013 03:19:44 +0000 “Banks and central banks are given an important job to do, are regulated and scrutinized, and can be held responsible for their actions.”
Close, the only minor tweaks i would make are that a) they’re not regulated, b) they’re not scrutinized, c) they’re primarily responsible for running our economy into the ground, and d) stealing all of your money. The are not “given a job”, they actually are the driving force behind most policy, which you can hopefully see is quite SHIT nowadays.

Regarding bitcoin being “built on mistrust” you’ve got to be kidding me. You clearly have a lot to learn when it comes to bitcoin. There is a lot of fear in ignorance when it comes to technically challenged individuals. As the revolutionary tidal wave of next generation technology sweeps over the planet many panic and get swept out to sea rather than understand what the situation is and adapt.

By: dWj Sat, 06 Apr 2013 15:32:49 +0000 I think you’ve made some mistakes through taking words and phrases and shifting their meanings slightly as you go along. There is a sense in which bitcoins are built on “mistrust”, just as the medical profession is built on illness. And mistrust is indeed corrosive to the functioning of a society or an economy, at least ceteris paribus. It is more generally the case that society and distributed economies are hurt by a gap between the trust required in their design and the actual trust that people have; indeed, a more trustworthy design is likely, over time, to make people more trusting in general. If people lack trust in the mainstream financial system, making it more trustworthy seems like a positive development.

That said, I don’t anticipate ever holding bitcoins.

By: dvorme Fri, 05 Apr 2013 17:02:56 +0000 I found the chart correlating Twitter volume to Bitcoin value really insightful.

Along these lines, one of the most amazing charts I’ve seen superimposes the popularity of the Beatles on top of the value of the Dow over the same time period. I found the correlation between those two astonishing as well, which also illustrates the following:

Back during the first Bitcoin bubble, I noticed that Bitcoin values were following Elliot Wave patterns.

For those who don’t know Elliot Wave, it’s a form of technical analysis that observes that public mood tends to advance and decline in a very specific mathematical shape.

Financial instruments that are closely correlated to public mood also track that shape.

Right after Bitcoins reversed in the first Bitcoin bubble, I wrote to my Dad, (we were both thinking of speculating in Bitcoins), “Don’t do it, it’s tracking out Elliot Wave impulse waves in the downward direction” because I suspected that true to Elliot Wave theory, all the media attention had created a public mood bubble and that the mood had just begun to decline.

What all this tells me is that Bitcoin is the ultimate fiat currency, and shows it: it has no intrinsic value, just what it’s trusted with, which ultimately boils down to public mood in relation to it. If fiat currency is a good idea or not is a whole ‘nother question. :-)

Lastly, I totally agree with the points in your article that lack of transparency around who is giving money to whom is a *big* problem with Bitcoins.

By: btcamp Fri, 05 Apr 2013 15:10:30 +0000 There’s a recent academic article on the cultural aspects of Bitcoin. It’s available on scribd here:

By: JohnnyBoy42 Fri, 05 Apr 2013 05:52:21 +0000 1. Any basic research into the evolution of currencies like the dollar would show volatility was an integral part of the establishment phases.

2. Isn’t most of our economy based upon ‘intangible value’ anyway?

3. Indirectly, isn’t the fundamental value of bitcoin based upon the cost of the computing power to create it?

4. Aren’t some of our most treasured and fundamental assets ‘deflationary’ too? Like land and houses?

By: dfarago Fri, 05 Apr 2013 03:06:41 +0000 I think I just saw the Achilles heel happening with Bitcoin. Somebody out there is doing some very very strange Bitcoin transactions. Take a look at 229722 for example at block explorer dot com.  With Bitcoin you can have multiple “accounts” debited and credited in a single transaction. So, if you have 500 debits credited to a single credit, you get a very “big” transaction, datawise. In that block 229722 there is a transaction, total value just 3 BTC, that consumes 97.288 KB of data. There is a flurry of similar transactions happening as we speak. What does this mean? Each block has a “soft limit” of 250K of data, and a hard limit of 1 MB. After that, you have to wait for a new block to get “mined”, roughly once every 10 minutes, before there is a “place” to record your transaction. So, it is pretty easy to stuff a block with low value transactions, in other words, create a serious traffic jam. And, every single transaction has to be propagated to everyone’s block chain copy. I think it is game over for Bitcoin.

By: leo499 Thu, 04 Apr 2013 21:38:50 +0000 1) I agree that volatility is a problem. But if it’s really the only problem then this shouldn’t prevent us from looking into other posssible currency solutions like Bitcoin. Just compare it to the time when the first automobiles were built. Complaining about Bitcoint’s current volatility is like saying the first cars ever built were so unreliable that we should have focused on horses and stage coaches instead. If a currency gets used by more and more serious businesses, its volatility will go down as well.

2) How can you trust a bank nowadays, when they are essentially publicly-traded for-profit organizations which are trying to please their shareholders by getting an edge over their competitors – and risk everything while doing so? In this current financial system, no bank is completely “safe”. Either we remove the incentives for banks to go after risky financial investments or we have to live with a financial system of mistrust. Bitcoin is just a technical solution to this systematic problem.

By: trk Thu, 04 Apr 2013 14:06:01 +0000 You say that bitcoin “…would effectively erase the distinction between a commodity and a currency.”

For many years bankers have been saying that money (or Federal Reserve Notes, if you will), IS a commodity.

Do I agree that this is a bad idea? Yes. But it’s no different, in that respect, than the current monetary system…which was a bad idea too.

By: Frwip Wed, 03 Apr 2013 23:44:30 +0000 Trolls? No. Worse. True believers.

By: GRRR Wed, 03 Apr 2013 23:33:39 +0000 The trolls come out, Felix, to defend their dogma. What did you expect?