Bitcoin Forum

Despite some recent good news (WordPress (http://en.blog.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/pay-another-way-bitcoin/)), the strong recovery and relative stabilization of market prices the past few weeks, and the flood of publicity surrounding the block reward halving today, I became somewhat depressed as I read through the load of comments on Slashdot's story covering the halving (http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/11/25/2124236/bitcoin-mining-reward-about-to-halve), which I found to be overwhelmingly negative and misinformed.

We all know that Slashdot is an old, washed up bunch of geeks, but this should really be an ideal community of potential early Bitcoin adopters.  If they still aren't "getting it" (despite all the positives coming out recently) what does that say about the rest of the world?

It got me thinking that here we are, almost four years into Bitcoin's working life (where it's been widely known for at least two years) and I cannot think of any respected, intelligent, or highly-regarded public figure who has come out speaking positively about Bitcoin.

The entirety of its success seems to be driven by grass-roots, community-driven users, without any real intellectual "big shots" coming out in favor of it.  In fact, the few who have spoken publicly about it seem to be unanimously negative.

Most here will remember that some of our "highly esteemed" Senators think it's just a system for money laundering and drug dealers (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/08/us-financial-bitcoins-idUSTRE7573T320110608).  And that a highly-regarded (though polarizing) Nobel Prize-winning economist thinks it's essentially worthless (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/07/golden-cyberfetters/).

It seems Bitcoin has gained the most traction among the Libertarian, gold-bug, and "collapse-minded" communities, which makes some sense from their perspectives, but these are generally fringe groups that unfortunately do not (yet?) really represent mainstream thought.  There's also been some college professors of cryptography or digital payments who have spoken positively, but not exactly household names.

I am old enough to have been around when Internet email first became widely used, when the WWW itself transformed publishing, and when MP3s revolutionized the music industry, and I don't recall any of this massive negativity around when these transformational technologies came out.  So what's the deal with Bitcoin?

I know the underlying concepts are complex, and that money plays a special role in our collective psyche, but why hasn't a Bill Gates, or a Larry Page, or a Warren Buffett, or a Jeff Bezos, or an executive at Goldman Sachs, or some other Nobel Prize-winning economist come out and said that Bitcoin is a brilliant and well-implemented idea that will change our world for the better?  These are all smart, successful, and open-minded people, could it really be that none have yet seen the light?


So I thought it might be interesting to get a thread going here to see who is the biggest, widely-known intellectual "big shot" to have spoken positively in public about Bitcoin.  I've got nothing.  What can you come up with?

At the same time maybe we can list some big shots who have spoken negatively about it and will look like dummies when Bitcoin does transform the world.  Paul Krugman tops my list there.

-1 Jimmy Wales.

although i don't know that he's said anything about it directly.

When first money forms emerged, was it really necessary that some one famous endorsed them?

They were just used by small groups in the beggining and based on experience more people made thier choice.

The grass roots movement and pieceful voluntarie adoption what makes real change.

I think everything is just fine.

Bitcoin is working as expected. A mass of people will slowly accept it in silence. As happened with the credit card system or the peer to peer users. Don't expect huge known figures jumping in and broadcasting their Bitcoin affinity. That is not going to happen because Bitcoin is the revolution in the economy, and the true revolution will not be televised.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS3QOtbW4m0

It' s really unlikely that some big name of economy will speak positevely of bitcoins, at least at this point: for bankers a widely spread bitcoin can be a potential risk, for old school economist is a concept too far from their minds to even accept the fact that is possible.
For the "normal" people understand the point of strenght of bitcoin is not easy, all what they see is a money that you've to buy like a foreign  currency at a premium to buy things that you can already buy with your currency. Unless we can build a stronger market of products and services that can be traded in bitcoin, the use will be limited to who as understood the power of bitcoin.

Aside from this in Europe someone has alredy write interesting articles on bitcoin, for example there is this one (in Italian):http://gnosis.aisi.gov.it/gnosis/Rivista31.nsf/ServNavig/11#(5 (http://gnosis.aisi.gov.it/gnosis/Rivista31.nsf/ServNavig/11#(5)

The author is Teti the responsible for computer technical support of the Directorate General of University of Chieti-Pescara where he is also a teacher. It is Honorary President of the Italian Society of Information Sciences and Technology (SISIT). Professional Member of the American Association for Computing Machinery and of the New York Academy of Sciences, and the article was writed for the AISI magazine (AISI is the Italian domestic intelligence agency)

That Nobel Prize in Economics you talk about... it doesn't exist.

At some upper levels:

Federal Reserve economist David Barker discusses Bitcon with Jon Stossel:
 - http://patriotpost.us/opinion/13107
 - http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1484348139001


Larry Summers discusses Bitcoin:
 - http://www.technologyreview.com/news/427348/larry-summers-and-the-technology-of-money/


"Bitcoin ... Might work in Iran (funny quip by Citi CTO with SWIFT in the panel) #futureofmoney"
  (Yobie Benjamin, Global Chief Technology Officer of Citigroup)
 - https://twitter.com/leimer/status/194573328298676225
  


Because instead of trying to figure out the path of least resistance to allow money to be moved by the "unbanked", he is instead worrying about:


 - http://www.nfcmobilemoneysummit.com/conference/mmuleadershipforum.php

They are intrigued ... and probably drunk on Billy G's generous bar tab.  Oh, don't worry -- there's no talk of bitcoin there.  Why?




Well, he's probably getting the same advice his Chairman got:


 - http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9225033/_Google_Bucks_Never_Paid_Off_Schmidt_Recalls

And since Google would rather have you store USDs in your Google Wallet than BTCs, he's probably not going to be touting Bitcoin's advantages.



Warren agrees with Berkshire partner Charlie Munger ... "I don't invest in what I don't understand".



He is invested in Remitly (called Beamit at the time), a service that uses ACH rails in the U.S. and pays out through mobile phone payment services in the Philippines.
 - http://www.chubbybrain.com/companies/beamit#axzz2Db7oCYMK
 - http://finsphere.com/company/vision  (using your mobile as identity)

Again, since Bitcoin is a competitor I can't imagine Bezos touting its benefits.



They're already on it (for personal / side pocket investment)
 - http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/01/traders-bitcoin-idUSL6E8ET5K620120401



Present and accounted for:
Max Keiser, Adam Kokesh, are of course big fans and others like James Turk is at least receptive to Bitcoin.

But then there is:

Chris Larsen (Prosper.com) - I don't know what he has said in public about Bitcoin, but as CEO of Ripple.com I'm guessing he's a fan.
 - https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/rippleusers/IVin3Qwrp7k (https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/rippleusers/IVin3Qwrp7k)

Fred Wilson gave 500 BTC to the Bitcoin Foundation.  That's says as much as getting "spoken positively in public".  You don't get much bigger of big hitters in the startup / VC world.

So sorry, you are absolutely correct, I meant the "The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, commonly referred to as the Nobel Prize in Economics, but officially the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel".

Thank you so much.

https://www.quora.com/Jimmy-Wales-1/What-does-Jimmy-Wales-think-about-Bitcoin

I think this quote from Jimmy Wales makes sense, and reflects my own sentiments pretty well.  Bitcoin is not particularly user-friendly, although I think that can and will change.

However, there are many other reasons for being sceptical about Bitcoins long-term survival.  Personally, I think Bitcoin is a great idea, but its odds of long-term survival are not too good.  Until then, I will use bitcoins, partly because it is too great a concept to stay away from, partly because if all of us being sceptical abandon it then the odds of success will be even lower.

So, lets all hope that I am wrong :)  Time will show.

With regards to economics.

Part of the problem here is that bitcoin has tried to hitch itself to Austrian economics. This is a public relations nightmare. It is the intellectual equivalent of bitcoin hitching itself to Silk Road, money laundering, and terrorism. Austrian Economists are pariahs in the economics world. You cannot first say we are drug-selling, money laundering terrorists, and then expect your listener to evaluate you without bias. It is not realistic. Bitcoin does not need to identify as Austrian. It is a choice.

Part of the problem is that bitcoin crosses two disciplines of economics: Monetary Economics and Mechanism Design.

People have tried to get monetary economists to comment about bitcoin as a monetary system. However, monetary economists lack the expertise to evaluate the security of bitcoin. Why should they trust bitcoin as safe? Just because it has not been hacked yet? That is weak. How do they evaluate this?

There is a comment by Barry Eichengreen that is illustrative.


Key Points:
a) Bitcoin is useless if it isn't secure. [This is true. But of course, Barry has no expertise to evaluate this. Nor does he understand what a P2P system is. Why would he? He is making a pretty good point which explains why bitcoin is not popular outside of the nerd community.]
b) If bitcoin succeeds why couldn't an improved clone of bitcoin succeed. If so why would bitcoin have value. [This seems valid to me. Bitcoin would be worth more if the field was closed to future competitors.]

What about the mechanism design people? No one has asked them about bitcoin or even brought it to their attention.

Mechanism Design is the specialty of economics that designs incentive systems to elicit truth-telling. A mechanism has two properties:
a) conditional on participation, people must weakly gain from telling the truth. [in bitcoin's context, double-spending is the relevant lie]
b) how much people gain from participation; this has to be greater than 0. [in bitcoin's context, how beneficial is our system once we make sure (a) is satisfied]

A typical mechanism design question is as follows:
Can we get (a) to hold without requiring an external input of resources? If so, then this usually maximizes gains from participation.
(The bitcoin analogy is: Can bitcoin work without PoW? If not, what is the minimum PoW required?
You would do this through clever redistribution of the gains from participation. i.e. through PoS)

Bitcoin is much more interesting as a mechanism than as a currency. Ultimately, the monetary questions depend on the answers to the mechanism questions. People should really be asking the mechanism design guys to comment, not the monetary economists.

Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody.  Are afraid of something.  They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.

+n, n->∞

Big Shots talking in favor of Bitcoin... sorry guys - not gonna happen too often.

Just about every big name in any field is a big name because they are part of the system that Bitcoin undermines in many ways. How can you expect these people to support something which conflicts with everything they think about the world?

A money system without banks or government. Come on - what successful big whig is going to believe in something as anti-establishment as that. I think it's great, but my persona, my image on the world stage, doesn't depend on being held in high regard by peers.

All of these people, even the ones who are thought of as radical, are fully embedded in a world view that favours the status quo. All of them think that credit cards are great, even ideal - just superb examples of capitalism at work.

Only the fringe is going to sense the possibility that Bitcoin could change the world and act on it. The big names would be too worried about being wrong.

I think this is all ok. Bitcoin needs to grow from the grassroots up until it has subverted every smug know-it-all big name such that one day when things are falling off the hinges and they look around they're going to desperately reach out and use Bitcoin because they have no other choice. You cannot fight overwhelming power with direct assault - you have to infiltrate and quietly weaken the pillars and let it fall from within.

Strong Recovery? Stabalisation?....... HAH!!...... AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!

*immediately buys silver investment bars*

This is how the mainstream media were covering the internet in 1995 - over a decade since it first started to take off, and several years after the invention of the web.

http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1995/1101950703_400.jpg

These things take time. And don't knock Slashdot. It's just a microcosm of what the technical world are thinking. Many of us came here after reading about Bitcoin on Slashdot. Well, actually I was talking to Satoshi in early 2009 but I left because nothing was happening. I came back after seeing a Slashdot comment mentioning it and I was like, huh, Bitcoin is still around and got some users?

Don't expect mainstream economists to come out in favor of Bitcoin any time soon. There are very few professional economists and they mostly are either academics, or work for central banks. Bitcoin would, if it became wildly successful, essentially delete the whole concept of monetary policy and thus the justification for central banks existing.

Despite that, a few economists do have open minds and don't mind researching radical ideas. Look at the recent IMF paper on full reserve banking for an example.

The discussions around Bitcoin will become easier as we build innovative and unique applications on top of it to do things you can't do with existing technologies. That's why I've spent so  much time on research and gave a talk on my findings in London. By building apps that do things like using micropayments, we can help people understand that Bitcoin is more than "what we have now, but with less regulation".

The same things that bother you are what get me excited.  I love the fact that the big money is going to be late to this party.  I would much rather see it come to pass that many people of modest means build their own economy without their participation.  When we talk to potential investors in BitPay, many of them ask what were doing about consumer adoption.  They've heard pitches for all kinds of digital currency "schemes" (to quote the ECB) over the last ~15 years.  They always cite the problems getting end users to adopt Bitcoin (they don't grasp what makes Bitcoin fundamentally different than the many prior attempts at virtual currencies).  We usually say that we're doing little to nothing about end user adoption.  In reality, as much as people deride speculation and day trading, the candlestick chart of the Bitcoin exchange price will do more to drive end user adoption than any brow beating of this or that company (that will only make them more resentful).  Jeff Bezos was asked the very same questions about end user adoption of the Internet in the early days of Amazon.com.  Jeff Bezos never worried about signing people up for the Internet.  I once heard Bitcoin described as the most asymmetrical trade of a lifetime, and I agree.  

I agree.  I also think it's in bitcoin's best interest (overall) to develop into something robust just under the radar.  Eventually it will become something that regulators, governments, intellectuals and central bankers can't dismiss as folly.  I pray it's mature enough to withstand whatever happens when they come to the realization this is for real.  I'm not sure we're there yet.

I think their questions about end user adoption are reasonable, actually.

Yes, we all know what makes Bitcoin different to other e-currencies that were tried. However, from the perspective of the man on the street, why is Bitcoin a better way to buy things than using his credit card?

Virtually all attempts to fix payments on the internet have failed at this stage, because they couldn't come up with a compelling value proposition (for users who have cards already). From the perspective of Peter Punter, credit cards are easy to use (just type in some stuff that's written down for him on a wallet-size piece of plastic), provide brainless consumer protection, are accepted everywhere, require no setup (he got one when he opened a bank account years ago), automatically give you itemized statements and hey - they even let him spend money he didn't earn yet! Some credit card schemes go even further and give you rewards for using them, like points or air miles.

From a users perspective, credit cards are pretty great. All the nasty parts of the system get pushed off onto merchants. Fees? Hidden in the prices. Payment fraud? Hidden in the prices. Card payments only really start to suck hard once you try to sell things with them. Most people who earn a salary buy way more often than they sell, so they don't care abut that.

Fortunately, payment cards don't serve everyone. But then again, not everyone can easily get bitcoins either. So right now it's a wash.

User adoption of Bitcoin is growing, but we have to remember that there are many systems that grew and grew and looked really successful, got lots of press coverage etc ... until they saturated their niche, then they never grew again. Second Life? Desktop Linux? PGP? Bitcoin could easily be added to that list.

What's more, if Bitcoin started to become really successful, it'd kick its competitors into life - Visa, MasterCard, the banks, might actually start innovating again and building systems that match Bitcoins strengths.

All these factors don't mean Bitcoin will fail, far from it. Just look at the web vs AOL. But it's not guaranteed to succeed either. Again, I think we can massively increase the chances of success by simply creating new markets that don't currently exist and then dominating those - micropayments are an obvious example but there are others.

Yes, they are reasonable questions, it's just that from their perspective they can't distinguish Bitcoin from any of the dozen other virtual currency schemes.  (all the points you make about ease of use are valid, but I don't see any of them as any great challenge...just work)

Wow, what a surprise. Teemu is actually working in the same coworking-space as me, and I have been promoting bitcoin for some time here to Finnish startups. And I guess one bitcoin startup he has been following is ours :)

Does gold needs big shots in its favor to be valuable? No. Everyone can insult gold as he want, say that it's a scam and whatelse. Guess what? It doesn't matter, gold will still be gold and will still be valuable.

Same for bitcoin.

I'm also liking this.  It reminds me of another fledgling project I've been involved with coming up five years now where those involved are asked not to involve the media, not to show its benefits to celebrities or do anything else that might draw too much attention too soon.  For both Bitcoin and this other project the longer we can give ourselves to keeping steady and manageable growth via word-of-mouth, to fine-tune the technology and to prepare for a rapid escalation, the higher the chances if and when the tsunami of interest happens that they will, rather than getting crushed by the wave, be able to ride it to a brighter future :)

It's tempting, more for Bitcoin in my case than the other, to think if it doesn't happen fairly quickly it won't happen at all and therefore I'm itching to promote it but maybe accepting it might/it might not and playing the long game is the way?

     There is no incentive for users to educate themselves about Bitcoin =>
=> If there is no customers then there is no incentive for merchants to start accepting Bitcoin =>
=> There is no attractive deals to make by using Bitcoin =>
=> There is no incentive for users to educate themselves about Bitcoin

This is the famous chicken and egg problem of Bitcoin, if any of those three statements is not true then the problem solved.

• OP talks about the first part, educating users through a very well known public figure.
• Steve from BitPay is working on the second part, approaching merchants to convince them to start accepting bitcoins.
• Mike Hearn is working on third part, e.g. micropayments because it might create attractive deals for users. For example, I think that paying for wireless or additional TOR bandwidth with bitcoins is the killer application. Btw, does anyone know why there is no Digital Silk Road that lists goods such as music and movies?

My point is that everyone is actually trying to solve the same problem, just from a different angle.

BitInstant is also working on educating users because then users become their customers.

Maybe BitPay and BitInstant can join forces, find a target group of users who would benefit from making transactions with bitcoins and also convince merchants who sells what this specific customers need to accept bitcoins. There has to be an intersection between people who acquire bitcoins through BitInstant to buy certain goods and merchants who sells those goods and could be convinced by BitPay to start accepting bitcoins.

Back in 1994 Bezos was just some entrepreneur who spotted an opportunity involving using a revolutionary technology (web) to compete against an existing business (selling books).  Eighteen years later he's a "big shot".  (well, technically he ended up an Internet big shot in less than just eighteen months, but that's beside the point).

So in 2012 we have entrepreneur Jeremias Kangas who spotted an opportunity involving using a revolutionary technology (Bitcoin) to compete against an existing business (local money exchange).  His LocalBitcoins.com is now the most widely used platform for discovering someone local who will buy bitcoin from you or sell bitcoins to you, and serves as a transactional system with a novel approach that facilitates that exchange well (release coins via a SMS/text message).

The next "big shots" are possibly in our midst.

Because they are all lived under the umbrella of USD for whole their life

IMO, BTC has the potential to replace those swiss banks, where people store their wealth anonymously, this need is always there

I think that most "big shots" will not comment on bitcoin because it is something they cannot control, did not create, or simply just fear.

Call it stating the obvious if it pleases you, but the whole thread presumes that people in the Bitcoin community from now or later will not become "big shots" themselves. For something to become "big", "big shot" endorsement is not a requirement. No one says it doesn't help, but intrinsic qualities shine through no matter what.

My biggest doubt about bitcoins is due to their savagely hard deflationist nature: going on, spending and especially investing will be reduced at a minimum if at all, while their fiat price will swing between speculative booms and reality-based crashes, but ultimately is going to crash and stay crashed, since if everybody hoards them (because is definitely the most profitable thing to do with them), there will be no much real economy around them apart from the drug market.

Over time the price will stay relatively constant, or rise only slowly. Even when the price was doubling every week last year there were plenty of people willing to spend their bitcoins.


Could you tell us what this other project you are involved in is?


You could use bitcointorrentz.com to get music and movies. Sometimes books, music and movies can be found on bitmit.net. There is also CoinDL.com for that sort of thing as well.

Many big shots only became big shots because they were able to borrow vast sums of money from the banking system at better rates than their competition.

Dogs don't bite the hand that feeds them. Don't expect any big business to endorse Bitcoin any time soon.

can give me an example?

In 1994, John Forbes Nash, Jr. received the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (along with John Harsanyi and Reinhard Selten).

Macacos me mordam...!

every bank that goes to the Feds discount window to borrow at 0%.  can you?

I guess I don't understand...
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1974/

To a large degree it is stupid.

People are becoming more comfortable being digital narcissists.

If this becomes a world where all remaining time outside of obligatory commitments, e.g. work, is spent on a smart phone (especially, since smart phones are less productive) and computers I am instagibbing myself.

"Instagibbing" - what is that?

Google is your friend. Hell, even wikipedia.
The economics Nobel prize never existed until the Swedish central bank created it and "attached" it to the Noble prizes.
Not really wanting to write myself what you can find easily with a google search. Yes, I'm that lazy...

Donald Trump. From his Wikipedia page


If bankers hadn't fallen for his bullshit Trump would have been just another builder with dreams and big ideas.

IPOs are usually handled by investment banks. So anyone who was looking for public money to fund company expansion certainly is tied into this system of raising capital. Even if they weren't there at the IPO the big shots almost always have nice option packages as reward. I could easily see open support of Bitcoin resulting in various loss of privileges, like boards seats, or other opportunities.

yup banks these days really do make the growth and change in the economy

The "problem" is that mainstream monetary theories are pseudoscience. But that's not a problem of Bitcoin, nor is it a problem for its future. It's a problem for the future of the mainstream economists, as it refutes their fairy tales.

The reason for Bitcoin's with the relationship with the Austrian School is that other schools promote central planning in money foundation, creation and apart from minor exceptions (e.g. international trade), assume that people do not have a choice. So Bitcoin refutes them.

The reason why Bitcoin is suitable for some semi-legal and illegal stuff is that the states intervenes in markets, and Bitcoin is more resistant to this intervention. If it wasn't, it would not work at all, its inability to resit would mean that ultimately it would be regulated to death and that would be the end of it.

The result of Bitcoin's position is simple economics. Its theoretical foundation doesn't fit into statists' minds. Its features mean that its comparative advantages manifest primarily to those that are sensitive to transaction costs and/or those who gain a significant reduction thereof. It is very sad that a professional economist does not understand this.

In truth, any "big shot" economist that has come to the realise that lots of established economic theory is just some abstract math that doesn't describe the real world it purports to model, that economist probably knows that they're out of a job if they try to cut through the nonsense. Academics have a vestive interest in over-complicating anything they theorise or discover, as it helps them to earn more money, acclaim and status from said academic work. Economics is probably the most freakish caricature of this effect.

I made a claim about how Austrians are perceived by the majority of the economists. Are you disagreeing with me. If not, then what is your point?

See my post above. Why are you still here, cunicula? If you don't like this movement, why would you want to stick around trying to make an enemy of the people here? People who, judging by your ignore level, have no interest in becoming your enemy. It feels slightly like you're trying to start a war on the forum, and that's a very unfriendly and aggressive thing to do. Not pleasant.

My big question for you is this: what are your beliefs about the world economic system? Maybe if you tell us instead of doing nothing but disparaging our movement, people might be more friendly towards you. They might even start to find you endearing, sound good? Surely everyone wants to be liked, no?

[off topic]
I wish people would stop asking cunicula why he's still here.  You talk of the ignore button, why not just use it?  I may disagree with much of what he says and the way he says it but sometimes it's healthy for the discussions to have someone coming at these issues from a totally different angle.  When it results in debate rather than flame (which may not happen nearly as often as it could) we can all learn.
[/off topic]

That would make sense, if he wasn't so antagonistic. And that very pugnacious and uncompromising style of cunicula's is what incites the flaming, not the fact that people disagree. Some people call what cunicula's doing trolling. I don't care what they call it, I'm calling it antagonism. And it makes for a pretty uninspiring debate, as cunicula simply litters the discourse with dogmatic assertions, usually founded around consensus economics. His basic argument is: "Economics says such-and-such, and this contradicts the economic principles that govern Bitcoin". And he never budges an inch, or talks about much else. Not really my definition of a good debate.

Fair enough.  Maybe it's that I'm not that familiar enough with what conventional economics teaches and I just haven't been around long enough to come to the conclusions you have regarding the consistency of his antagonistic posts.  For now his posts - and he does appear to know his stuff even if 'we' don't respect the discipline from which these principles emanate - are contributing to what is easily available here for me to consider in addition to the consensus economics on this forum which sometimes feels to me disturbingly like 'group mind'.

A few points:

1.) Slashdot also panned the first iPod, being the forward-thinking geeks that they are.

2.) Economists are pseudo-science practitioners. No better than someone claiming to split atoms in their backyard with a circle scribed in the dirt. They wield mathematics, but their results are frequently incorrect. It is the only job in the world that I know of where being consistently wrong and having dismal performance doesn't cause you to lose your position.

3.) The conversion to bitcoin is continuing apace, and Wordpress is just the start. Don't be surprised to see other advancements, and when it finally comes to that magic moment where everyone starts to "get it", there will be a torrent of complaints by late-comers that we -- the early adopters and risk-takers -- are gaining significant ground just because we dared to be first.

4.) Competing blockchains have the decided disadvantage of not being the 'first mover' in the space. Ask Amazon, they were the first to do large-scale retail distribution, and they remain that way largely because of their enormous head start in that arena. As we have already seen, competing blockchains do exist, but the mining resources allocated to them are fractional at best.

I can see why that may appear to be the case, and don't get me wrong, I'm not 100% sold on any of this. The trouble is, that the Austrian school and the mainstream very often directly contradict one another. But manifest evidence of the theorising from both camps exists in the real world. Who are you to believe, David or Goliath? I'd never heard of Austrian economics before Bitcoin, but I knew that the more I read about mainstream economics, the more and more complicated it gets and the more slippery the concepts seem. But I always stuck with it, after all, the people who really get this stuff are often pretty wealthy.

But Bitcoin burst that bubble. I didn't dive in in 2011 when I heard first, the whole thing seemed too good to be true. Then I started to pick up on the (alternative) economic theory behind it, and still thought it sounded wrong (like I said, it contradicts mainstream view a great deal). But, money talks as they say, and Bitcoin kept telling me that it was potentially very valuable, and also that money should be scarce and resources abundant, not the other way around. Still not 100% decided on this conclusion, but I'm a hell of a lot of the way there.

Thanks for this ^ Carlton,

It is just the kind of thing I needed to read before closing down for the night - a reminder of what it is I'm here for.  I found myself on another thread today getting dragged into a more directly confrontational spat than I generally intend.  I got caught up in 'someone is wrong on the internet' syndrome (search for the cartoon if you don't know it)!  Good to hear your story.  Look forward to more of your contributions in future :)

Not at all, I'm pleased you found my little tale useful. Bitcoin has this funny way of making you question the world you thought you knew and understood. You may find this effect extends to areas you were not expecting! My political views have changed so much over time, but I never thought I'd end up with this sort of "frankenstein's monster" of views in less than a year! I basically don't know what to think or who to believe on many, many things that I previously thought to be so fundamental that they were unquestionable. Although thankfully, Bitcoin exposure hasn't yet changed the color of the sky or stopped the wind blowing. Yet!

The concept of bitcoin is completely revolutionary. When someone has an idea that runs so contrary to the status quo, with regard to central banks, credit card companies, and everything in between, most people will find ways to poke holes in it. Most revolutionary ideas fall flat on their face, like the DeLorean.

I think that prominent public figures will not typically promote such a revolutionary idea unless
a) It aligns with or would further their world view, or
b) It profits them.

Why stick your neck out and risk tarnishing your reputation promoting a concept that will fail?

With eCommerce, most interest is with companies that are working within the status quo. A normal startup would pose the question, "how do I make money working within existing government regulations and partnering with major credit card vendors." I believe bitcoin was built and started by someone for philosophical reasons as an experiment, not as a way to make a quick buck.

So what prominent public figures are aligned with the philosophy of bitcoin? In the realm of modern economics, most of the "great minds" seem focused on central planning: central banks, IMF, World Bank, insolvent banks, etc. It's fun to play God by moving billions or trillions of dollars from one part of the world to another via taxes and public policy. This is the fastest way to change the world, if they can convince enough people to give them the keys.

The only people I would expect to support bitcoin while it is still in its infancy are those who believe that inflation and centralized control of monetary policy is more dangerous than deflation; that freedom of international trade is more valuable than intense regulation. The others will ignore it until it gains serious traction, or spend all their time trying to criticize or change bitcoin to fit their economic leanings, as some members of this forum do.

Honestly, I was not interested in bitcoin until I saw it achieve some level of stability and success. I think that the success encountered thus far is *evidence* that a deflationary currency may work; the next four years will indicate whether a decentralized bitcoin can achieve enough stability to become more mainstream. Bitcoin will live or die by its own merits, not celebrity endorsements.

I'd be interested to hear an appraisal of the bitcoin system by Tim Berners-Lee and/or the Decentralised Information Group http://dig.csail.mit.edu/ (http://dig.csail.mit.edu/) at MIT.

It seems like it would fall within their sphere of expertise.

Here is a nice example of their work: http://dig.csail.mit.edu/2010/Papers/IEEE-HST/ieee_hst.pdf (http://dig.csail.mit.edu/2010/Papers/IEEE-HST/ieee_hst.pdf)

No offense, I just think that they don't understand bitcoin. The vast majority of people will not understand why they should use bitcoin. Why do you expect the same of economists?

I agree that this is how mainstream views the Austrians, but my point is that that this is irrelevant for the future of Bitcoin. It's only relevant for the future of mainstream economists.

Well, it has taken some time (almost 4 months now, more than I thought) and a 525% rally in market prices, but we've finally had some Big Shots say something positive about Bitcoin.  Two in fact, on the same day:

Al Gore:  https://twitter.com/carsonj/status/314382483468713984

Nassim Taleb:  http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1aoi0s/iam_nassim_taleb_author_of_antifragile_ama/c8zb3d8


I'll consider this case closed.

who is Nassim

and we need a video of Al Gore's line

Sorry, here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nassim_taleb

He wrote the bestseller "The Black Swan" (no, not the Natalie Portman one) and is a former "Big Shot" Wall St. derivatives trader turned hedge fund manager turned finance professor/philosopher.

As far as I'm concerned, there is no other public intellectual who I would rather see making a positive comment about Bitcoin.

need to get 'TheBitcoinChannel' to talk about that guy

Exactly, I'm sure he is the greatest thinker of our time. By reading his books Fooled by Randomness and The Black Swan I took his advice to look out for positive black swans and although I only found out about Bitcoin a few months ago, it was an easy decision for me to go all-in.