|
Title: 2013-04-12 -The Great Gold vs Bitcoin Debate: Casey vs Matonis Post by: flix on April 12, 2013, 03:39:01 PM The Great Gold vs Bitcoin Debate: Casey vs Matonis
http://youtu.be/E1VtZT5HEFs Doug Casey of Casey Research (www.caseyresearch.com/) debates e-money researcher (themonetaryfuture.blogspot.co.uk/) and "crypto economist" Jon Matonis on the virtues -- or otherwise -- of Bitcoin, and how it compares to gold as a form of money. Title: Re: 2013-04-12 -The Great Gold vs Bitcoin Debate: Casey vs Matonis Post by: cypherdoc on April 12, 2013, 05:47:43 PM Great debate.
Jon, you clearly won. However, you never answered his question about Bitcoin being a store of value. And that is key to Doug's stubbornness. Let us all not forget that a key point with Bitcoin is that it's value started off as essentially zero. Thru free market trading, its value has risen to where it is today. I'd say it's clearly not only a store of value but an appreciating one. Title: Re: 2013-04-12 -The Great Gold vs Bitcoin Debate: Casey vs Matonis Post by: lonelyminer (Peter Šurda) on April 12, 2013, 09:21:56 PM Jon, you did a terrific job, I wish I had your debating skills.
Title: Re: 2013-04-12 -The Great Gold vs Bitcoin Debate: Casey vs Matonis Post by: bittenbob on April 13, 2013, 12:47:08 AM Excellent work Jon.
Title: Re: 2013-04-12 -The Great Gold vs Bitcoin Debate: Casey vs Matonis Post by: sunnankar on April 13, 2013, 02:36:09 AM However, you never answered his question about Bitcoin being a store of value. And that is key to Doug's stubbornness. That is irrelevant. There is a Bitcoin Magazine article titled, if I remember correctly, Why Useless Money Is Good Money. It really answers that question very well. Really what Doug wants is a monetary unit with a 'put option' which is the alternate use besides its monetary use. This actually makes the monetary unit less efficient because market participants then have to factor in this to the economic calculation and the monetary use crowds out alternate uses which may be useful to humanity but are not at the higher price due solely to speculative and not industrial demand. Title: Re: 2013-04-12 -The Great Gold vs Bitcoin Debate: Casey vs Matonis Post by: odolvlobo on April 13, 2013, 03:06:20 AM Great debate. Jon, you clearly won. However, you never answered his question about Bitcoin being a store of value. And that is key to Doug's stubbornness. Let us all not forget that a key point with Bitcoin is that it's value started off as essentially zero. Thru free market trading, its value has risen to where it is today. I'd say it's clearly not only a store of value but an appreciating one. He did answer the question about intrinsic value, more than once. His response was that the intrinsic value of a bitcoin lies not in the bitcoin itself, but the Bitcoin system. I personally feel that his answer is difficult to support, but it is also difficult to dismiss. He also raised a valid question about the importance of intrinsic value when he made the point (which Doug Casey agreed with) that the intrinsic value of gold is only a small fraction of its value. I also agree that the intrinsic value of a bitcoin lies solely in its utility as a medium of exchange. Where I differ with Doug Casey is his argument that if you take away trade, a bitcoin has no value. The flaw with this argument is that you cannot take away trade. It will always exist, so a bitcoin will always have intrinsic value as long as it is useful as a medium of exchange. I also want to point out that their debate was not a competition, and there was no winner. Both sides presented their positions very clearly, and both sides acknowledged the strengths and weakness of their positions as well as the other's position. It was great to hear both sides without having to suffer through the FUD, fearmongering, and hysteria that usually accompany these discussions. Title: Re: 2013-04-12 -The Great Gold vs Bitcoin Debate: Casey vs Matonis Post by: cypherdoc on April 13, 2013, 03:43:15 PM Great debate. Jon, you clearly won. However, you never answered his question about Bitcoin being a store of value. And that is key to Doug's stubbornness. Let us all not forget that a key point with Bitcoin is that it's value started off as essentially zero. Thru free market trading, its value has risen to where it is today. I'd say it's clearly not only a store of value but an appreciating one. He did answer the question about intrinsic value, more than once. His response was that the intrinsic value of a bitcoin lies not in the bitcoin itself, but the Bitcoin system. I personally feel that his answer is difficult to support, but it is also difficult to dismiss. He also raised a valid question about the importance of intrinsic value when he made the point (which Doug Casey agreed with) that the intrinsic value of gold is only a small fraction of its value. I also agree that the intrinsic value of a bitcoin lies solely in its utility as a medium of exchange. Where I differ with Doug Casey is his argument that if you take away trade, a bitcoin has no value. The flaw with this argument is that you cannot take away trade. It will always exist, so a bitcoin will always have intrinsic value as long as it is useful as a medium of exchange. I also want to point out that their debate was not a competition, and there was no winner. Both sides presented their positions very clearly, and both sides acknowledged the strengths and weakness of their positions as well as the other's position. It was great to hear both sides without having to suffer through the FUD, fearmongering, and hysteria that usually accompany these discussions. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg1829456#msg1829456 Title: Re: 2013-04-12 -The Great Gold vs Bitcoin Debate: Casey vs Matonis Post by: cypherdoc on April 13, 2013, 03:46:57 PM However, you never answered his question about Bitcoin being a store of value. And that is key to Doug's stubbornness. That is irrelevant. There is a Bitcoin Magazine article titled, if I remember correctly, Why Useless Money Is Good Money. It really answers that question very well. Really what Doug wants is a monetary unit with a 'put option' which is the alternate use besides its monetary use. This actually makes the monetary unit less efficient because market participants then have to factor in this to the economic calculation and the monetary use crowds out alternate uses which may be useful to humanity but are not at the higher price due solely to speculative and not industrial demand. store of value arguments are hardly irrelevant. in fact, they are key: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg1829456#msg1829456 |