Bitcoin Forum

If I had a bitcoin for every different opinion I've read on them, I'd be rich (even at their current price). Yes, I am aware formal credentials aren't everything, but they obviously are a lot. So, if anyone who posts frequently here or in the "Speculation" thread frequently, I would just be curious of what kind of credentials you have.

If you value Credentials highly then I suggest that the bitcoin world isn't for you.


I suspect their are many well qualified and knowlagable people on this forum and many that make up for their lack of credentials with there wisdom and intelligence, but alas many of these people value their privacy over ego / status.

The problem is that even among the people with credentials there's no agreement.

I wouldn't be too focused on the "consensus" view, just get familiar with different views and form your own judgment.

I don't :-)

Same here.

Why don't you start with yours first?

I'd guess he's qualified to get pedos to sit down:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJLhQoxenB8

Credentials are meaningless.  Paul Krugman, for example, has a Nobel prize in economics, but knows nothing about how a free-market economy leads to prosperity.  He's been drinking too much of that Keynesian Kool-Aid.  If you're unsure about how to "connect the dots", just dig for answers and think things through logically.  The light bulb will eventually come on.

Generally, people with advanced degrees in economics do not bloviate on Internet forums, and even if they did, they don't have much reason to share their credentials or their identity.  Degrees or any other such qualifications are generally hard to prove, anyway, so why bother?

People with degrees are too busy making money to roam on some little BitCoin forum.

By the way, I have a PHD in Economics, Computer Sciences, Cryptography, Mathematics...

Proudhon.

Almost: I'd say anti-Proudhon!

Nah I'm kidding.

OP: not me mate!

I dispense facts, sometimes opinions but unless people are paying me money (and sometimes even when they do) I'll always offer the caveat: I'm just some bloke and I make mistakes.

Anyone who says, "Do what I say and you can earn 30% daily passive income following my 7-step plan" and puts it in a large, bold, red font doesn't either IMO.

The best traders take their warm glow from profits not peer approval!

What credentials does one need to stop oppression? Personally, I don't care if some people cant string two words together, We all here have one view, FREEDOM! If we cant get on in a society created by the society, We really are screwed!

I got the credentials.

Then I got past them.

Fortunately.

PS: UNFORTUNATELY....

The way things are in the US right now with the government having taken over the student loan market, and the costs of education having quadruple the price increases of inflation on the average, one simply "BUYS" credentials and at very high cost, both in loans and time.

Personally I don't think such credentials are a good investment.  At least in many cases.

A more interesting question would be something like, is there a M. Friedman, Hayek or the like posting on these forums?  If so I would know from the writing and need know nothing else about the person's credentials.

Unfortunately, the only real way to know anything for sure about a controversial topic is to study it yourself.

I would advise you to be skeptical of people that say things like "Bitcoin doesn't apply to these economic arguments, because it's different." A lot of these people are exhibiting special pleading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading). From the article, examples of this logical fallacy include:

• unexplained claims of exemption from principles commonly thought relevant to the subject matter
• claims to data that are inherently unverifiable, perhaps because too remote or impossible to define clearly
• appeals to "common knowledge" that bypass supporting data
• assertion that the opponent lacks the qualifications necessary to comprehend a point of view
• assertion that nobody has the qualifications necessary to comprehend a point of view

Examples of this fallacy on this forum include: "There is no bubble, because Bitcoin is different", "Deflation in Bitcoin isn't bad, because Bitcoin is different than other previous currencies", or "X criticism doesn't apply to Bitcoin, because Bitcoin is different."

It doesn't mean what they're saying isn't true, but the reason will almost never be because "Bitcoin is different," and when it is, if they can't explain why Bitcoin does not belong in a certain category of things that an argument puts it in other than the fact that it's new or unique or people just don't understand it, then it's probably safe to dismiss their argument.

No we don't. You might, but the True Believers are on their way to being marginalized by people who are serious about Bitcoin as a currency, and not as some Ayn Rand fantasy.

I agree with your assertion but have never really known how to describe it until now. I learned something today because of you. Thanks  :)

I know what I'm talking about when I say that I don't know what I'm talking about. 

I started buying bitcoins when they were at about $3.

Examples of strawmen arguments include mischaracterizing the argument, Deflation in Bitcoin isn't bad because deflation is inherently good" as "Deflation in Bitcoin isn't bad because of some special characteristic of Bitcoin."

That's a different kind of argument, and not what I was talking about. Asserting that deflation in currency is inherently good is a general assertion, and it's something that can be debated on its own evidence. We can look at how deflation has affected currencies in the past. What I was saying was that IF we look at how deflation affects currencies in the past, and IF deflation appears to negatively affect the economy that uses those currencies, one can't just dismiss the argument by saying "those examples don't apply to Bitcoins because bitcoins are different."

Yep, deflation, it's presence during certain times, and it's implications is a unique argument with merit.  It is not a diversion.


There was a US Congressman sponsored money seminar in DC where historians asserted that US deflationary periods had nothing to do with...guess what....deflation.

But, if one were to ask the typical academia economist they would mark history as being riddled with deflationary events due to poor money supply management.


It's highly debatable.

That's very interesting. I'd never heard that before.

I can certainly see the argument that deflation is good for a currency as having merit. I'm not sure I agree with it... but I don't think I know enough to be certain one way or another. We'll probably be able to find out soon because of Bitcoins.  :)

What bothers me is when people lay out an argument for why they think deflation is bad, using history and macroeconomics, and people dismiss the argument because "Deflation will affect Bitcoins differently" or "These charts are meaningless because Hayek something something". Arguing that it only appears to be deflation causing bad things, or that the role of deflation is misunderstood, I think is a much better argument.

[waves hands]

Me...I know what I'm talking about...

I'm a sandwich expert...

Dude...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FucbvoFFy0

There is an art to the business of making sandwiches which it is given to few ever to find the time to explore in depth. It is a simple task, but the opportunities for satisfaction are many and profound.

+1

This is a general issue, and I think it would be better to try to phrase it specificially in terms of something like...

Is a near term scenario where in the major developed countries, and particularly in the US, the little guy has a choice of currencies, the national currency and a deflationary currency, the bitcoin, good or bad for (that country, the world as a whole, the little guy, etc....)?

Hayek - "Choice in Currencies"
http://mises.org/document/3983

I believe the answer is obvious, but that's just me...

No one. This is uncharted territory

This is a good wall chart on logical fallacies.


https://s3.amazonaws.com/yourlogicalfallacyis/pdf/LogicalFallaciesInfographic_A2.pdf

If you claim to have credentials in understanding virtual currency than what would you have studied?  Second life or World of Warcraft?  Bitcoin is a whole new world and let's face it, as a speculation vehicle the price is dependent on faith and news right now.  People still aren't able to predict weather and they have more to work with than Bitcoin speculators do.

You don't need to have credentials to post the only true statement with regards to bitcoins future.....

No one knows what's going to happen

TF2 unusuals

not really the same, but games can have ridiculous virtual economies sometimes

Many have gone into uncharted territory in history.

They simply charted it.

Hahahaah~!

+1

I can't stand that shilly douche...

I doubt that there's anyone on the forum that has ALL the answers, but I think there are enough people here, willing to share their part of the answer to keep me coming back to benefit from their wisdom.

Then again, I do believe the answers is 42, for what it's worth.

DEFINITELY not me  >:(

I'm sure this thread will soon be full of lies and slander (or is it libel?), but I generally make the assumption that:

• 50% have no formal training and generally don't know what the foolishness they're talking about,
• 25% have no formal training, but have made enough of a hobby of it to know quite a bit,
• 20% have taken one or two intro Economics classes and know enough to pass for formally educated if no one's looking too closely (hi there!)
• 2.5% have taken one or two intro classes that went in one ear and out the other, yet think they are infallible, and
• 2.5% have some kind of degree or significant experience.

Qualification: all of these are wrong.

Dammit, you beat me to it!

Now the OP only needs to find the correct question ...

----------------------------------

There's many things to learn about Bitcoin, to me it covers political, economical, coding, freedom, a way out of debt prison (for the world), and more ..

So it really depends on what subject you're looking for answers in. As others have mentioned, its generally a good idea to browse in the forum areas that interest you, read threads, find comments that seem sensible, then research what they're saying. Rinse and repeat until you start finding trust in people.

Keep in mind that there's probably plenty of people who do know quite a lot about btc and its environment, but they've explained themselves numerous times and cba anymore (I'm in the generally cba anymore category).

Indeed it is good.  But I must be skeptical.  Those guys - Plato - Aristole - and Socrates?

They didn't have CREDENTIALS.

They didn't graduate from an ACCREDITED UNIVERSITY WITH A DOCTORATE.

hehehehehee....

I think you'd be better off trusting people on their post count, rather than their credentials. Good luck finding credentials, because more people try to keep anonymous on forum sites. You could read what people that own bit coin related businesses have to say, if you look around. But, in all honesty, I think that credentials are meaningless, and just about everyone's opinion is constructive and meaningful.

Who actually knows what they're talking about?  This guy:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=184603.0

Post count ... well.

I got interested in bitcoin actually from the real financial world. Though I don't have a finance degree (choosing instead to pursue medicine), I frequent Zerohedge and Seekingalpha, do some quantitative financial modeling, do transaction processing for academic institutions, and have traded for a decade and half so far (long-term, swing, or intraday on stocks, options, futures, commodities, forex). I imagine some other members with low post counts around here have similar experience.

I think you had better find a different metric.

Post count just means someone has a lot to say and a lot of time to say it.  I'm sure you've met that type in person...

Indeed George Bush Sr. despite his own self-proclaimed ignorance of the subject is about the only person to have accurately described it in the last hundred years or so when he correctly identified Reagan's Tory Trotskyite Freidmanist-Menshevism as "Voodoo"

Me i don't care about anonymity, I know my position and am free to be logically corrected if wrong. in fact i demand it.

I Studied a special course in Sciences: I have training in the equivalent of first year University, Sociology, Psychology, Chemistry, Physics, biology
I've been an enthusiast in economics since this catastrophe happened back in 2007. Since then I've just studied it as a hobby.

Studied programming when i went to high-school. Java/Visual Basic/Web programming/Turbo Pascal :)

I studied all these subjects well enough that I know that they can be proven wrong at any given moment, new research comes out
refuting past results and explaining them in a different light.

so Bitcoin is so incredibly fascinating to  me, a Currency system with variable Price-Inflationary and Price-deflationary characteristics, quite impressive.
This is a truly monumental experiment, What happens to a currency that is based completely on demand and supply? and does this characteristic apply
to it? what factors control it's movement? human psychology? are people thinking 2-3 steps ahead of others to anticipate market movements? What are
the metrics that should be factored?

very interesting stuff. :)

The system is dynamic you can't plan many steps ahead, if you get a big enough piece of the pie the pie starts to shrink (you release some of your holdings and the pie grows again. If win the whole BTC pie the value shrinks to 0

@OP
not me

Very true, The dynamic nature is created by its structure: the 21,000,000 . 000,000,00    bitcoins are divided into two equal halfs: the amount 2.1 quadrillion means that 90% of the system can be destroyed, lost(Backup your wallet, write down your password) and it can still effectively function to cover all the transactions in the world.

The division is what interests me I've been trying to understand it: why not just make a massive number like 2.1 quadrillion? I believe it is part of the system a feature of it not just an arbitrary design.

1.6 billion dollars would go in like this:    1,600,000,0 . 00 \,000,000 /  4.2 trillion would go in like this  4,200,000,0 . 00,000   \000 at no given moment do you have the full 2.1 quadrillion in circulation, it changes.

the number moves back denoting which denomination of bitcoin to use, at the same time it has this self organizing effect because of the limit. It forces the people using it to act as if it is a closed system, if they hoard it when times are good, just like you said, the system begins to devalue. because what gives it it's value is the movement of economical transactions in the system, over spend and the rate of movement falls. If people do not have money to spend the system begins to stagnate pushing back progress forcing people to save. but if they push too far they end up back in square one... the limit and division of it create this really amazing dynamic... you have to be within a sustainable level, not too little not too much.  

it forces people to spend at the same time it forces people to save it, it creates a self regulating system.  :)!!!! Amazing! It is so crazy that it causes equal wealth distribution because of it's design, different areas of the world will be at different levels of equilibrium, spain is down now, so they save, reduced prices there increase investment,... over stimulation in China and the system forces people to spend their money on areas that have fallen into spain's position to get lower priced goods, etc.

What's not taken into account in this is a very, very important factor called the "velocity of money".   If a bitcoin is held back ("Hoarded") it doesn't create any velocity, some number of transactions occur and depending on the requisite demand, the price of a bitcoin goes up or down.  Suppose 3/4 of all bitcoins were hoarded - the demand could still be satisfied, price would simply go up or the velocity would go up.  Obviously, if all transactions take 20 minutes to clear, this places an upward limit on velocity.

OP are you trying to collect data on who has studied economics at a university so you can add them to your ignore list? If so, good plan, I applaud you  :D

Come to think of it mudflation might actually be the best thing to have studied when it comes to bitcoin.

The problems that the most educated 'economists' seem to have when it comes to bitcoin are many, I'll just point out a couple that frustrate me to no end.

1. DEFLATION IS BAD. This is based on not understanding that all the economic 'laws' and principles they've learned have been only been proven in an inflationary (debt based) currency. They will not always apply inversely with an deflationary currency. It doesn't completely invalidate these effects and in most cases something that somewhat resembles the inverse may probably applies, but there will be important differences.

2. OMG HOARDING. This comes from not really understanding the lack of a causal relationship between deflation of a deflationary currency and economic contraction. Causally this link simply isn't there. It's is however causally linked when we're talking about fiat (or any debt based currency).

3-8. The next 5 points I won't really go into, but they all involve not understanding that a deflationary currency will require much more agility on the part of financial institutions and businesses in general. This is by design. Bitcoin is much much faster than the existing banking system and we see evidence of this in how business is conducted with bitcoin (stocks dividends being paid on a weekly basis). The common mistake is a free market won't be able to compensate for this and business in general will breakdown.

To this silliness I say "pfft", I don't care if a business or even a sector of business goes out of business... the void will swiftly be filled by newer and more agile entities who will want to provide those missing goods and services. Sure it may ruin some people, but on average and over time things will get better for everyone.

9. BITCOIN WILL FAIL BECAUSE... I can't even really explain this one, but latching onto one issue and claiming it will kill bitcoin is just stupid in the extreme... in anything we should evaluate the good and the bad and weigh them against each other. My response is, "hey your agenda is showing'. I chalk this one up to fear mostly... and a clinging to old ideas rather than evaluating bitcoin for what it is... rather than 'what it could do' (which is kill financial institutions as we know them - end monetary oppression on a global scale - etc).

There was a good deal of understanding of deflation in historical economics.  Just not in recent times.  See, for example, Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations for a great discussion of the effects of technological progress on an economy. (hint: deflation and long term the only people who gain are landowners... capitalists see a short term jump in profits, laborers see the demand for labor, and thus their wages, drop).

I don't think bitcoin follows the traditional deflationary model.  Here is why.

Inflation or deflation is considered based on a monetary unit, such as a US$.

But what if the currency was instantly ad hoc divisible?  Then the unit (bitcoin) is not material to a transaction, only the current exchange amount, which would in any case be computed at the moment of a transaction.

There should come to be no resistance to spending based on the appreciation through hoarding BECAUSE....

The ad hoc values for use of this currency will see minute adjustments - discounts - which simply adjust for the disincentive to spend versus holding.

I've got a degree in economics and another in engineering, both bachelors.  Idk if serious doctorates would even reveal their credentials here for fear of being discovered by their peers and laughed out of the academic community.  Bunch of twits, all of them.

I don't claim to know anything specific to Bitcoin or any "special" properties it would have, but I know a decent amount about the basic economic framework behind the scenes, such as how difficulty should be related to interest rates/future mining profits from assets like ASICMINER, etc.  I could also speculate with some fathomable degree as to how volatility in the price could be useful in some circumstances (as in the case of assets backed by commodities) or why assets that operate in specific "sectors" such as mining or BTC-based businesses vs. USD-based Bitcoin businesses (distinction between which currency the business uses for cash flows) might be advantageous if price volatility is high.

Mostly its interesting to me because its different, and rather than say "X because BTC is different" I'll usually try and give my best book-learned explanation of X rather than just talk out of my ass.  If I don't know an answer, I'm not going to pretend I do because although I consider myself reasonable intelligent and educated, chances are there are a lot of people hidden in the woodwork on here who are much, much smarter/more knowledgeable than me.

What, if anything, would you agree that could be agreed upon?

For example, suppose someone said that significant use of bitcoin (say 1/2 of current paypal transaction volume) - 10B and 60M users for an upcoming calendar year - would result in increased use of ebay and amazon internationally.  Hence, those companies would show increased profits, even though paypal contributes 40% of ebay's revenue.

Bitcoin represents an alternative payment method to credit cards.  Paypal did and does provide such a method, but the funds have to be deposited or goods sold to create the positive paypal balance.

Bitcoin represents a huge threat to currency exchanges which certainly for small value amounts do not operate efficiently.  It represents a huge threat to money transfer operations such as Western Union.

These realities should enable some decent guessing at future outcomes at least in very limited cases.

@OP, on which subject?

Maths
Computer science
Programing
Network computing and distributed systems
Cryptography
Economics
Fund management
Trading
Commodities
Currencies
E-commerce
Law
Politics
Sociology
Psychology
Philosophy

….take your pick.

I think the real issue is that a number of technologies are being developed right now that could easily put Western Union out of business, not just Bitcoin itself.  M-pesa in Africa, for example, is one sort of p2p payment technology that's sure to kill Western Union and possibly even Paypal.  Bitcoin has been a great catalyst though to force companies to get back on their innovation game, lest they fall out of favor with consumers.

I went to school for marketing, as well as macro and micro economics.

New to these forums, so I haven't posted in those threads, but I can tell you that the field I would most accurately put these cryptocurrencies would be socioeconomics (aka, most "high" level educations have nothing to do with it)