Bitcoin Forum

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-08/did-the-sec-just-validate-bitcoin-no-.html

Once the Almighty Government "takes interest" in Bitcoin, the pathetic little thing is doomed for sure, blah, blah, blah...

Aside from his blinkered implicit assumption that the USA is the entire known universe....

Journalists making big predictions should list their track record of past successful big predictions.

Previously, you could dismiss Bitcoin because it's just "monopoly money"... but now, you can dismiss Bitcoin because it's "real money", and therefore doomed. It's really hard to please some people.

The court ruling in Texas is a huge positive for Bitcoin because it amounts to the court acknowledging Bitcoin for what it really is. Furthermore having governments treating Bitcoin as money is essential for Bitcoin's success because it avoids problems with VAT or GST, a type of tax levied by all major countries in the world with the notable exception of the United States. So enough for this US centric idea that it is good for Bitcoin for Bitcoin not to be money. The article has this issue completely wrong simply because it looks at this issue only from a US perspective.

the article is pure garbage. little actual thought and reasoning went into it. journalists getting dumber and dumber

user comments are funny but better than they have been in the past
ie-
You may not be able to make more bitcoins once the final amount is reached, but someone(s) can always make another bitcoin-like currency.  Perhaps call it "Byte Coin".  This would effectively bypass bit coin's selling point.  I would think.

yes, bytecoin worked out very well

This one is funny too: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/08/08/more-proof-the-bitcoin-bubble-may-be-about-to-burs.aspx

No, no they don't want you to buy their secret ebook about 9 rock solid dividend paying stocks.  ::)

I hate that F** ing article, notice the date ... 8 Aug..., this is not the first time it has been 're-hashed', this must be about the 3rd time that it has been released as new news.

It used to be a good site. but now it is just full of shill articles and text....

At least the author didnt compare bitcoin to beanie babies.

What can they do really.  Make Americans purchase it underground or use other means, while it takes off everywhere else anyway.

Can you imagine the headlines if the judge had ruled the other way.  Does anyone think this guy would be saying Bitcoin now has a chance because a judge has ruled they are so worthless that you can't even commit fraud with them?

totally agree!

Hell, I remember saying how buying google stock was a stupid idea and how twitter would fail - now I'm no financial genius but I have some basic common sense...  I get the feeling I could make unfounded predictions for a well known news outlet and get eyeballs on the page (their ultimate goal) and make a bunch of money while waiting for my mining hardware!  Apparently you don't need to actually know what your talking about to write for these 'papers'!!

The whole "judge said it, therefore is true and significant" just reinforces the idea that state monopolies are the sole arbiters of what is true and what is significant. Kind of beginning to piss me off that people keep repeating this; who cares what one judge says or thinks? I knew it was money already without him/her to OK it for me.

bad journalism is doomed.

+1

One of the things I've come to realise in my years, is that if you take ANY topic on which one could justifiably refer to one's self as an expert,  one will routinely be exasperated at the sheer I-need-a-brick-wall-for-my-head ignorance and stupidity and WFTness the so-called journalists inflict upon one.


Ah, no.  There is a reason the biggest selling 'newspaper' in Britain is gossip rag.

The question this Article raises for me is 'who signs this guy's checks?'

Whoever they are, they're either getting ripped off, or exactly what they paid for.

1.write an article making ill informed arguments
2. get comments from people calling you an idiot
3. make money

"The group of developers who came up with Bitcoin did not produce a viable replacement currency, a revolution or even a particularly wise investment opportunity."

If he can't even get the basics right, how can his opinions hold any merit at all?

The judge's decision has little to do with bitcoin's "truth" & everything to do with what what the US courts consider it to be.  People faced with legal action tend to lose interest in philosophical abstracts like "truth," becoming interested, instead, in the grantedly arbitrary opinion of the judge. 
That's who cares what judge thinks.