Bitcoin Forum

This is what hypocrisy looks like.  Nice try at an explanation, but you just validated bitcoin as being more useful than gold (or is it worthless gold certificates with him?).

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101693790

This is VERY bullish news.  Bitcoin cannot be ignored even by its most vocal opponents.

Its no coincidence all of a sudden (on a uptrend) peter changed his view.  Maybe he does not want people to tell him he was wrong about bitcoin.  

In the video he says he works with bitpay to convert the coins to dollars and he only accept dollars.
I think he just sees this as a new payment method and he wants the publicity of bitcoin.

And yet all along he has said that bitcoin will never amount to anything.  To accept it for payments himself is rich.

I can't stand Peter Schiff, what an asshat.  I watched the video where he debated Stefan Molyneux, and Peter was a total douche, cutting Stefan off and talking over him.  And Peter's arguments against bitcoin were juvenile and unresearched... so typical.

Looks like Peter is still bullish on the dollar.  Anything that can be exchanged into dollars, Peter will accept.  ;D

Here's a demonstration of the intrinsic value of the dollar:

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/be/3b/d1/be3bd1a40221362a0a4c73fcd1e9daf8.jpg

He is pissed because bitcoin is his competition plain and simple

Haha, totally what an idiot... and within a week Stefan was hosting Schiff's radio show when he was away... because Schiff realized he was an idiot and Stefan was brilliant.

I've learned in the last 6 months that Schiff talks out of both sides of his mouth. 

If he truly was skeptical of Bitcoin still, he wouldn't acknowledge it at all.  He would continue to completely ignore it.

But his actions don't match his words.  As usual.  He's not getting involved because he wants to "make a buck off all the enthusiastic Bitcoiners".

He's getting involved because some extremely prominent people have been evangelizing it to him, and he's starting to question his own judgment.

Someone on LTB Podcast mentioned that they'd spoken to him at length in private and he's coming around in a big way to Bitcoin.

He's just got to stay looking tough to his constituents.

-B-

Peter Schiff is annoying.  He's just a gold peddler.  I don't know why people let him speak on air.

Only because he predicted the housing bubble and crash of 2008.

I dont think Schiff is the enemy you are looking for.  He is forever warning the dollar is in serious trouble and do not hold onto it certainly as savings or depending on bonds.  
He would know exactly why bitcoin has risen so much because he is warning on dollar inflation constantly.   No doubt he prefers gold but the last thing schiff wants to do is regulate or shut down free enterprise which is what bitcoin represents and facilitates.    

Part of his argument is wearing thin though, that he says well you cant use bitcoin for anything essential like paying taxes or paying your rent bill.  He should acknowledge that he himself is helping to increase its utility in some small way.   Eventually there should be a tipping point where you could use btc to buy absolutely anything, pay anyone to do work for you and also receive it as income from various business/investment/shares and bonds.  Then what, is it still not valid exchange.
   The main objection libertarians like him would have is a need for solid backing, solid exchange or worth.  Dollar itself started off being sold as solid. good as gold and through many broken promises it turned bad hence their dismissal of btc as a flash in the pan and ultimately zero value

Yet he is never willing to admit that you can't do those things with gold either.  Nor is he willing to admit that with bitcoin in the future, you surely may be able to pay you rent (some can now in certain parts of the U.S.) and maybe even your taxes (third party??)

He is right regarding bitcion.

Dogecoin on the other hand, will be more useful than gold and bitcoin.

The last time Peter Schiff was right is in 2007.

And recent debates about Bitcoin demonstrated he doesn't understand such basic economic concepts such as "where does value come from?".

He was right in spring 2009 on a few stocks he named.   I followed up on this some time later and it was a good average performance, only 1 stock failed and the loss was covered by the others.  
He is wrong on timing I think, like gold the last few years was not good but on big picture moves is better.   Im not sure if he is aware of the exponential nature to tech and perhaps he underestimates but here is his article on whatsapp for example
 http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-21/peter-schiff-whatsapp-and-dysfunctional-and-distorted-economy

fund holdings http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hl?s=EPHCX+Holdings

Used to be a big fan. This whole episode has thought me one thing, I have a strong bias to think that people I agree with are smarter than they actually are.

For Peter it's like he read 2-3 articles on Mises and was good at winning some debates using those arguments, but never really grasping the rest of the theory. We thought he was on the level of real thinkers like Taleb or Friedman, but in fact he was more like an average 110 IQ politican who just happened to say a few things we agreed with.

We he started saying things we know are not true it got more obvious that he wasn't humble about the future, and we know that smart people are humble about the future. And when he got corned by the likes of Voorhees who actually know the topic being discussed his arguments were all over the place, which is a sign that you need to think more about what you believe. A smart person would recognize this and slow down, but Peter just keep spewing random thoughts trying to fix his cognitive dissonance.

It was a good lesson the libertarian needed to learn; to not deify everyone who agrees with us that look good in media.