Bitcoin Forum

At last John has written about Bitcoin.

https://www.mauldineconomics.com/frontlinethoughts/is-bitcoin-the-future

It's quite lengthy so I won't post it here, but very well worth reading.

Why the financial types ALWAYS like to talk about how Bitcoin will be replaced by Bitcoin 2.0 or Bitcoin 3.0? It's uncanny!
I think that what they meant is: "we were oblivious to bitcoin 1.0, so we let 2/3 of it falling into the "wrong" hands, but wait, no worry, we will make sure that we will have 90+% of bitcoin 2.0 or bitcoin 3.0"
"I love the blockchain but don't like bitcoin" is pretty much the same game...
These people are soooo transparent.

Anyone 5 years behind the curve in their own professed field of expertise needs not be taken seriously. Would you go to a doctor that hasn't read any new medical information in 5 years?

In fact I smell a sales pitch for a "sure thing" investment if I click on anything in his blog. It's looks like one of the oldest scams about making money by writing books about making money.

He doesn't say 'replaced',

"I think we evolve to Bitcoin 2.0 or 3.0, using the same blockchain technology, but with a way to make the
new currency a truly stable medium of information that can be easily exchanged for goods and
services."

and "But will it be Bitcoin? My best guess is that it will not be Bitcoin as currently constructed but rather an evolved version."


Isn't that the idea - as with most software - to evolve?

Well, to a degree, if such software aspires to be at least a currency. Dollar is still a dollar, there was no dollar 2.0 or 3.0
I guess what I am getting at is that bitcoin has to stay the same bitcoin with 21 mil units just as a 1930 dollar bill could be redeemed now for goods and services.
If bitcoin changes, evolves, mutates, sublimates into something else entirely-most will feel betrayed IF "old bitcoin" would not be accepted at par (or better) with bitcoin 2.0 or 3.0.

He's not professing to be a Bitcoin expert, just "offer a few of my own thoughts on the relationships among gold, fiat money,
Bitcoin, and financial transactions".

Yes I agree with that, mostly, despite Dollar 2014 being worth only about 3% of Dollar 1914.

Non-paywalled version: http://paste2.org/kMwbBvyY

Well, not really.

Today's dollar came into being in 1971 (fully off gold denomination). That dollar existed only since 1965 (end of silver coinage). That dollar in turn existed only since 1945 (Bretton Woods agreement). That dollar came into being in 1934 (confiscation of personal gold), and that dollar was in turn birthed in 1913 (Federal Reserve Act came into effect). The previous dollar was the initial one.

So I guess that makes today's dollar Dollar 6.0.

You might be able to argue a case for some of these steps being n.1 instead of (n+1).0, but today's dollar certainly has zero resemblance to the dollar of the late 18th century.

BTC 1.0 will evolve into 2.0 or 3.0.

The whole "I love the blockchain but not Bitcoin" is repeated endlessly by Keynesians who are finally admitting that Bitcoin is a great technology. They are just frustrated that it will not inflate like the dollar.

So basically "let's use this great Bitcoin technology and have it inflate based on a central reserve board that decides the value so it is just like the dollar, the greatest currency in the world!"

Also:

http://www.mauldineconomics.com/lg/bitcoin

In that video, I suggest paying most attention to the astute comments from Alex Daley and also at the end of the video from John Mauldin.

They are correct that there is incredible potential but Bitcoin as it stands today can't be widely adopted. Yet it could surely enter another speculative frenzy bubble 2016 - 2017 with more people able to purchase Bitcoin via Paypal, etc.. But as a currency, it is still more costly (after exchanging to/from fiat) and more cumbersome tsuris than fiat world options.

Edit: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.msg10058463#msg10058463