Bitcoin Forum

Peter will be talking with "Donald Norman" of the "Bitcoin Consultancy" http://bitcoinconsultancy.com

http://www.schiffradio.com

I am a big fan of Peter and up until recently I listened to all of his shows. I've never heard of "Donald Norman" or "Bitcoin Consultancy" before. Can anyone tell me about this person and/or this company?

Tune into the show and be sure to call in to correct any misconceptions.

Peter Schiff is a well known Austrian economist with a damn good track record of predictions.  He's ran for Congress in the past.  If Peter Schiff even hints at having put any significant amount of his own funds into Bitcoin, there is going to be a major rally regardless of the issues at MtGox.  He also knows this about himself, so odds are good that he will not make any obvious moves towards Bitcoin.  If he thinks poorly of Bitcoin, he will say so, and then the trade value is going to drop for some time.

Thanks for the info!

I reckon I'm going to be asleep but I'd love to hear this one. if anyone records it would they mind posting a link to it on this forum?

Many advanced thanks.

Interesting indeed. Hopefully Schiff takes the stance that Ron Paul would: allow competing currencies. FWIW, met Schiff at a book signing. Cool guy. Very serious.

Oops! In my original post, I said that I had never heard of this person or site before.. but I forgot that I had mentioned two people and two sites! I am well aware of Peter Schiff and his radio show! I am a big fan, and up until recently I had been listening to every show. When I said that I had never heard of this person or site before, I was referring to "Donald Norman" and this Bitcoin Consultancy.

I am concerned about whether this person is the best person for Peter to conduct an interview with, because I've never heard of him!

Oh, and, Peter actually ran for Senate.

If you go to http://www.schiffradio.com you'll see that you can download, for example, Friday's show. Tomorrow's show airs from 10AM to noon, so you should be able to get the MP3 for the download sometime after that, usually within a few hours. You'll have between 24 and 48 hours to download it before falls behind the pay wall. Although it isn't a very strong pay wall, there is a way around it.

this will be a can't miss discussion

Schiff talked about bitcoin before. I did not hear the clip, but someone from one of the gold message board said he was NOT pro-bitcoin.

I remember the first time bitcoin was mentioned on Schiff's show. It came from a caller sometime in February. The caller had more than one question, and he asked them all of them up front, one of them being about bitcoin. Schiff didn't address the bitcoin question at all, and the caller seemed to not realize this.

Shiff bashed bitcoin before, he talked about it and said negative things about it like, no intrinsic value, its a scam, don't get caught holding the bag etc etc. I can already tell what the show will be like, he will repeat his warnings to not touch bitcoin. Especially after the Mt. Gox incident. Guarantee he will bring that up and will be bashing bitcoin. I don't know why but a majority of the precious metals community really don't like bitcoin. They don't understand the revolutionary impact it can have. I think its because they are focused on things intrinsicly and since bitcoin isn't physical they disclaim it right away.

Dinosaurs still roam the Earth, despite what they teach you in school.

I've been a Peter Schiff fan for years, so I'll definitely be looking forward to this. I just hope Peter gives bitcoin a fair shake, it's a non-trivial thing to explain, especially to non-technical people, but what won me over (I was extremely skeptical of bitcoin early on) was that it exhibits most of the properties that have made gold the best medium of exchange historically.

If you truly understand what bitcoin is, it's hard to like gold and not like bitcoin, because they are essentially valuable for all the same reasons.

Hmmm. Well I'll be tuning in to this show, interested to see what he has to say even if its negative. But I don't understand why this "intrinsic value" concept seems so prevalent, I thought it had no basis in the Austrian school at all. Maybe its just because gold and silver are obviously so much safer. Yeah, Bitcoin is a lot more speculative than gold and silver, so what, that isn't reason enough to bash it. I'm more interested to hear his thoughts as an Austrian thinker than I am his thoughts as an investment broker.

I'd guess he'll be anti-bitcoin.  For one, he sells precious metals and would rather his listeners buy the gold and silver he sells than bitcoins.  Secondly, he's been on a sort of scam hunt of late, calling out pump-and-dumpers like the National Inflation Association, and might be wanting to add bitcoin to his 'scam list'

Thanks for that! I'll definitely download it.

Coming up now, live! After commercials!

Schiff called it bitcom near the beginning of the show. He corrected himself after the commercial. But he's describing Donald Norman as being the founder of the bitcoin "concept."

Bitcoin Consultancy are the guys behind britcoin.co.uk - they are members of this forum and I've contacted them, hopefully they'll introduce themselves here.

Here we go, Peter is saying that bitcoin doesn't have any intrinsic value.. this is the point where this Norman guy needs to hit a home run and sounds like he's striking out =(

Yea but the guy did an excellent rebuttal to that I thought.

As i am heard (and this can be wrong), that there is very restricted rules on trading metals start to act in US. How this will affect gold\silver guys ?

That's probably true for the most part. I for one am a silver guy and initially dismissed BTC. Not long ago a member of the gold community wrote a piece about BTC in a positive manner and I reevaluated my position. I think he pushed a lot of activity into BTC because shortly thereafter the price ran up like nobody's biz but I think the BTC community largely missed this as it's not their world. Just like the silver and gold people largley do not frequent here.

Most silver and gold bugs have been trained to think in terms of tangible assets. Also, most of them are an older generation skeptical of technology. Fortunately for me I am younger and just simply skeptical of security! Moreso now than ever (Mt Gox).

I have a large circle that turn to me for advice and I have been explaining to them the similar concepts of mining gold and mining BTC. It'll be a process but there's some acceptance already and one guy is going to be purchasing BTC from an exchange. Progress.

Didn't get a chance to hear it yet, but I had a feeling where Shiff stands on bitcoin. I like Peter he keeps it real honest although sometimes he too much of a doom and gloomer, but if ppl saw the big picture like he does there is no reason not to be a doom and gloomer.

When Schiff first started promoting gold he was promoting all kinds of paper products that were very risky. He has since changed his tune.

Schiff's a respectable enough of a fellow but it doesn't mean he understands completely what he's talking about. There's an interview that he did with Robert Kiyosaki that will prove that point quite clearly.

Peter's concerns about bitcoin aren't unreasonable. He is reasonably skeptical about the future value of the "concept." A lot of that may have to do with the fact that he is simply ignorant of the mathematical principles that make bitcoin possible, but ultimately what matters is whether people in the future will give it any value. The fact that people like Peter remain skeptical about bitcoin I think will be a positive force moving forward. It will be these skeptics that ultimately provide a stable value base for the currency.

I listened to that interview and I got the impression that Kiyosaki was somewhat of a prick. It may be true that Kiyosaki is doing things that Peter isn't familiar with, but Peter asked the right questions and Kiyosaki was playing dodge ball.

Of course, Peter is a hyper-hypocritical goldbug.  ::)

I've been a silver bug  for decades.  Have never sold an ounce of what I have, even after discovering Bitcoin last year.  I'm an econo-geek, and versed enough in the crypto to understand how the system could work, even though I can't dive into the code and determine for myself it it actually does what others may say that it does.

Mostly I consider them complementary.  If the future looks anything like Schiff or Olov think that it could, then a return to in person barter trade is likely, and thus Bitcoin will prove to be a useless endeavor.  However, I don't consider that remotely likely, as even in the days of sail trade prior to the wireless telegraph; communications were required to facilitate trans-Atlantic trade, and that was largely limited in credit trust due to the physical nature of gold money.  Therefore, the Internet will not die easily, and there will be groups in every city with deep vested interests in maintaining some kind of Internet link long after the cars stop moving due to lack of fuel.  So even a 100+  year reversal of fortunes in transit technology would benefit from the existance of Bitcoin, a Mad Max scenerio notwithstanding.

I think that there are more metal bugs, and vastly more Austrians, engaged in Bitcoin than many would otherwise be inclined to believe.

keep in mind that peter's show is about protecting purchasing power and prudent income-generating investing.

bitcoin qualifies for neither. if you specifically asked schiff what he though about competing currencies and explained the bitcoin concept I'm pretty sure he would voice support for it.
he just wouldn't invest his networth in it, and neither should anyone else.

Maybe because they are heavily vested in precious metals and are experiencing a mild cognitive dissonance ?

Off-topic: liquid zeolite  :D

Did you mean Dmitry Orlov and he's semi-classic "Closing the Collapse Gap" (https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dtxqwqr_25g7bchc)?

http://peterschiffblog.blogspot.com/

Looks like the guy is a nutter. Sigh.

That's not actually Peter Schiff's blog. That is a blog run by another individual that simply tracks Peter's media appearances, articles and videos.

Here's the "nutter" in his true glory, being 100% right: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw

deleted.

I understand where you are coming from. My theory is that they feel threatened by Bitcoin (whether they know it consciously or not.) Consequently, they lash out at it.

It is very similar to the internet in the early 90's and TV. Local TV stations would regularly have news segments hyping up "pedophiles on the internet". This negativity was simply because they knew that the internet would take away their viewership.

Then we are of the same understanding. I think the net is now synonymous with our existence. If it doesn't exist it won't be becuase of oil. It will be because of nuclear holocaust. I took Boris and others very seriously for awhile and then it occured to me; that kind of change just doesn't happen overnight. And if it did materialize nothing I do now will really matter anyway so live as we do now and we will just live with less "stuff" in future.

Those with BTC can pay their ISP!!

As long as Western Union and MoneyGram charge those outrageous fees, Bitcoins have intrinsic value.

Schiff is a goldbug, and he would prefer that you were too...  If technology were to appear which, to the alchemists' dream, allowed lead to be turned into Gold, then what intrinsic value would gold have?  And just why does gold have intrinsic value?  You can't eat it.  It doesn't sustain life.  It has value because people say it has value.  People want it.  Same with bitcoins.

And Peter Schiff calls himself an austrian? Intrinsic value Peter? Really?

It's a shame that very few people seem to know what "backing" means and what "intrinsic" value is.

I also think people hear about BTC and think that since it's a computer program there will be an infinite number of them; taking no time to understand the complexity of the situation. They are cool however, with the fact that the bank at any given time does not have all the deposits that their member's web screen's tell them they do should they all walk hand in hand down to the bank together. A mystery to be sure.

Yes.

I almost fell out of my chair when Peter said gold had intrinsic value because you could craft jewelry from gold or use it in electronics. While being true, you can do the same with seashells and silicon, those properties have nothing to do with why gold is a good medium of exchange.. I thought Peter was smarter than that.

Well I'm sure he's trying to make sense of it too. He needs an education just like everyone else. Does he have the wisdom to feed his intellect?

He was talking about an Austrian economist stating that gold had intrinsic value by reason of it's use value.  Austrians don't normally talk in those terms, because use value doesn't equate to an intrinsic value.  Value is always subjective, and an 'intrinsic' value would necessarily have to exist, if it did exist, by reason of a commodities natural characteristics.  Gold's use value is not very closely related to it's elemental properties, but it's monetary value is related to it's elemental properties.  If gold has an intrisic value, it's directly related to it's quality as an ideal money, not it's industrial or commercial uses. 

Ok, so....BTC. Intrinsic value or use value? Or something else? Novelty value? It certainly has functional value does it not?

You're quite right! The fact that gold has almost no industrial uses, is one of the properties that it make it a great medium of exchange, you want your unit of account to be in stable and in predictable supply.  Silver on the other hand has many industrial uses, it's a key component in PV cells for solar panels for example, so it's a lot less stable than gold in terms of supply/demand.

I'll say it again...  As long as Western Union, MoneyGram, etc., charge those usurious fees, Bitcoins will have value.  

While I have a lot of respect for what Peter says most o the time, he clearly has not done his homework here.  I don't think he's just talking his gold and silver book as many have suggested -- it seemed to me that he really doesn't (yet) have a full grasp of the bitcoin concept.  As I posted on the press hits thread though, no doubt there are a whole lot of knowledgeable, savvy (and possibly quite wealthy) investors doing research right now on bitcoins since hearing this interview today.  I'm sure Peter will come around in the long run after he sees bitcoins from a few more angles.

BTC has no use value, outside of the context of a medium of exchange.  BTC is both the currency and an effective, worldwide, transfer mechanism.  Just like gold's intrinsic value is rooted in it's properties that make it an ideal money, BTC's intrinsic value rests in the properties imbued into it by powerful cryptology and rigid code practices.  

If you love gold and understand it, then you will love bitcoin for nearly the exact same reasons, as they share most of the same properties of a good medium of exchange. There are an amazing number of people (particularly on youtube)  who love gold/silver and *hate* bitcoin, which shows a deep rift in their understanding.

For selfish reasons, I'm in no great hurry to educate the masses, they will figure it out eventually, and in the meantime I'd like to accumulate a nice little horde for myself with as little competition as possible.

Amen to that.  Keep the bad news coming.  It'll keep the riff-raff out long enough for me to add more savings.

WTF is intrinsic value?!

I hate it when Schiff is talking nonsense like that -- intrinsic value. Great analogy with seashells, libertyzeal.

Yeah sure, gold silver & lead are solid investments in my book. Are those goldbugs way too old to understand P2P, I wonder?

And bitcoin is way more attractive when it comes to capital controls.

Donald Norman from bitcoin consultancy sounds like he is fast getting out of his depth. He mentions in one breath about the genesis block referring to "bailouts for banks" and in same interview unashamedly is asking for UK regulator assistance to run his Britcoin operation ... one conflicted individual.

I am a market anarchist but I think its good that they want regulation of the exchanges. How can that be? Some people will distrust bitcoins, and some others will try to attack it. By seeking to be regulated they are shielding themselves from this types of attacks. Also, its not like the governments were going to let them be. Governments were going to go for them anyways at some points, so you must as well do it on your own. And remember that Bitcoin is imposible to regulate, they are just regulating the exchanges.


Btw, I am still shocked that Peter used the concept of intrinsic value when he knows very well instrinsic value does not exist.

Yeah, at least if it's his idea, he has some say in how it's done.

yeah, like telling them at what speed they should screw him over .... if he's lucky.

Lie down with dogs and you get fleas.

If he's not doing anything illegal why should the regulators get involved at all? Governments need to be reined in, not encouraged to expand ... has no one been paying attention recently?

You are right, but we live in the world we live. I dont think there are other options. Governments are going to get into Bitcoin related companies whether we like it or not. Its not a choice, its just a matter of how and when, so you might as well look for the best "deal" (and yes, its going to be nasty and governments are not going to play "fair").

Lets be realistic: One exchange going heroic and figthing against the system is not going to acomplish anything. Probably its going to be contraproductive because it will give bad press to bitcoins. Let them regulate the exchange so people have a easy way to get into bitcoins and we can fight the system from within.

"Intrinsic" value in this context does not mean intrinsic value in a philosophical sense.  Rather, it means having value other than as a medium of exchange.  IMO the industrial use for gold is rather weak compared to silver or oil or copper or rice, but even gold has SOME industrial value, while bitcoins do not.

As a medium of exchange, bitcoins do have value, but usefulness as a medium of exchange does not lead to long term stable prices.  And perhaps not even short term stable prices.  In the interview Donald Norman is completely correct in saying that bitcoins make a good medium of exchange but a poor store of value.

Unfortunately the answer to this is yes, mostly. There are open minded people in the silver/gold community such as myself (i'm not that old) but after several years of bringing them (my people who previously were not even interested in the metals) up to speed on currencies and this being new to me I just don't have the energy to start my crusade all over again.

At least not charging into battle. I'll just leave little notes laying on the ground and if someone should happen upon them, AND act upon them, good for you.

Gold has a lot of industrial uses, just not at these prices. For example, gold is a very good conductor and would be used in electronics a lot if it was dirt cheap. But people value more gold as money than gold as conductor, thus is used as money.


I dont know where you are getting this. Bitcoin has been a good store of value. And the long term or short term stable prices I dont even know where you are getting it.

Gold and silver have long histories of being valuable.  Actually longer than history itself.  You can hardly fault a guy for preferring it over this newfangled unproven thing.

But give it time.  Bitcoin has virtues that aren't always obvious.

Yes, exactly.  Whereas instruments backed by other commodities will more closely follow their industrial value.


No exchange ratio of BTC/USD is any more or less appropriate than any other exchange ratio.  The ratio could really be anything.  There is no telling whether it will go to 1% or 1000% of its value.  The reason the exchange ratio is arbitrary is that it has no value except in exchange.

My interpretation is that this is essentially what Peter Schiff was saying and Donald Norman agreed.

That was pretty much how I heard it too.

On the other hand, the exact same argument could be made for every other possible ratio, be it dollars to gold, or gold to chickens, or chickens to apples, or whatever.

Even people that are really good with economics get caught up in these traps.  They mistake the ability to eat something (or whatever) with the notion that it has some sort of stable value in relation to something or everything else.

Found the show archived at:


http://kiwi6.com/file/9j8g288xs7

http://www.mediafire.com/?a5y5zkituuotfha

http://torrage.ws/torrent/186212A02D679BCA24FEAD1D822F28DC2ADB4831.torrent

http://thehashden.org/torrent/AB87A3F9748D576F63768564519D0DCB0DC338A3.torrent