Another piece of complete steaming crap. Starts with this:


And his basis? China's central bank warning not allowing their banking institutions to offer Bitcoin denominated products or direct trade in Bitcoin. Which as we've discussed here, is merely a ring-fencing move, not a complete ban.

Then, after that wonderful start, the "pull numbers from my ass" game begins:


It could be adopted, but it could go to $10. Wow, you're a complete oracle with that one. And with so many reasons! (Not really.)

Again an example of a sheltered academic that has next to zero understanding of what Bitcoin is or its true potential. I'm bearish and bullish on Bitcoin as it trades, and if I told people $10, I'd have to justify that somehow. Well this guy can just sit back on his laurels and just say it with zero justification. Its complete bullshit.

Welcome to the Press ADVERTISING channel, how may I shill for you today!?

This would stop those "Bitcoin isn't a unit of account" idiots in their tracks. I certainly hope they pass it.

This is why I'd like the Swiss "postulate" to become an official endorsement. With Bitcoin endorsed by a sovereign entity as a "unit of account", a lot of the other crap will fall away. Tired of the whole "lack of intrinsic value" and "doesn't satisfy Mises regression theorem" bullshit.

I'm just amused that businesses, banks and governments now are forced to comment on Bitcoin, when before they couldn't be bothered to do so. The enhanced attention, positive and negative, has put Bitcoin on the global stage where it deserves to be. It is getting to be the time when someone who is the CFO has to have some kind of response about "virtual currencies" or they'll look incompetent.

Just savoring the whole effect.

Somebody sitting on a Texas ISP:

http://who.is/whois/h87-230-94-69.adstx.net <-- Your IP resolves to this hostname. Not sure why it is pointing to a local customer, though.

So, PR News Item then?

Can we have a separate "PR NEWS BLAST" section for the forum? I'm tired of the self-aggrandizing bullshit.

It's like the telelphone network. Nobody rushes around trying to buy all the telephones they can, to "strike it rich". You just need one or two. The network is the power of the entire communications platform. Same with bitcoin, people rush around trying to buy them all, but the main point is to just have some - the network effects will take care of the rest.

But as usual, most older people have trouble understanding how DVR's and Computers work, much less abstract crypto-currencies.

Anyone else find it a bit comical that all these governments (USA, China, India) are falling over themselves in a rush to "protect consumers"? If I didn't know better, I'd think it was to stave off massive interest in something that could turn their sovereign currency systems into quaint relics.

I wonder which agenda it is....

Its been talked to death, I know, but the upshot of all this Chinese Regulation is just a ring-fence around it, like they have with Hong Kong. Of course, everyone in America freaks out, because that's what they're best at. Sanity will prevail. The chinese are not some backwards nation that can't focus on the long-term.

We're merely witnessing their rapid rise through their own industrial revolution into full-blown consumer-driven society. The loosening of controls on selling farmland, for example, will allow farmers who wish to move closer to population centers the chance to do so. Prior to this, it was under local control, and difficult to impossible to do.

There is a bright future in China, its just that most western biases don't allow them to see it that way.

I find efforts to "find satoshi" to belong in one of two camps:

1.) They are simply too stupid to understand that the person or persons deliberately chose to be anonymous. Don't go sniffing where someone doesn't want you to, you naive idiot.

2.) They have an agenda, where revealing the creator or creators of Bitcoin would allow close personal scrutiny of their lives, likes and dislikes, providing fodder for those that oppose or fear Bitcoin in general. "See, he was a member of this group - obviously bitcoin was meant to be a subversive terrorist weapon against our country!!"

Anyone who participates in the search, writes about it, or just in general keeps this idea going - is a complete fool at best, and at worst, an enemy to anyone who values the freedoms that Bitcoin provides.

Okay, lets say the father of the largest real-estate bubble in america is somehow *right* about bitcoin. Well, when would you expect this to manifest itself? After the first surge to a dollar? The second to 31? The third to 266? The fourth to 1,000+? Do you see a pattern here at all?

When confidence is lost, the opportunity to recover is also lost. Bitcoin hasn't lost that confidence. For that to happen, we would freefall to near zero, and then stay at some mediocre value - say 1 dollar, and taper off to nothingness as everyone just decided to stop participating.

The problem with his grand and sweeping pronouncement is he bases this on the "intrinsic value" theorem, which for old economic fossils, usually means Gold. You can't directly compare bitcoin and gold, although some try. I suppose there is a rudimentary basis for doing so, where the scarcity of gold ore could be held up to the relative scarcity of finding the correct "hash" for a block. But other than that, they are distant cousins to each other.

In any case, I'd just take his predictions he made during his career and apply that probability ratio to what he's said about Bitcoin. If anything, its a contrary indicator.

Love how greenspan is being quoted, when that man is single-handedly responsible for gutting an entire economy. That doddering fool couldn't spot a bubble when he was looking for one, and he sure as hell doesn't understand Bitcoin well enough to make that statement.

But he's given headlines and the spotlight, because wealth and power are the only respected qualities in U.S. mainstream news anymore.

I personally think there's a loophole here.

In the third plenum meeting, there was a provision for private investors to open their own banks. So, if Bitcoin has been declared a "good" for private citizens, how much you want to bet you can set up a local private bank, funded by private investor funds - and do business that way?

Sounds to me that the Chinese government wants to limit large players from getting too involved in something they perceive has risks. It seems like a prudent approach to me.

I agree with this article. China isn't stupid. They're minimizing some of the risk that they see, but they're not banning citizens from using Bitcoin. That's the crux of it. Probably a more reasoned response than what will come out of the United States, I'm sure. Still waiting for the other shoe to drop on that one.

Bubbles are typically very local and specific.

Tulip mania? Netherlands.

South Sea Bubble? England, although events in Spain played a role in unseating this one.

Dot Com Bubble? United States. (Though this fails the true "bubble" test, as the NASDAQ still operates today, and some of the individual stocks are still around at lower valuations.)

You could make a distinction between communication networks and the lack thereof, but the overriding point is, they're very localized. Enter Bitcoin. It is, by its very nature, global. It has also shown resilience in the face of rather volatile price movements. Bubbles don't inflate, pop, then re-inflate. They typically go to a minimal value - either just as good as zero, and/or interest fades completely and it isn't traded anymore.

Bitcoin has experienced multiple events in this regard. It isn't dead, it most certainly IS traded all over the world, and the adoption curve on a longer-term perspective certainly has some headroom. For Bitcoin to be a bubble, every single country in the world would have to been involved already, and every single participant would have to decide to not use it anymore after a period of brief excess.

I consider that probability to be extremely remote. But, it never stops the critics, does it.

Again the Tylers at ZeroHedge selectively parse commentary from someone they usually vilify in their articles. It has become even more clear to me over the last couple of months that they can't stand Bitcoin, and the only reason they run articles on it is to get the advertising stats.

They're an advertising platform masquerading as a financial blog, and it shows.

Yep, if Greenspan, the doddering old fool who couldn't understand his policies were creating the largest housing bubble of all time, says that Bitcoin is in a bubble - well, buddy - you're not seeing things so well, are you.

He's in the same league as Cramer when he said Bear Stearns was "FINE" one day before they filed for bankruptcy.

They're both bought and paid for by the financial system that they work within.

ZeroHedge covered this as well, and I find it interesting that they LOVED Hugh Hendry when he was bashing the ECB and the Euro project, but he lets slip one word about liking Bitcoin, and now the gloves are off over at ZH. They're disowning the guy because he likes Bitcoin, and it disgusts me.

The "Tylers" over there are just a bunch of financial shills, and they all probably work day jobs for major investment banks. It shows.

At least they're not actually TRYING to find Satoshi. I've always thought someone doing that had a hidden agenda. There's no utility in knowing who it is at all. The people/person made an effort to stay anonymous, we should respect that.