|
I discovered the same thing when I posted about bitcoin at freedominion.ca. This is a forum devoted to conservative and libertarian discussion, yet the response I got regarding bitcoin was pretty dismal.
Then I was going to post a chart of the recent trading action at forexfactory.com to see if any of the fx traders would find it interesting but I don't have enough vouchers to start a thread. If any of you guys are active on forexfactory you might want to start something.
The best way to go about introducing bitcoin to a layman probably isn't to talk about the Federal Reserve, the Treasury and fiat currency inflation, nor is it to talk about anonymity when buying online, and for sure it isn't to talk about how you can generate a whopping 50 bitcoin by letting your PC run 24/7 for 12 weeks.
Probably the best way is to talk about it's utility for micropayments. That something anyone who has bought a virtual good on a social network understands. Likewise, anyone who wants to monetize their meager blog of 20 visitors/day will 'get it'. At least that's my hypothesis.
|
|
|
|
|
This is a terrific article. It was my introduction to Bitcoin when I read it a couple weeks ago in the Elliott Wave Theorist.
|
|
|
|
|
I say hopefully he does it, and the sooner the better. That way we can all pick up lots of bitcoins very, very cheap.
With a maximum of only 21 million in circulation no one will ever be able to do a 'helicopter Ben'. Either bitcoins are going to catch on and their value is going to skyrocket to the moon, or they will wither on the vine. Somebody artificially holding, buying or selling bitcoins won't be able to manipulate their value in the long term.
Everyone holding bitcoins has an incentive to spread the word far and wide, or build websites that use bitcoins, or build opensource products like CMS store plugins or social media plugins that use bitcoins because the greater the use of bitcoins, the more your holdings of bitcoins increase in value.
|
|
|
|
I don't know what you mean by 'go backward'. Do you mean after you have uncovered a square? No, once the mine goes off you're done.
No sorry, I mean trade points on the game back to BTC. No, I don't think so. That would be a violation of Facebook TOS as I understand it. This is simply another place to spend your BTC, and a pretty effective implementation he's done too. If only we could get all app developers to do it. |
|
|
|
|
I don't know what you mean by 'go backward'. Do you mean after you have uncovered a square? No, once the mine goes off you're done.
|
|
|
|
Still doesn't seem to work. I see a minesweeper game, but it looks like ti is just the standard windows game, no option to buy anything with bitcoins Its there. When you start to play the game (click on a square), you will be taken to a screen to place a bet. On that screen you can buy more minesweeper 'money' with BTC. |
|
|
|
Good discussion above.
I want to come back to the original question about HOW TO DRIVE CRITICAL MASS.
Some people have express their belief that we should wait a couple of months before trying to make it bigger, but still think we should build on the momentum BITCOIN has currently. For example, bitcoin transactions, prices and turnover of coins have started to increase significantly over the past days.
If we wait to long, it may die.
I also agree that we need to look for ways to have BITCOINS used in the right target group, i.e.
Gaming, online shopping, etc.
What can we do more and faster???
One small thing that could be done right now by everyone is: Install this Facebook game http://www.facebook.com/#!/apps/application.php?id=157118501301&ref=ts which is also listed in the bitcoin.org trade directory http://www.bitcoin.org/trade. The game accepts bitcoins in payment. Invite 10 different Facebook friends to install the game everyday for a week. Its free, fast and takes almost no effort. And who knows, it may go viral and all of a sudden everyone will be asking 'what are these bitcoins?' Just be warned, I found the game addictive. |
|
|
|
And what if XYZ does violate the contract? How harsh would the penalties be in absence of a government-sponsored MPAA racket? Yeah, you could draft a contract that said "if you leak the film you owe me $100 million compensation", but good luck finding a theatre chain who would be prepared to take that kind of risk. On the other hand, if the mutually agreed penalty was more market-realistic, say $1 million, that would no longer serve as deterrent onerous enough to prevent a leak. All it takes is 1 out of 10,000 employees being careless, or dishonest, and the damage is irreversible. XYZ would not bother investing millions in airport-style security scans for every cleaning lady that enters the cinema building. It would simply accept the risk of paying the penalty.
Right, so there is a point in your example somewhere between $1 million and $100 million where the theatre owner and the film producer can come to agreement. Some point where it is feasible to take the movie and risk it getting out in the world and duplicated for free, and some point where the theatre operator can make money showing the movie even if he has to pay the fine. The point is, somewhere along the line somebody is going to have to violate a contract in order to have the movie available for 'free'. Either the theatre owner is going to start making copies, or a person who viewed the film, or an employee of the theater. In a society of all libertarians, someone is going to have to violate libertarian principles in order to supply a free movie. Therefore it does not make sense for present-day libertarians to advocate piracy, or using bitcoins to facilitate piracy, in the pursuit of libertarian goals. At least not in the context of the present discussion around movies. Maybe things are different regarding software, drug patents etc. At no point am I saying that if A and B create a contract, C is somehow obligated to follow the contract. I am just saying that for a large number of scenarios A and B can create a contract in such a way that the likelihood of C "somehow" acquiring the IP for free is very low. Or at least B will have to compensate A in such a way that even if C gains access, A won't care. |
|
|
|
So are the bitcoins in my wallet real property?
I supposed the thief owe you money after he spend it or destroy it. But how can he 'destroy' my bitcoins? How are bitcoins 'real' property anymore than the music on a Celine Dion CD? That's what I don't understand. Aren't bitcoins 'artifically' scarce? |
|
|
|
|
So are the bitcoins in my wallet real property?
|
|
|
|
I'm not yet sold on the against-IP argument yet. I understand the scarce vs. non-scarce goods anti-IP argument that many libertarians are taking these days, but IMO it fails as soon as you say it voids private contracts. Disallowing individuals to enter into private contracts is obviously immoral, and yet some libertarians are arguing exactly that when they argue against IP. What's wrong with me selling you a reproducible good with a contract attached that says you agree not to duplicate it? If you do, it's dishonest and you've violated our contract. Exactly. And such contracts could be structured in such a way as to have almost the same practical effect as IP enforcement. Which makes me suspect that arguments in favor of evading IP laws are as much about getting free music and free movies as they are about consistent libertarianism. But I'm still learning. Not possible. You can persecute the party in agreement with the contracts but third parties and outsider have no obligations. Sure, but you can make the penalties for violating the party in agreement so onerous that they would never get into the hands of third parties. For example. I make a movie. I license showing of the movie exclusively to theatre chain XYZ. Since XYZ has exclusive distribution it would therefore be necessarily true that any copies of my movie that find their way into the public realm would necessarily have come via XYZ. XYZ will therefore make sure nobody enters the theatre with a Sony Handycam. They will also ensure their staff do not remove copies of the movie when they end their shift. Now this doesn't prevent someone from making their own version of the same plotline. But really, practically speaking, does anyone care if they do? No one is going to come over to my house to watch a homemade version of Avatar. Likewise, if Justin Bieber sells his latest masterpiece on CD with the stipulation you are only buying the right to listen to the music, not reproduce it, then even if a third party hears "Baby Baby" and makes their own version, would anybody actually care to listen to this inferior version of the timeless classic? Yes, personal contracts cannot duplicate IP law exactly, but where the bulk of internet file sharing is concerned (music and video) it would have the same practical effect. |
|
|
|
I'm not yet sold on the against-IP argument yet. I understand the scarce vs. non-scarce goods anti-IP argument that many libertarians are taking these days, but IMO it fails as soon as you say it voids private contracts. Disallowing individuals to enter into private contracts is obviously immoral, and yet some libertarians are arguing exactly that when they argue against IP. What's wrong with me selling you a reproducible good with a contract attached that says you agree not to duplicate it? If you do, it's dishonest and you've violated our contract. Exactly. And such contracts could be structured in such a way as to have almost the same practical effect as IP enforcement. Which makes me suspect that arguments in favor of evading IP laws are as much about getting free music and free movies as they are about consistent libertarianism. But I'm still learning. That said, I dislike the totalitarian nature of government enforcement of IP, which is an entirely different story. Since modern IP is enforced using government this removes an important component of the price mechanism from the equation, and so modern IP is really just “fantasy” in the sense that all government-sponsored economic behavior is fantasy. Why should my labor (via taxes) fund the enforcement that is used to protect someone else’s contract, without my consent? This is just as immoral as the contract violations themselves in my opinion, and distorts the market and human behavior – in short, the costs of IP are socialized while the benefits are capitalized upon by a few. (Just like our banking system…lol) However the costs of real property rights enforcement are also socialized, while the benefits are realized by the few (or the particular). But my point is quite broad really, which is basically that people should look to voluntary solutions rather than everyone lining up at the government’s door to enact new laws. Getting stuck in the pro-IP/anti-IP legal debate is a very, very statist mindset, since it assumes that the government must either enforce for it or enforce against it -- how about get the gov't out of the way and let people figure it out! Some of the anti-IP crowd is even more statist than the pro-IP crowd: read about Sweden’s proposal to legalize piracy (thus voiding private contracts), tax all internet traffic and have the government decide how to hand out money to “content creators”…. that is frightening and insane IMO.
With some of these European countries it's a race between their birthrate and their culture to see which will destroy their society first. |
|
|
|
Maybe I'm not understanding this completely, but it sounds vaguely to me that the suggestion is to use a 'rabid libertarian' tool to facilitate violation of intellectual property rights.
Intellectual property right violate real property right. This is new thinking for me. I'm just reading through em3rgentOrdr's recommended "Against Intellectual Property". So in the context of this discussion, how do you define "real property"? |
|
|
|
VERY GOOD IDEA!!! You should maybe talk to the bitcoin forum member torservers ( http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1045) who runs Torservers.net. He has a thread on this forum where he talks about how he now accepts bitcoin donations ( http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1004.0) so you should read that thread and talk to him to ask about feasibility...and maybe see if he wants to try it out. Definitely, adding market incentives to the allocation of TOR bandwidth would dramatically increase its efficiency. It would allow the TOR network to grow because people would be incentivized to dedicate high-bandwidth low-latency routers for it. Of course poor people could still use free donated bandwidth, but for the rich people living in industrial countries with high copyright restrictions (e.g. US) that want to share copyrighted files quickly and anomalously, fast TOR bandwidth is in high demand! Maybe I'm not understanding this completely, but it sounds vaguely to me that the suggestion is to use a 'rabid libertarian' tool to facilitate violation of intellectual property rights. I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just looking for clarification. |
|
|
|
Wouldn't a nationwide bank run result in hyperinflation?
A bank run is an increase in demand for currency. Which would create hyperdeflation, as the value of currency rose to meet the clearing price at the current supply. I don't follow you. If you will, please break it down. All of those accounts are "insured" for up to $250,000. Where will this money come from? They will have to issue more money or default on their promises. They will default on their promises. That is why you either want to have your cash in your mattress, or in a very strong bank. Or, most cynically, put your money in a very weak bank. If the banks start going down, you want yours to go down first when they're still paying on the 'insurance'. |
|
|
|
So basically, let's make sure we are very clear and deliberate when talking to the public and social networking friends that BITCOIN DOES NOT GAURENTEE ANONYMITY, but simply pseudonymity (because bitcoin address are public and because trading patterns can be analyzed to match them to people) and should be used in conjunction with TOR and new addresses for every transaction. Also, make sure they know that the total amount of bitcoins sent to any particular address is public knowledge with bitcointools.
So I think some basic changes to the bitcoin client should be made: For example, having the ability to receive bitcoins by your IP address should be disabled by default, because it presents a small security risk to reveal the ip address of a bitcoin user. Also, the client should indicate that messages included when sending to an ip address are just plaintext and NOT encyrpted. Remember, very few people actually read the READMEs and development notes. Maybe even a "TOR enabled/disabled" indicator should be present on the client.
So I would say let's not be too hasty before we make a collective bitcoin publicity splash. We should wait at least two months, and make it a great shot...
Hummm, you're causing me to pause and ponder this a little more. Though for me the biggest selling points of Bitcoin are the virtually free micro-payment angle and the built-in inflation protection rather than the implied anonymity. Maybe we need to have a more methodical approach to 'spreading the word'. Maybe this is why the word hasn't spread further already? |
|
|
|
This is the same problem I've encountered with a couple of friends I've talked to about bitcoin. A lot of people don't have the economic insight to understand why bitcoins have certain intrinsic advantages over other currencies. To them it's just play money you can generate with some obscure algorithm on a computer and then convert into "real" money. At best they see it as some form of speculation or pyramid scheme (which currently is a deflating factor imho) and in the worst case they see it as some unworldly hippie thing.
Some serious thought should be put into making people understand the intrinsic benefits of bitcoins, but I'm not sure how to do that either. Most people simply don't care and just use whatever money their government wants them to use.
I think residents of Zimbabwe would have a special, natural insight into the advantages of Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Great thought about facebook and other social media sites. We should do this "bitcoin day".
In terms of timing I suggest it to be very soon (i.e. in the next 7 days). My experience in marketing / PR / ER tells me that we need to eat the potato while its still hot. Now we see a good postive trend in coverage, and risk is that if we wait too long, we might start from a lower level.
Key question is how to mobilize all bitcoin supporters = how to reach them to align on a date.
Who has a "list" or an idea to communicate to all bitcoin owners?
I agree about eating hot potatoes (that's a new one I hadn't heard before), if we can make it happen. I suggested two months for a target date just because I figured it would take that long to find a large number of Bitcoin supporters to make it happen. Is there any value in doing media releases? Has there ever been a full court press on getting Bitcoin noticed by the mainstream tech media? A mention in Fast Company or Wired would certainly go a long way. In the Bitcoin community, are there people like yourself with PR experience and connections that could be leveraged to get the word out both about "Bitcoin Day" and Bitcoin in general? (Pardon me if all this has been tried before, I'm very new here). Also enlisting the support of various libertarian/hard money institutes and some reliable newsletter writers (I first heard about Bitcoin through Elliott Wave International last Friday) to promote Bitcoin Day would help. Just a quick note for those of you who don't use Facebook or spend very little time there, just be aware that there are more than 500 million people on Facebook, half of which check their account at least every second day. If you've seen the Facebook Newsfeed in action, you understand the power of publicity on Facebook. Facebook is the second most trafficked site on the planet, and for one month this spring actually outpaced Google (according to Alexa). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
