I find your reply disturbing, as I took you at face value to have at least put in the work necessary to understand bitcoin at the protocol level.

The white paper explains how the blockchain works, proof-of-work and propogation delays inherent in peer-to-peer networks of any non-trivial size. That would answer how bitcoin can't be counterfeited on a whim, among other considerations - and that is useless?

Economic topics are covered here, among other things:

Bitcoin Wiki - https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Myths - all of these answers are useless?

I'm unclear on what you're defending - lack of applying knowledge, or just Slashdot's particular aggregation of ignorance?

Quantitative Easing and a trillion dollar coin are equally destructive. Zerohedge has the best analysis of why, so I suggest starting there. The dollar is on a continued trajectory towards debasement, as are the other world currencies.

Bitcoin is an ideal insurance policy, given its global reach and ease of transport. Combined with an offline wallet that is only used to sign payments broadcast to the network, it has unparalleled security.

Given how things are developing in the world now, it would be smart to firewall some of your wealth in bitcoin. It is going to get ugly out there.

I think the underlying frustration here is not with the fact that it is Slashdot per se, but the commenters there should honestly know better than to raise questions that have already been answered in the bitcoin wiki or even by reading the whitepaper.

I would expect someone who frequents a site with the tagline "News for nerds, stuff that matters", wouldn't be above doing some basic research on what they're trying to talk about. I've been browsing Slashdot for a while too, perhaps not as long, but you're correct - it is a mirror of the tech world - as it exists today.

And that mirror is showing some disturbing trends. Younger tech workers come in with a "Too long; didn't read" mindset and start spouting off whatever half-formed hypothesis is rattling around their skull. While it is a slashdot hallmark to not read the parent post and start commenting away, most of the time in the past these comments came from people who actually KNEW THEIR MATERIAL, so they could get away with it.

Now its just regurgitated trolling with no real examination of the underlying principles outlined in the technical references for bitcoin. Questions that have been answered over and over keep coming up - because nobody there does any research on it. Despite the small handful that "get" it, they are overwhelmed by the people who are dog-piling on just to have a good old internet smackdown.

Asking critical questions about bitcoin isn't the issue, I welcome those, because they take time and articulation to even pose - and equally dextrous responses to counter. That isn't happening here. Its just the usual - "We didn't bother reading all that whitepaper stuff, LOL - hey, its backed by nothing, what about deflation, some dude hacked an exchange so you can print bitcoins right?" stream of complete simpleton sewage.

Sorry, but Slashdot has become another internet echo-chamber like yahoo trading forums. I'll read a headline and check out stories, but the comments are not worth sifting through for that one gem in the muddy river of LOLs.

I think the bankers are scared of bitcoin - that is, the ones who fully realize the potential. Not so much where we are in capitalization, but the underlying tenets of the system. I agree that if we didn't have bitcoin, I'd probably be a huge precious metal stacker right now.

Even PM's are coming under fire. Zerohedge had a story about there's an effort to collect records of sale at shops for coins and metals - with a particular eye towards gold purchases. I've got a bad feeling about that one.

This criticism from Slashdot is ironic, since they're the same collection of future-thinking geniuses that panned the first iPod.

I'm not particularly worried that they don't "get" bitcoin right now. Some do, and you can tell who they are. The rest, they'll keep crapping on the idea until it is at their doorstep, knocking to be allowed in.

Considering his abysmal track record, its probably best he isn't endorsing bitcoin.

You know, I'm just trying to help you out here. Go ahead, call 5% fluctuations "bubbles" all you want. My alias wasn't chosen at random, I know what I'm talking about.

Won't be me looking like a fool...

I know that among things users fear about bitcoin, is that the government or banks could shut it down. However, when I read articles and papers coming from the banking industry and government mouthpieces, I'm leaning more towards the opinion that these people have no idea how hard the bitcoin freight train is going to hit them.

Honestly, they can't seem to wrap their heads around the entire concept - and that goes for elected officials and perhaps even certain three letter agencies. Banks in general have their eye on bitcoin, but I think the only thing they "get" about it is the nearly-zero fees for making transfers.

In any case, I expect bitcoin to eat both their lunches, metaphorically.

Do you know anyone investing in Tulip Bulbs expecting a return in yield?

(Rhetorical, of course.)

Again - the definition is "price returns to the start of the move or collapses to zero". Since it didn't collapse all the way to zero, you're free to buy all the Tulip Bulbs you'd like - but you'd be a complete fool expecting any return from your investment.

I know I keep trying, but honestly - people really need to lay of the "bubble" term. A true bubble is when the price falls to the inception or zero. A large market fluctuation is not a bubble. The best chance of that occurring was when we spiked on the massive highs past 30. Since we did NOT go down to the starting price level of that massive move - it isn't a "bubble".

The past fluctuation courtesy of Mr. Arr-Matey-Scamerson wasn't a "bubble". We're above the price inception of that fluctuation. Was it a liquidation event? Most certainly, but the market recovered. Bubbles don't recover. If they did, we'd still be investing in Tulip Bulbs.

I'll keep repeating myself, eventually it will stick.

(Futures markets have blowoff moves that follow an exponential curve - they aren't a "bubble" either. If they were, then silver would be at zero, to pick an example.)

My reply hasn't shown on the article responses yet, but there are two major distinctions - no matter how you define 'fiat'.

Bitcoin can't be duplicated at will, either through deceit or implicitly by policies. (No, hacks at edge-exchanges aren't the same thing.)

Bitcoin has a finite number of units, which can't be changed on a whim. (I suppose you could make an argument that if a majority of the clients agreed to new 'rules', it would, but that scenario seems unlikely given the divisibility.)

It will take time for people to "get" these two points, but they're central to bitcoin's success, among other reasons.

I plan to frame that quote by Chandler - "Nonetheless, it is doubtful that BTC’s will prompt any quick or permanent changes in mass currency usage." It seems he's had his "Dewey Defeats Truman" moment.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/28/Deweytruman12.jpg

I think market depth has increased. Just look at the daily candles for 2011 versus 2012. The upside breakout from the consolidating triangle is encouraging as well.

Katherine did such a fantastic job I emailed her personally to compliment her performance.

Stellar work - really raises the bar for communicating the importance of monetary freedom and privacy that bitcoin provides.

Good article, had to school some people in the comments. Reposted for your convenience:

(To another commenter that claimed bitcoin would always need other sovereign currencies, market volatility is too much, etc..)


It is refreshing to see rational articles being written about bitcoin. It touches on some of the more controversial aspects without succumbing to the paranoia that usually follows such references.

Krugman is yet another bearded-money printing keynesian-believer who can't wrap his mind around a constrained supply. I would expect no less, as his entire world depends on the thesis being 'true'. He's an expert at talking his position, even if his thesis is flawed.

I look forward to bitcoin shaming him in the future, most notably when the USA has to default on their debt - or they devalue the currency, or both. That is the only end-game here regarding what is going on with the insane monetary policy in place today.

Perhaps a fitting epitaph for his theories would read "Beware bearded fools".

Bitcoin performed very well this year, indeed. With national savings rates (such as interest checking or CDs), hovering at fractional values well below ONE percent. Which of course, is courtesy of the Federal Reserve maintaining their Zero Interest Rate Policies. (Don't even get me started on how that doesn't do squat compared to yearly inflation.)

It's becoming quite a lure for those looking for actual return - I'll take 460% over 0.8% any day.

Kickin' ass, Jon! I always find it funny when people bring up the deflation problem - someone just is too lazy to do the math. Considering that there are 2.1 QUADRILLION units at the maximum divisor, even if we have lost coins, etc.., that number will handily take care of it.

Wolfram Alpha, for instance, says that number is approximately 100 x The total number of human blood cells in the average person. That's how divisible bitcoin is. (2 x 10^13, where bitcoin is 2.1 x 10^15)

I agree decentralizing the user base just like the underlying bitcoin protocol is a worthy endeavor.

I disagree with the projection of energy independence though, I know a few analysts and traders active in the energy space, and all the production numbers that have been quoted aren't completely realistic.

In any case, it seems bitcoin fits very nicely into a new age, I look forward to the progress it will make.

Yes, I loathe their data collection and monetization strategies. Never mind the whole joke their 'privacy' settings are.

For those interested, here's the google translate text: