Yes, one can describe a lottery as a market: a market for luck. No currency typically has the huge volatility that bitcoin has. That volatility is one reason only an extremely tiny minority regards bitcoin as a currency.

The people who bought bitcoin at $800, or $900, or $1,000 might beg to differ that bitcoin is not risky. So would the people who experienced bitcoin drop from $1,000 in 2014 to $200 in 2015. Whether or not that volatility is a "systemic risk," some people lose plenty in the bitcoin lottery.

ETH is down and maybe out. But let's stop kidding ourselves. We all know all that these cryptocurrencies are just a bunch of cryptolottery tickets.  All that fancy schmancy coding just to operate a lottery.

There are still another 500+ cryptocurrencies left. Anybody who loses money in these lotteries had it coming. Gamblers need to learn that the odds favor the house, not the gambler. And if you don't know who the house is, it's probably not you.

The problem with a lot of critics is they don't understand republics. Republics are messy. It's been that way since the ancient Roman republic. Republics have a bunch of decision-makers responding to different interests. That's messy.

The above quote regards this messyness as "distortions." Distortions from what? Distortions from how an utopian society would be if one genius were in charge of defining a free market? Do we need someone to decide the proper amount of florists and sales clerks, and the appropriate set of skills for society? No thanks.

A free market is whatever a republic decides it is, even it's messy.

A payment of $5 for an article of 500+ words is nothing. An intelligent, original article is going to take a fair amount of time to write. I doubt a quality writer is available for slave wages.

Bitcoin-related sites are a dime a dozen and the number of these sites will keep increasing. If you want to rise above your competitors, you should offer superior, original content. If you pay slave wages for content, you'll probably just get articles that merely repeat content from other sites.

But good luck with your strategy.

Saifedean Ammous never said that you cannot have blockchain without bitcoin. His article neither says that nor implies that:  http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/blockchain-wont-make-banks-any-nimbler-1079190-1.html

His article merely claims that any non-bitcoin blockchain would be "extremely costly and inefficient." That opinion may or may not be accurate. But you keep putting words in his mouth completely different from what he said.

You also quote this:
But those aren't his words either. That quote is from some writer at Coindesk: http://www.coindesk.com/central-bank-fail-digital-currency/

Contrary to that quote, there are many examples of non-bitcoin blockchains. Other cryptocurrencies use blockchain. Anybody can use Google to identify other existing uses for blockchain beyond cryptocurrencies.

Look, professor Saifedean Ammous doesn't have a monopoly on opinions about blockchain. And it's not mature that you say "trols are trolling" just because people disagree with you.

The problem with bitcoin is precisely that it doesn't offer advantages over cash for the extreme majority of people. Consider the advantages of the dollar:

* almost universal acceptance

* up to $250,000 in government-funded depositor insurance per bank account, at least in the U.S.

* reimbursement from banks if an account is hacked and money is stolen, or if there is credit card fraud or check fraud

* chargebacks available for purchases made with bank cards

* enough stability that it serves as a store of value or unit of account for assets worth hundreds of trillions of dollars

Regarding inflation of the dollar:

* inflation also existed when currencies were based on gold or silver

* a low amount of inflation is healthy and desirable for an economy; when people expect prices to rise, they are less likely to delay purchases, and that consumption helps the job market; by comparison, zero inflation or deflation would encourage delayed purchases, which would would hurt job growth

* the amount of bitcoin keeps increasing, and a growing money supply can be inflationary

Unfortunately, I find your ideas to be incoherent. You expect corrupt politicians to legalize bitcoin so that those same corrupt politicians starve? Good luck persuading those politicians to commit suicide like that. 

I don't think poor people using bitcoin would starve corrupt politicians. Those politicians probably already have enough assets allowing them to live off the income from their investments. The poor people in low income countries are more likely to starve themselves by impoverishing their countries even more through tax evasion.

That mentality is what keeps those countries poor. Even countries with corrupt governments need tax revenue to provide for improvements. The less tax revenue, the fewer improvements. There is no way around that. Bitcoin isn't going to magically pay for public education, infrastructure, etc.

Really? Lower income countries have economic problems partly because of vast amounts of tax evasion. Without adequate tax collection, how are poor countries going to pay for public education, better infrastructure, public safety, and a reliable legal system? Without those things, they will stay poor.

A lot of people want to use cryptocurrencies precisely for tax evasion. Governments don't want cryptocurrencies partly because they don't want to enable tax evasion. Tax collection requires being able to identify people and their transactions. Isn't that the opposite of what cryptocurrencies are about? And I don't see how the expansionary supply of bitcoin will reduce inflation.

I congratulate the original poster for the thoughtful articles. I'm no winner of the Nobel prize in economics. But if I understand correctly, the poster is arguing against fiat money.

But isn't bitcoin fiat money? Doesn't the bitcoin politburo congregate periodically over frapuccinos in Palo Alto, or wherever, and make decrees about how to code the bitcoin blockchain, ie, the supply of bitcoin? Don't those decrees function as fiats?

I don't see that bitcoin is backed by gold or silver. Bitcoin hasn't been an adequate store of value for people who bought when the price was worth $800, $900, or $1,000. It would appear also that the bitcoin money supply is expansionary.

It doesn't take a fancy macro model for one to reckon that bitcoin is another monetary construct that enriches the elite that manipulates it most effectively. Therefore, I have to disagree with the thesis that global elites might embrace bitcoin as a monetary equivalent to the gold standard.

You're insulting mentally handicapped people by referring to that pedophile as mentally handicapped.  That is politically incorrect and suggests that you would benefit from sensitivity training.

Your vilification of the mentally handicapped feeds into the negative stereotypes of them. I trust that the mentally handicapped community disavows any association with, or condoning of, unlawful behavior.

In these tragic times the bitcoin community needs to stand together, and not segregate the mentally handicapped. The mentally handicapped have feelings, and hopes, and dignity, just like the rest of us. Just because you didn't wear a helmet in school is no reason to discriminate against those who did or still wear one.

Central banks have functioned adequately for hundreds of years without cryptocurrency. I think the revolutionaries are getting a bit too caught up in their own hype. Finance is based on trust. Why would bankers trust cryptocurrencies managed by unregulated, anonymous people?

Central banks already have a bunch of digital currencies. But they're for big transactions, not for the microtransactions of the masses. It makes no sense to claim that digital currencies they've been using for years will fail.

They don't need cryptocurrencies. Banks know they can benefit from better encryption and digital processes. But none of that requires cryptocurrencies.

The crypto token doesn't need to be bitcoin.

Some financial institutions are interested in blockchain because they regard it as an interesting bookkeeping system and transfer mechanism. That doesn't mean they want bitcoin. If they want a cryptocurrency, they'll create their own.

But I doubt they're interested in the microtransactions of the masses. They're more likely interested in how blockchain can help transfer securities in the capital markets. For example, the value of stocks and bonds traded per business day is about $1 trillion. Compared to that, the total value of bitcoin is just a statistical rounding error. Bitcoin is trivial for the big financial institutions.

Yes, there is an increase in the number of gas-fueled engines. But there is a bigger increase in the number of petroleum-fueled engines.

The big oil companies also produce natural gas. They're also hedging their bets by investing in alternative energy technologies. They're diversified. Trading oil futures is dicey but going long on fairly valued big energy companies is ok.

Hatuferu, try googling a few phrases like "bonus checking account" or "$75 checking account." There are even some blogs devoted to tracking the latest bonuses:

http://www.bankpromotions.com/index.php

http://www.hustlermoneyblog.com/best-bank-bonuses-deals/

These are reputable banks and I don't understand either why they give away free money. If they required big balances it would make sense. But my new checking account only requires a $50 minimum balance.

There is some kind of money bubble brewing. I just take the bonus and laugh all the way to the bank.

Market caps don't provide much useful information. He's right that one should compare multiples within an industry. Metrics such as price/book, price/sales, price/cash flow. I like to use Morningstar for that.

Of those 5 companies, BP seems to have the lowest multiples, which would make it the most appealing for investment purposes: http://financials.morningstar.com/valuation/price-ratio.html?t=bp&region=usa&culture=en-US
BP also has a lovely dividend yield and a solid balance sheet to help it through these tough times.

The thing to keep in mind about oil is engines. The biggest use for petroleum products is as fuel for transportation.  The vast majority of engines being made today are fueled by those products. That's probably going to be the situation for at least another generation.

Engines last a long time, right? Developing countries need plenty of more engines, right? That will keep oil companies profitable for many more decades. But occasionally excess supply of oil will depress oil prices and create losses, like these last couple of years.

Some people keep confusing bitcoin with blockchain. They are not the same thing. Blockchain is a technology and bitcoin is just one product of that technology. Jamie Dimon and some banks are excited about blockchain but have no faith in bitcoin.

Cars are a technology that has succeeded. But there are hundreds of car brands and car manufacturers that have failed so badly that they don't exist anymore. Likewise, the blockchain technology can succeed, even if bitcoin fails.

My point is that investments produce cash flow. That cash flow serves as the basis for the bond ratings you're talking about. Bitcoin produces zero cash flow.

Things that don't produce cash flow are speculation, not investment. For example, art, jewelry, rocks. You say that you don't agree that none of the most successful investors made a fortune from cryptocurrencies. Then can you name anyone who has become a billionaire from bitcoin?

History shows that the biggest fortunes relied on cash flow. I don't see how bitcoin can produce cash flow. I don't need to wait 10 years for studies about bitcoin to come out. Do you think people will make bitcoin fortunes by earning cash flow from cloud mining services, HYIPs, or some fresh scheme?

Jamie Dimon is one of the few bankers who have become billionaires because he's a very smart guy. His bank had subprime mortgages but by the time the financial crisis hit he had gotten rid of most of those. His bank then profited from the crisis by buying assets at distressed prices.

That article with his views on bitcoin is very good. Just because he thinks highly of blockchain doesn't mean he endorses bitcoin. He very clearly thinks bitcoin will fail.