Au contraire dear fonz ... GS are notorious for recommending/downgrading assets against the best interests of their clients, for the very purposes of front-running them. Typically on the juiciest of plays.

The very fact GS are covering bitcoin in a report is the news. Their statement that it is "too volatile for serious investors" ... means stay away until we establish our positions first. Volatility is life blood for these guys.

Emergence. Spontaneous order.

Have you ever seen the conductor making a forest of cicadas sing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

“You know you're over the target when you start taking flak.”

Fungible coins and paper cash were both great advancements for humanity and economic good for all societies that used them. Many positive correlations in history are well-documented going back hundreds and thousands of years.

There is no reason to expect fungible digital 'coins/cash' would be any different, probably a greater relative advance in respect of it it being a non-physical medium of exchange capable of transferring values anywhere on the planet anonymously.

I think in retrospect it will be come to be seen that the last 20-30 years of traceable digital money substitutes (not fungible) was a historic anomaly bought about by the botched transitioning of legacy paper ledger banking system unsuccessfully into the digital realm. A huge mistake by people who did not understand monetary science all that well but assumed they knew what was best for society (no doubt while feathering their own nests in the process).

Fungibility. Good money needs to be fungible or the whole system of that money is inefficient as a medium of exchange and will inevitably break down.

It is not about anonymity per se but traceability. In the realm of digital money it must be untraceable to be fungible. Any piece of bitcoin must be indistinguishable from any other piece of bitcoin.

Anonymity can be a natural side-effect of untraceable digital money but is not necessarily a goal in itself.

do you mean jorge? (hint read slowly with eyes open)

JorgeStolfi ... some self-styled 'academic' who showed up here recently pontificating (wrongly) about bitcoin.

Jorge is wrong; bitcoin would be a zero sum game if it operated inside a closed system, it clearly does not.

Bitcoin provides a superior medium of exchange and makes private international value transfer more efficient, by orders of magnitude, as but one example. These increased efficiencies are net gains for the wider economy and for economic actors outside the bitcoin ecosystem. Some of the increased value bought about by these efficiencies naturally flow to Bitcoin, the asset, since that is part of the mechanism they derive from. Note also that some of that net value increase flows to bitcoin, the payment network, in the form of venture capital, new businesses and amazingly volunteer coding time.

Bitcoin is absolutely Not a zero sum game. That is a stupid, shallow statement from someone with very little understanding of economic systems, or a hidden agenda to push.

It is analogous to saying the back-hoe digger is not providing any advanced utility over men with shovels and no one can make money from building and using back-hoe diggers.

bitcoins is built so that noone need trust another. How did you miss that bit?

Why would anyone let someone else store their bitcoins for them? Are you stupid?

The weak and corrupted are getting weeded out by the market.

All that regulation will do is ensconce the corrupted and incompetent. Probably bolstered with tax-payer bail-outs after it is found that the regulators were on the take from the players, while watching porn, and they don't want to be liable for not doing "their job" properly. We've seen what regulated financial systems look like, they don't work. Or did you miss that exhibition of corruption and incompetence writ large also?

Better yet, if were to pursue his own devoid logic reductio ad absurdum, he should just kill himself now so that another starving mouth may feed.

Yes, this was it. Weird because I tested the prior link yesterday and it worked.

Fungibility.

Broken link, see below.

This is the one I was thinking about. Not exactly in your scheme but related, so might be useful.

hahaha, kkapser's a blowhard ... he's not writing 1000 lines of anything except pure unadulterated FUD.

1) every communist regime known has had rampant monetary inflation

2) the most prosperous nation and period known in economic history is the free market capitalism under the deflationary gold standard period of the 1800's in USA.

gawd are you guys still feeding this troll?

... it's kind of like watching a bad re-run of mid-2011. Just go back and read the archives, you aren't bringing anything new to the table dude, you're a complete mini-mind, get over yourself.

Bitcoin is gonna kick your ass (and hundreds of other know-it-alls just like you) up and down the street forever unless you get a clue.

Away from the monetary lightweights.

you should check out the cult of fiat banksterism ... it works really well for the high priest wannabees like yourself i heard

Yes, with a superficial glance from an unqualified mind it could well appear exactly like that ... many have assumed the same thing for over 5 years and missed out on opportunities that come along only once in 300 years or more.

You should probably leave now and come back when it is truly truly failed for the "told you so" dance routine ... and again at the next pullback after that ... and again at the next pullback after that ...

capital controls typically emerge in the late stages of an economy in severe financial or political crisis ...

... no need to bring an assault rifle to a school yard pissing contest ...

... i guess this is the speculation thread. Unsubstantiated, opinionated diatribe can pass for commentary i suppose.

Edit: you could post your concerns in the "Development and Technical Discussion" if think you have something useful to contribute?

You haven't mentioned that it is now an established network protocol yet.

I thought your erudite analysis of why it was going to become obsolete in 2-3 years would need to address that?

PS: Leave the potty-mouth insolence at the door.