 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 »
|
Sweet mother of mercy.
I feel kind of responsible for all the money you guys are investing in this idea. Makes me a bit queezy. Doesn't help me sleep at night, either.
Ain't no thang. As long as funding is available for developing the protocol, it doesn't matter if there are bubbles and crash-corrections. Let Mastercoin have its 'August 2011's and 'April 2013's. Corrections are gifts to newcomers. You might consider upping distribution through faucets or providing further rewards for spreading the word--Still only 219 of us on r/mastercoin as of now. But don't beat yourself up for speculators' confidence in your success. Tho if you want to relieve some buying pressure you coooooould trade me the MSC for my dumb timezone-related late send to the exodus address, and I'll bid for fewer. Still can't believe my best trade ever didn't actually happen.  |
|
|
|
|
Buying 100 MSC @ .165 BTC
|
|
|
|
This one?  |
|
|
|
|
Ah! Joe Weisenthal--My favorite BI counterindicator!
|
|
|
|
When I heard Chris recommend people "sell everything they have and buy silver" I knew to take him with a shovel full of salt. The same goes for the KWN gang, etc. Turk, Von Greyertz, etc. have been blathering about gold taking off any day now for over a year. Fundamentally there is good reason this should have in fact happened a while ago but we're now living amidst holographic, manipulated markets of all kinds devoid of fundamentals. That's one of the reasons I was personally attracted to Bitcoin in the first place... Hey, look, a free market!
I have a bit of metal and am on board with Chris' general message but I also think giving advice like that is not only irresponsible but a reckless, fanatical approach despite perceived fundamentals.
Chris has done good things for the honest money movement and has provided a bunch of great info to anyone wanting to listen. I ordered a Freedom Girl each for me and my sister because they're gorgeous and I love the symbolism, she was very impressed. I like the guy. However, people need to be as critical with many of the "good guys" as with the bad guys and do one's DD.
This sums up my feelings pretty well. I subscribe to Chris's newsletter because he is of the right consciousness in approaching what I consider to be sort of the worst-case scenario for the progression of this currency crisis--'Positive, aware, prepared'. I do hope he comes around on Bitcoin. What his views indicate to me is there is a fraction of the population that simply don't want unbacked money. Digital bullion banking/gold-backed digital currencies will almost certainly have an important role in the monetary future and compete with Bitcoin as a store of value--a beneficial symbiotic relationship regardless of whether you want to use only bitcoins, only metals, or both. |
|
|
|
Erik Voorhees, ...BitCoin official Well, I have always thought that if Roger Ver is Bitcoin Jesus, Erik Voorhees is Bitcoin Lao Tzu. |
|
|
|
|
Chris is a good fellow. He sees a few things a bit differently, but if you only have bitcoins and not precious metals, you have something to learn from him.
|
|
|
|
Also you spent a lot of time on how banking works today, which was good, but for only a 20min presentation I think you should have dived more in depth on bitcoin from the beginning. I just say that cause they looked like older folks and they probably are very familiar with the USD and how it operates.
I think it was good to set the context by starting with our ridiculous money system. The audience clearly reacted positively to the Fed jokes at the beginning. The refresher course on how dollars are created was punchy, succinct, and reminiscient of Mike Maloney's presentation to the Russian bankers in 2010. Don't underestimate the complacency of older generations, either. They definitely can use a reminder as to where their dollars come from. : P Overall, great presentation! If every bright young fellow (though isn't it dismaying that every major figure in the Bitcoin space seems to be male?) gives one of these presentations to a community, we'll have accomplished the Bitcoin Revolution within a decade! |
|
|
|
|
In conversations with folks who aren't familiar with Bitcoin, it might be illuminating to refer to its price as the 'exchange rate'. Discuss!
(Inspired by a co-worker who always refers to Bitcoin as a 'stock' when asking me how it's doing)
|
|
|
|
|
I think this thread belongs in the gift certificates subforum rather than alternate cryptocurrencies.
|
|
|
|
The Anarchists/Anarcho-[whatever] guys keep talking about fundamentals, yet they'd fail to recognise one if even if their life depended on it. In order for contracts to be possible in a society, there almost certainly needs to be some foundation upon which all contracts are built. Sure, it might be circular reasoning for such a foundation to use the word 'contract' in its own name. However, that does not invalidate the need for the foundation. GNU/Linux projects use recursive names all the time. The "Social Contract" could simply be renamed "Social Requirement", and Rahvin's entire spiel is rendered irrelevant. Thus, the OP commits that most heinous of crimes: THE FALLACY FALLACY  Similarly, Anarcho-Capitalists and Libertarians routinely commit further acts of intellectual dishonesty whenever they claim "the free market" will solve all the world's problems, but vigorously deny that Capitalism requires any foundation whatsoever on which it has to be built. Civilisation? Peacefulness? A common language? Ha! It's all natural, they say -- given the inherent evilness of all forms of government, governments cannot take any credit for having helped to bring mankind into the 21st century. Your fallacy is...Tell me, where do you go to buy Capitalism?? parag. 1: ad hominem parag. 2: question begging (circularity) parag. 3: straw man/argument by stereotype/misuse of website parag. 4: non-sequitur |
|
|
|
Haven't watched this yet, but am pretty familiar with Stephan's work. He's a smart, motivated, well-spoken fellow spreading ideas with extremely powerful philosophical support, as many ethicists will tell you. I can see how he'd rub some folks the wrong way, initially. In addition to communicating in the sometimes obtuse mode of a trained philosopher, he doesn't mince words regarding the conclusions of his ethics. The inability to distinguish this from a cult is amusing. The childish (and I hate using that term as a pejorative) reactionism to these ideas by apologists for a society structured by violence is disappointing. Recently, it seems a sort of alliance has begun to form, spanning techies, libertarian philosophers, Austrian economists, hackers, cryptographers, anarchists, activists, etc. As one excellent Blogdial post notes, these communities appear to be iterating toward libertarianism. Naturally, some members of individual communities will shun the new company of these other groups, but hopefully most will realize how much they have to learn from each other. Note: Blogdial is a terribly awesome blog that is at least as intense and polemical and philosophically forthright as a Stephan Molyneux or a Richard Stallman. I recommend it. Stay thirsty, my friends! Merry Xmas! |
|
|
|
Really?
Rilli. Orthodox economists are simply ignoring bitcoin, not dismissing it. Economists who dismiss bitcoin are primarily Austrians. Look up their backgrounds.
I'm aware of some obstinate hard money advocates who refuse to consider anything but gold and silver to be money. I don't really think of them as the vanguard of Austrian thought. Most Austrians I've read find cryptocurrencies legitimate and praiseworthy. I wasn't questioning whether the economic mainstream is down with abstract/novel forms of money. I was talking about the derision toward Bitcoin I've seen from those pop economists who, like yourself, aren't ignoring it ( Mr. Lol Krugman, for instance). It's Bitcoin's eventual supply cap, lack of state sponsorship, and absence of the potential for unilateral devaluation/counterfeiting that seem to have a lot of subscribers to the fashionable politics/economics of the day talking smack about it. Still curious what potential you see in it, particularly vis-a-vis fiat--as well, I suppose, as your take on the latter's survivability going forward. I am coming from a physics education background. I think the best way to analyze economics is to think in terms of game theory, since economics is created by the interaction of people with different strategies and belief sets. The role of macroeconomics is then to lay the ground rules (incentive systems).
Philosophy here. Epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics (specifically political philosophy). The discipline has served me well at analyzing the rigorous microeconomics embraced by the Austrian school (and separating it from the empirical/social science nebula that has coalesced around this core). I wouldn't doubt physics has provided you angles of insight into econ that are both novel and salient. Speaking of interdisciplinary approaches, I'm reminded that I have some Mandelbrot I need to read! Stefan Molyneux is a philosopher (he runs Freedomain Radio, the largest philosophical conversation in the world) who is very much pro-Bitcoin and pro-voluntaryism. Stef was the one who "converted" me to voluntaryism, so-to-speak.
If I had to name the point at which I became firmly and uncompromisingly pro-liberty, it would be reading Hayek's The Road to Serfdom in undergrad. My best friend's an economist and provided my introduction to the rest of the Austrian X-Men pantheon. For those still mulling over their ideology, Stefan does a pretty good job in this vid of countering some tough questions for libertarians that Jon Stewart apparently publically asked (as well as unscrambling a lot of confused premises--a generally reliable sign someone has a better handle on a topic). |
|
|
|
I've become more dismissive of libertarians. Exposure to the forum has greatly reduced my estimate of their average intelligence level.
Really? While not without its trolls, this forum has impressed me with its participants' level of discourse and economic understanding. The point is really driven home by the fact that what I want to say in response to a topic has often already been said, and said well, by someone in the thread before I can get caught up. I've started writing--then deleted, seeing my work already done--at least as many posts as I've made. For instance, making the a priori/a posteriori distinction in defending the validity of the Austrian school--I would totally have to have done that myself on most forums! A salute to thee, benjamindees! OP: I consider Bitcoin's history thus far to be a vindication of my economic views, which are closely Austrian-aligned. That school does seem to have an outsize representation in the Bitcoin community, possibly because orthodox economists seem to consider Bitcoin 1) a Ponzi scheme, or 2) a doomed experiment due to a lack of indefinite growth in the money supply. I would be interested in hearing from an orthodox economist why he or she is interested in Bitcoin and why the happily-recovering, successfully stimulated global economy has use for some crazy new non-state video game money. |
|
|
|
Yesss. For efficiency and quality control, perhaps a custom ink stamp is in order. Maybe include a cheeky message as well: [WARNING! Obsolete Currency. Replace with Bitcoin.] Here's an example of a stamp I had made for use around the office:  |
|
|
|
I'm just in it for the money. The actual, folding, bank account, Visa card money.
YEAH! ACTAUL MONEY. The kind made of paper! Not that unbacked stuff. That's what I'M talkin' 'bout! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zG8wp82bsQThe fact that the only legitimate successful businesses are in the business of moving Bitcoins from national currencies and back merely serves to underline the fundamentally auxiliary nature of Bitcoin.
Replace 'auxiliary' with 'monetary'. I don't agree with the premise either but that's unimportant. My succinct response to your posts is: - Good call on the 2011 bubble.
- Replace 'Bitcoin' with 'gold' in your examples and see how they read. Bitcoin's suitability as a currency vis-a-vis dollars and its suitability as money relative to fiat are separate issues. The former is highly contingent; the latter less so.
- Check out Gresham's Law/Exter's Pyramid.
I also don't really see hoarding Bitcoins in the hope of them raising in value as a "use"
It is.  |
|
|
|
Women are inherently disadvantaged on a free market.
Am I too late to this thread to join in rejecting the premise? |
|
|
|
|
