Bitcoin on NPR

[dingus]

I've searched the forums and haven't yet found a post referring to Bitcoin being mentioned on NPR on May 24th. http://www.npr.org/2011/05/24/136620231/what-are-bitcoins

[1714125955]

1714125955

[1714125955]

1714125955

[1714125955]

1714125955

[1714125955]

1714125955

[1714125955]

1714125955

[FreeMoney]

I've searched the forums and haven't yet found a post referring to Bitcoin being mentioned on NPR on May 24th. http://www.npr.org/2011/05/24/136620231/what-are-bitcoins

It was mentioned twice in the Press Hits thread.

For anyone who doesn't know it's about 3 minutes with the woman who wrote the slate article and doesn't understand Bitcoin.

[Garrett Burgwardt]

http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=1958.msg139849#msg139849

[dingus]

As bad as the piece seems to be, at least it exposes more people to bitcoin.

[bitcoinfrenzy]

Why do you think the piece was bad?  They addressed potential positives and negatives of bitcoins, and stated that Bitcoins may "do for banking what the internet did for publishing."  Some innacuracies, but that is to be expected.  If you ever read or hear a news story about something you know about, you realize they get about 65-75% of the information accurate usually, so NPR did a decent job in my opinion.  

[FreeMoney]

Why do you think the piece was bad?  They addressed potential positives and negatives of bitcoins, and stated that Bitcoins may "do for banking what the internet did for publishing."  Some innacuracies, but that is to be expected.  If you ever read or hear a news story about something you know about, you realize they get about 65-75% of the information accurate usually, so NPR did a decent job in my opinion.  

They didn't say much besides "There is no record of transactions" and that's false. So it kind of sucked.

[bitcoinfrenzy]

Yes it's false, but what they probably meant was that there's no record associating transactions to particular people.  They definitely could have used clearer language, but the story wasn't completely off.

[markm]

Yes it's false, but what they probably meant was that there's no record associating transactions to particular people.  They definitely could have used clearer language, but the story wasn't completely off.

Actually I think if someone *did* need to point at a record of *their own* transaction, they could sign a declaration that a particular transaction was theirs using their private key of the account the transaction was involved in. For privacy it actually might make sense that you cannot prove someone elses' transaction was theirs.

-MarkM-