Bitcoin Negative Public Image

[dree12]

Bitcoin has had a ton of positive publicity recently and nobody ever complains when positive publicity is based on hyperbole rather than fact.

Bitcoin is absolutely being traded like a commodity at the moment.  It's naive to believe that the majority of people speculating on Bitcoin prices right now intend to hold them long term or use them to purchase things.  Many of them will dump their coins when there's little volatility.

Yes, there's a lot of lazy journalism.  This applies to both the good and the bad.  Time after time inaccurate articles start off on arstechnica or wired and nobody does any fact-checking before they start appearing everywhere else.  That's equally true of mainstream news stories.

For every person who wants Bitcoin to "go mainstream", there's another Bitcoin user who thinks that could kill Bitcoin and that the emphasis should be on it being a disruptive technology.

There's no cohesive "Bitcoin agenda".  Nor does there need to be.  People want and expect different things from Bitcoin and they use it for different reasons and in different ways.  It's not surprising, then, that media reporting regarding Bitcoin is all over the place and rarely balanced.

It's pretty much up to each of the groups with an agenda (whether it's the "mainstreamers" or the crypto-anarchists), to take responsibility for getting the kinds of stories they'd like to see about Bitcoin published - bearing in mind that each group will likely be displeased by a report regarded as "positive" by the other.

Bitcoin unfortunately still connotes "drugs", "gambling", or other illegal things, even though these have now become very small portions of the Bitcoin economy.

[1714859878]

1714859878

[1714859878]

1714859878

[1714859878]

1714859878

[1714859878]

1714859878

[1714859878]

1714859878

[Mark Oates]

I've thought about going crazy on the comments on every news article that is posted, and debating anyone and everyone who has a negative viewpoint of Bitcoin.  Including the author, of course, if they said something like that.

Then I realized that this would be nearly a full-time job.

When reading articles, a common misconception about Bitcoin is that it's a business.  I realized at some point that Bitcoin is something like a business, but in a web 3.0 kind of way.

In a business, people apply and get hired after passing through HR.  A better model is like we have here (in theory) where everyone is "applying" by participating.  And naturally, individuals slowly begin to stand out, and are respected on their merits (or are loved for their lols).  What they contribute is used to benefit the company - charts, links to latest headlines, first glimpse of breaking news.

We "invest time in our product" and expect that that product will in turn generate value, and thus we get our "paycheck" as the adoption increases (price goes up, or we gain financial freedoms, etc.).  The irony I think is that this is the more correct model of how businesses should work - people, believing in something, work towards it.

Back to what you were talking about, what I see happening is that we in the Bitcoin community have a small army of PR people who get on the comment section of the news articles, and fix the misconceptions and encourage the proper discussion.  When I hop on in there, part of me is self-motivated, but another part of me feels like an enthusiastic employee working for Bitcoin.

[SgtSpike]

I've thought about going crazy on the comments on every news article that is posted, and debating anyone and everyone who has a negative viewpoint of Bitcoin.  Including the author, of course, if they said something like that.

Then I realized that this would be nearly a full-time job.

When reading articles, a common misconception about Bitcoin is that it's a business.  I realized at some point that Bitcoin is something like a business, but in a web 3.0 kind of way.

In a business, people apply and get hired after passing through HR.  A better model is like we have here (in theory) where everyone is "applying" by participating.  And naturally, individuals slowly begin to stand out, and are respected on their merits (or are loved for their lols).  What they contribute is used to benefit the company - charts, links to latest headlines, first glimpse of breaking news.

We "invest time in our product" and expect that that product will in turn generate value, and thus we get our "paycheck" as the adoption increases (price goes up, or we gain financial freedoms, etc.).  The irony I think is that this is the more correct model of how businesses should work - people, believing in something, work towards it.

Back to what you were talking about, what I see happening is that we in the Bitcoin community have a small army of PR people who get on the comment section of the news articles, and fix the misconceptions and encourage the proper discussion.  When I hop on in there, part of me is self-motivated, but another part of me feels like an enthusiastic employee working for Bitcoin.

Yes, I agree. I only wish I didn't have to have a day-job so I could dedicate myself to such activities!

[Bitcoinpro]

the negative image is fake it requires no math and is simply wallstreet trying to get all the coin

[VforVictory]

Bitcoin has had a ton of positive publicity recently and nobody ever complains when positive publicity is based on hyperbole rather than fact.

Bitcoin is absolutely being traded like a commodity at the moment.  It's naive to believe that the majority of people speculating on Bitcoin prices right now intend to hold them long term or use them to purchase things.  Many of them will dump their coins when there's little volatility.

Yes, there's a lot of lazy journalism.  This applies to both the good and the bad.  Time after time inaccurate articles start off on arstechnica or wired and nobody does any fact-checking before they start appearing everywhere else.  That's equally true of mainstream news stories.

For every person who wants Bitcoin to "go mainstream", there's another Bitcoin user who thinks that could kill Bitcoin and that the emphasis should be on it being a disruptive technology.

There's no cohesive "Bitcoin agenda".  Nor does there need to be.  People want and expect different things from Bitcoin and they use it for different reasons and in different ways.  It's not surprising, then, that media reporting regarding Bitcoin is all over the place and rarely balanced.

It's pretty much up to each of the groups with an agenda (whether it's the "mainstreamers" or the crypto-anarchists), to take responsibility for getting the kinds of stories they'd like to see about Bitcoin published - bearing in mind that each group will likely be displeased by a report regarded as "positive" by the other.

Bitcoin unfortunately still connotes "drugs", "gambling", or other illegal things, even though these have now become very small portions of the Bitcoin economy.

Silkroad would like to tell you otherwise...

[dree12]

Bitcoin has had a ton of positive publicity recently and nobody ever complains when positive publicity is based on hyperbole rather than fact.

Bitcoin is absolutely being traded like a commodity at the moment.  It's naive to believe that the majority of people speculating on Bitcoin prices right now intend to hold them long term or use them to purchase things.  Many of them will dump their coins when there's little volatility.

Yes, there's a lot of lazy journalism.  This applies to both the good and the bad.  Time after time inaccurate articles start off on arstechnica or wired and nobody does any fact-checking before they start appearing everywhere else.  That's equally true of mainstream news stories.

For every person who wants Bitcoin to "go mainstream", there's another Bitcoin user who thinks that could kill Bitcoin and that the emphasis should be on it being a disruptive technology.

There's no cohesive "Bitcoin agenda".  Nor does there need to be.  People want and expect different things from Bitcoin and they use it for different reasons and in different ways.  It's not surprising, then, that media reporting regarding Bitcoin is all over the place and rarely balanced.

It's pretty much up to each of the groups with an agenda (whether it's the "mainstreamers" or the crypto-anarchists), to take responsibility for getting the kinds of stories they'd like to see about Bitcoin published - bearing in mind that each group will likely be displeased by a report regarded as "positive" by the other.

Bitcoin unfortunately still connotes "drugs", "gambling", or other illegal things, even though these have now become very small portions of the Bitcoin economy.

Silkroad would like to tell you otherwise...

If you consider less than 2% significant, why not. Silk Road processes $22 million annually. The rest of the economy is over $2000 million annually (includes trading, transaction volume, etc.).

[Minor Miner]

For Bitcoin to be legitimate, crooks cannot be tolerated.   You guys do not have great PR when an amateur like me wants to get involved and buy a rig and BFL is the first company and find and then I find the COO of BFL on these boards calling people cock sucking whores?  You put up with this and then you wonder why no one respects Bitcoin after they do a little (and I mean little because that is all reporters can afford) research?   They probably find these boards easily (like I did) and read them and then......
What would you think?

[mai77]

btc would do nicely, if only we had fewer dumb journos

(excuse my french) 

[Mosper]

Bitcoin has had a ton of positive publicity recently and nobody ever complains when positive publicity is based on hyperbole rather than fact.

Bitcoin is absolutely being traded like a commodity at the moment.  It's naive to believe that the majority of people speculating on Bitcoin prices right now intend to hold them long term or use them to purchase things.  Many of them will dump their coins when there's little volatility.

Yes, there's a lot of lazy journalism.  This applies to both the good and the bad.  Time after time inaccurate articles start off on arstechnica or wired and nobody does any fact-checking before they start appearing everywhere else.  That's equally true of mainstream news stories.

For every person who wants Bitcoin to "go mainstream", there's another Bitcoin user who thinks that could kill Bitcoin and that the emphasis should be on it being a disruptive technology.

There's no cohesive "Bitcoin agenda".  Nor does there need to be.  People want and expect different things from Bitcoin and they use it for different reasons and in different ways.  It's not surprising, then, that media reporting regarding Bitcoin is all over the place and rarely balanced.

It's pretty much up to each of the groups with an agenda (whether it's the "mainstreamers" or the crypto-anarchists), to take responsibility for getting the kinds of stories they'd like to see about Bitcoin published - bearing in mind that each group will likely be displeased by a report regarded as "positive" by the other.

Bitcoin unfortunately still connotes "drugs", "gambling", or other illegal things, even though these have now become very small portions of the Bitcoin economy.

They are the vast majority of the bitcoin economy. Show me a business processing more revenue in BTC than SatoshiDice/Sealswithclubs/silk road. BFL and Avalon don't really count. The major advantages of bitcoin lend themselves perfectly to these activities and is its best chance of growing as a currency and not just a commodity.

[dree12]

Bitcoin has had a ton of positive publicity recently and nobody ever complains when positive publicity is based on hyperbole rather than fact.

Bitcoin is absolutely being traded like a commodity at the moment.  It's naive to believe that the majority of people speculating on Bitcoin prices right now intend to hold them long term or use them to purchase things.  Many of them will dump their coins when there's little volatility.

Yes, there's a lot of lazy journalism.  This applies to both the good and the bad.  Time after time inaccurate articles start off on arstechnica or wired and nobody does any fact-checking before they start appearing everywhere else.  That's equally true of mainstream news stories.

For every person who wants Bitcoin to "go mainstream", there's another Bitcoin user who thinks that could kill Bitcoin and that the emphasis should be on it being a disruptive technology.

There's no cohesive "Bitcoin agenda".  Nor does there need to be.  People want and expect different things from Bitcoin and they use it for different reasons and in different ways.  It's not surprising, then, that media reporting regarding Bitcoin is all over the place and rarely balanced.

It's pretty much up to each of the groups with an agenda (whether it's the "mainstreamers" or the crypto-anarchists), to take responsibility for getting the kinds of stories they'd like to see about Bitcoin published - bearing in mind that each group will likely be displeased by a report regarded as "positive" by the other.

Bitcoin unfortunately still connotes "drugs", "gambling", or other illegal things, even though these have now become very small portions of the Bitcoin economy.

They are the vast majority of the bitcoin economy. Show me a business processing more revenue in BTC than SatoshiDice/Sealswithclubs/silk road. BFL and Avalon don't really count. The major advantages of bitcoin lend themselves perfectly to these activities and is its best chance of growing as a currency and not just a commodity.

Silk Road does approximately 30000 BTC per month in sales. SatoshiDICE has 150000 BTC per month in gambles.

BTC-E deals with as many BTC per month as SatoshiDICE. It's the 4th largest exchange, accounting for 4% of Bitcoin to fiat trading.

Bit-pay processes $5.2 million USD monthly. That's about 80000 BTC at the March weighted average.

BTCGuild mines 36% of all mined bitcoins. In the past month, that was over 50000 BTC.

No, Bitcoin is not "mostly used for gambling and drugs".

[Matthew N. Wright]

@OP: The entire purpose of starting Bitcoin Magazine was to combat the mass media smear campaigns with grounded materials. Only now are they beginning to actually investigate (somewhat), but you know, it's easier to point and laugh when you don't understand. Koreans do it to foreigners all the time still.


vvvvvvv yes, actually, he mentioned SilkRoad which has always been the biggest volume site for bitcoin. Just like internet and porn, SilkRoad made Bitcoin.

[Mosper]

Bitcoin has had a ton of positive publicity recently and nobody ever complains when positive publicity is based on hyperbole rather than fact.

Bitcoin is absolutely being traded like a commodity at the moment.  It's naive to believe that the majority of people speculating on Bitcoin prices right now intend to hold them long term or use them to purchase things.  Many of them will dump their coins when there's little volatility.

Yes, there's a lot of lazy journalism.  This applies to both the good and the bad.  Time after time inaccurate articles start off on arstechnica or wired and nobody does any fact-checking before they start appearing everywhere else.  That's equally true of mainstream news stories.

For every person who wants Bitcoin to "go mainstream", there's another Bitcoin user who thinks that could kill Bitcoin and that the emphasis should be on it being a disruptive technology.

There's no cohesive "Bitcoin agenda".  Nor does there need to be.  People want and expect different things from Bitcoin and they use it for different reasons and in different ways.  It's not surprising, then, that media reporting regarding Bitcoin is all over the place and rarely balanced.

It's pretty much up to each of the groups with an agenda (whether it's the "mainstreamers" or the crypto-anarchists), to take responsibility for getting the kinds of stories they'd like to see about Bitcoin published - bearing in mind that each group will likely be displeased by a report regarded as "positive" by the other.

Bitcoin unfortunately still connotes "drugs", "gambling", or other illegal things, even though these have now become very small portions of the Bitcoin economy.

They are the vast majority of the bitcoin economy. Show me a business processing more revenue in BTC than SatoshiDice/Sealswithclubs/silk road. BFL and Avalon don't really count. The major advantages of bitcoin lend themselves perfectly to these activities and is its best chance of growing as a currency and not just a commodity.

Silk Road does approximately 30000 BTC per month in sales. SatoshiDICE has 150000 BTC per month in gambles.

BTC-E deals with as many BTC per month as SatoshiDICE. It's the 4th largest exchange, accounting for 4% of Bitcoin to fiat trading.

Bit-pay processes $5.2 million USD monthly. That's about 80000 BTC at the March weighted average.

BTCGuild mines 36% of all mined bitcoins. In the past month, that was over 50000 BTC.

No, Bitcoin is not "mostly used for gambling and drugs".

Other than bitpay none of those things are uses for bitcoins. You're naming ways they're created and places they're bought and sold.

[dree12]

Bitcoin has had a ton of positive publicity recently and nobody ever complains when positive publicity is based on hyperbole rather than fact.

Bitcoin is absolutely being traded like a commodity at the moment.  It's naive to believe that the majority of people speculating on Bitcoin prices right now intend to hold them long term or use them to purchase things.  Many of them will dump their coins when there's little volatility.

Yes, there's a lot of lazy journalism.  This applies to both the good and the bad.  Time after time inaccurate articles start off on arstechnica or wired and nobody does any fact-checking before they start appearing everywhere else.  That's equally true of mainstream news stories.

For every person who wants Bitcoin to "go mainstream", there's another Bitcoin user who thinks that could kill Bitcoin and that the emphasis should be on it being a disruptive technology.

There's no cohesive "Bitcoin agenda".  Nor does there need to be.  People want and expect different things from Bitcoin and they use it for different reasons and in different ways.  It's not surprising, then, that media reporting regarding Bitcoin is all over the place and rarely balanced.

It's pretty much up to each of the groups with an agenda (whether it's the "mainstreamers" or the crypto-anarchists), to take responsibility for getting the kinds of stories they'd like to see about Bitcoin published - bearing in mind that each group will likely be displeased by a report regarded as "positive" by the other.

Bitcoin unfortunately still connotes "drugs", "gambling", or other illegal things, even though these have now become very small portions of the Bitcoin economy.

They are the vast majority of the bitcoin economy. Show me a business processing more revenue in BTC than SatoshiDice/Sealswithclubs/silk road. BFL and Avalon don't really count. The major advantages of bitcoin lend themselves perfectly to these activities and is its best chance of growing as a currency and not just a commodity.

Silk Road does approximately 30000 BTC per month in sales. SatoshiDICE has 150000 BTC per month in gambles.

BTC-E deals with as many BTC per month as SatoshiDICE. It's the 4th largest exchange, accounting for 4% of Bitcoin to fiat trading.

Bit-pay processes $5.2 million USD monthly. That's about 80000 BTC at the March weighted average.

BTCGuild mines 36% of all mined bitcoins. In the past month, that was over 50000 BTC.

No, Bitcoin is not "mostly used for gambling and drugs".

Other than bitpay none of those things are uses for bitcoins. You're naming ways they're created and places they're bought and sold.

Mining, contrary to popular belief, is not "creating" bitcoins. Eventually, mining will actually be creating no bitcoins at all. Mining is a legitimate industry where you paid to process transactions. Saying mining doesn't count is like saying Visa doesn't count.

Mt. Gox or other exchanges are also not just "places they're bought and sold". We don't say the stock market is just "places USD is bought or sold", and similarly we cannot ignore the largest contributor to Bitcoin GDP.

[Mosper]

GDP is production of goods valued in currency. Not the currency itself. You need businesses where people use their coins to consider it a part of the economy. Trading on its own does not really count. If not illegal things then what ARE BTC being used for?

[tvbcof]

I think that when wealthy tax cheats preserve their wealth by moving it from off-shore tax havens into Bitcoin, the masses who had their savings and pensions appropriated will probably think that Bitcoin is wonderful and will be very happy for the folks who were able to use it as a wealth preservation tool.   That should do wonders for the public image of the solution.

/sarcasm

I am slowly re-considering my position that the strength of the solution lies with the masses being able to operate the network autonomously.  Perhaps those who felt fine about block size explosion and subsequent centralization where one step ahead of me, but nobody argued the point from this perspective.

[Minor Miner]

GDP is production of goods valued in currency. Not the currency itself.

Just because trillions of dollars trade in the currency and derivatives markets does not mean US GDP goes up.   So, of the things you listed, gambling and drugs/vice are the vast majority of the economy of BTC.  this has to change.   That is important.
when you buy a dell computer for $1,000, it counts as $1,000.   In the example in the posts above they would count it as $3-6,000 (1k to dell, 1k when visa charged your card, 1k when visa send the money to dell, 1k on the sell from USD to RMB when dell sold the f/x, another for the buy side of each transaction etc.).    Exchanges are not part of GDP.

[dree12]

GDP is production of goods valued in currency. Not the currency itself.

Just because trillions of dollars trade in the currency and derivatives markets does not mean US GDP goes up.   So, of the things you listed, gambling and drugs/vice are the vast majority of the economy of BTC.  this has to change.   That is important.
when you buy a dell computer for $1,000, it counts as $1,000.   In the example in the posts above they would count it as $3-6,000 (1k to dell, 1k when visa charged your card, 1k when visa send the money to dell, 1k on the sell from USD to RMB when dell sold the f/x, another for the buy side of each transaction etc.).    Exchanges are not part of GDP.

Investment is part of GDP. If these exchanges aren't investment, I don't know what is.

[Minor Miner]

GDP is production of goods valued in currency. Not the currency itself.

Just because trillions of dollars trade in the currency and derivatives markets does not mean US GDP goes up.   So, of the things you listed, gambling and drugs/vice are the vast majority of the economy of BTC.  this has to change.   That is important.
when you buy a dell computer for $1,000, it counts as $1,000.   In the example in the posts above they would count it as $3-6,000 (1k to dell, 1k when visa charged your card, 1k when visa send the money to dell, 1k on the sell from USD to RMB when dell sold the f/x, another for the buy side of each transaction etc.).    Exchanges are not part of GDP.

Investment is part of GDP. If these exchanges aren't investment, I don't know what is.

Dude, no disrespect.   Google it.   In your scenario US GDP would be HUNDREDS of trillions of dollars.   Trading is a ZERO sum game (someone buys, someone sells).    I cannot explain it to you but a simple google will.   I would argue mining and winning the block is GDP but selling it again to someone else and them doing it again and again definitely is not.

[Mosper]

Investment is part of GDP. If these exchanges aren't investment, I don't know what is.

They aren't! You would have to be investing BTC into SOMETHING ELSE. That's like saying trading USD for Yen is part of the GDP. If anything BTC would count as part of the US economy as an asset being invested into.

^^ He is on the right track of thinking but not fully understanding it.

[dree12]

They aren't! You would have to be investing BTC into SOMETHING ELSE. That's like saying trading USD for Yen is part of the GDP. If anything BTC would count as part of the US economy as an asset being invested into.

^^ He is on the right track of thinking but not fully understanding it.

I honestly do not know what you are trying to argue. The numbers don't lie.

Silk Road (past 30 days): 30000 BTC.
Bitcoin network, minus change (actual transaction volume): 8979180 BTC.

It doesn't matter what you consider as part of the Bitcoin economy. Silk Road is, and will always be, an insignificant part of it.