2013-04-07 SeekingAlpha - Bitcoin: Buyer Beware, This Is A Classic Bubble And ..

[Timo Y]

Believe it or not, people don't even know who created the bitcoin, or who is behind it. The whole concept was created by a pseudonymous person or group named Satoshi Nakamoto.

Why does it matter WHO created bitcoin? This is an internet technology, not a fucking celebrity show.

People use bitcoin because it is useful, not because of personality cult. And anyhow, bitcoin is constantly evolving. The original inventor only got it started.

This is just as fallacious a saying that space exploration is a bad idea because the modern rocket was invented by a Nazi.

[Arvicco]

My perception is that the author is very much against returning to a fixed money supply, such as a gold standard, and is terrified that Bitcoin might be the impetus to lead governments in that direction. He is trying to discredit Bitcoin in any way he can -- flawed logic, half-truths, hyperbole, slander, and innuendo.

Yes, I'd agree with this assessment. If anything, this is a hit piece, and a well constructed hit piece at that. The author clearly understands the threat that Bitcoin poses to current monetary system, and is purposefully smearing it. He uses any trick imaginable and stops at nothing to discredit Bitcoin and sway uninformed opinions against it.

It is no use arguing fine points with this guy - no intelligent discussion is possible and you cannot win. He understands what he is doing and won't change his position regardless of arguments.

We should be ready to see more hit pieces like this, written from a pure propaganda standpoint, once current "Bubble-bubble!" talk from uninformed journalist crowd gets old and dies out.

[Logik]

People like the author keep trying to understand Bitcoin by shoving it inside a centralized currency model, and then they get all up in arms when things don't seem right.

His entire argument follows the same pattern: Ben Bernake does this, the FED does that, but if we look at the parallel with Bitcoin all these horrible things happen. Author is too dense to realize that Bitcoin purposely has little in common with the current monetary system and therefore does not share its properties. I love the part where he says a hacker can print BTC.. the entire design of the system means that's precisely what can't happen.

Its like if I read an article about trucks and then complained because if you look at all this data about bicycles you could see that a truck would never work as a vehicle.

[Logik]

Yes, classical idiot who did not even research one bit...

That's not fair. I read the article and I only found a couple factual errors -- no more than any other article.

My perception is that the author is very much against returning to a fixed money supply, such as a gold standard, and is terrified that Bitcoin might be the impetus to lead governments in that direction. He is trying to discredit Bitcoin in any way he can -- flawed logic, half-truths, hyperbole, slander, and innuendo.

The thing is that Bitcoin doesn't resemble gold (or a multi-metal standard) anyway. Sure, there's a limited supply... for each particular chain, but because OPEN SOURCE there's no limit to the number of competing chains that could emerge. Some chains may grow like a religion (e.g.: the $180 chain), while others may struggle and be labelled heretics (Litecoin, Novacoin, PPCoin, etc.). I see the competition as the real decentralisation. The whole "distributed server" thing (and all the convoluted crap to prevent man-in-the-middle attacks) seems like a distracting side-show to get the system bootstrapped.

Bitcoin's real power seems to lie in the fact that it efficiently uses the freedom of information, and various other freedoms (cooperation, collusion, public discussion, etc.) that modern society allows, to potentially create... something that is superior to and less susceptible to corruption than fractional reserve.

Doesn't what you wrote support the Bitcoin/gold metaphor? Substitute the alt-coins for elements

[molecular]

Article provides yet more evidence that any writer who calls it "the bitcoin" instead of just "bitcoin" is usually a newbie who hasn't studied Bitcoin long enough and will therefore contribute nothing but already debunked fallacies.

Incidentally BrotherJohnF still calls it "the bitcoin". He's surely not against it (no bull either, but not against it) and he understands bitcoin quite well. I don't know, sounds weird. Maybe we should call gold "the gold" and silver "the silver", then.

My comment to the article: MY GOD! At least take more time to research than to write.

Very keynesy piece of fud.

[molecular]

Ever wonder you see such inflammatory, unresearched garbage on Seeking Alpha.

Simple

Author payment: $0.01 per page view, with minimum guarantee of $100 for Pro articles and $500 for Alpha-Rich Pro articles plus free access to Seeking Alpha Pro.

The more inflammatory it is, the more it gets linked to, the more the author gets paid.

I could most likely write some inflammatory stuff that draws more attention and says the exact opposite.

[molecular]

The price of gold is fixed by a central authority.

Really ? lol

yeah, didn't you know this? It's 50$... always has been.

[molecular]

This guy actually did research, and you guys call it FUD...really? He read everything that was available on Bitcoin and you call it out as a lame FUD attempt. -_- Bitcoin isn't some miracle wonder support.

reading does not imply understanding. This guy didn't think at all. He surely didn't understand the parts about austrian economics or mining.

[n8rwJeTt8TrrLKPa55eU]

Maybe we should call gold "the gold" and silver "the silver", then.

 I fully support using that methodology on any comments or rebuttals.  Guaranteed to drive the metalbugs crazy.

[molecular]

Maybe we should call gold "the gold" and silver "the silver", then.

 I fully support using that methodology on any comments or rebuttals.  Guaranteed to drive the metalbugs crazy.

Ok, I'll use it when appropriate (in cases I want to teese them)

[The-Real-Link]

A few mistakes can be forgiven but ugh, so much FUD and misinformation.  Yuck.