The Economist retorts against a bitcoin naysayer

[Bitcoinista]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/04/exchange-rates

It's a well balanced article that addresses the volatility concerns and shows how Bitcoin needs to mature and succeed.

What say you Bitcoinians?

[1715179878]

1715179878

[1715179878]

1715179878

[1715179878]

1715179878

[neuronet]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/04/exchange-rates

It's a well balanced article that addresses the volatility concerns and shows how Bitcoin needs to mature and succeed.

What say you Bitcoinians?

Read a similar analysis by a forum member here.  His underlying doubt is that BTC will struggle to hit critical mass.  I like to look at it demographically.  The up and coming generations growing up with technology will embrace the logical reasoning and efficiency behind a system such at BTC.  The technologically fluent will be the driver behind adoption toward critical mass. 

BTC may be volatile for years to come but the endgame seems the same, based on rational outcomes of our world (No ww3, deadly virus, asteroid, etc). 

I see it as a technology boom not so much a BTC boom....and who doesn`t love and want more technology?

IMPO...

[wingding]

A good article. Just secs ago I thought bottom was reached an bought in again. Waw, sold outcat 58 loosing usd 2000 in minutes. Its terrible. But yes, the article, as he says there is need for mechanismes that can stabilize the lady. I think hedging, e.g. a derivative market is needed.

[hackstutz]

derivative?

seems tricky.. and i dont think there's a need for that... we saw a huge lemming-wave like 06/2011 ...rest of the time btc is stable enough for a lot of usages. e.g. transfering money internationally with very low fees... for this you just need 30min of stability...

[davidshrugged]

The article has a couple of fair points.

1) It is right that the trading pairs become an important issue as long as we need to go into the bitcoin world and then out.

2) It is also right that after the bitcoin world reaches a critical mass, issue 1) become less relevant.

What I don't buy is the central banking endorsing that he does.

Here is my take on the volatility that we saw in the last day and a half:

.Mt. Gox "was victim of its own success", as they say, because of the massive volume of verifications and transactions they have to handle, which caused lags, which in turns generate "sell panic".
.Mt. Gox later was victim of several DDoS attacks of people that allegedly want to destabilize the currency to cash on the mayhem, or just for the sake of destroying it [any government could have this motivation]. This also causes lags and then panic.

Mt. Gox handles the 80% of the global btc trading so that's why if Mt. Gox sneezes the rest of the Bitcoin economy gets the flu.

Before jumping in the "That's why we need a central bank!! To avoid the volatility of 'panic sell's" consider this:
The panic is not entirely unfunded or whimsical. This massive increment of btc transactions pinpoints weaknesses in the implemented infrastructure. As a client, why should I trust my wealth to the flawed infrastructure of this service provider? If the Bitcoin infrastructure is not worthy of going massive and withstand DDoS attacks its value should be questioned.

Note that the flaw resides in the implemented infrastructure but not in the technology nor the concept. Because it is a matter of infrastructure, if Mt. Gox or a competitor has the brains and virtue to scale according to the market needs and also can defend itself against attackers and hopefully identify attackers, then AND ONLY THEN, it deserves trust and a justified high valuation.

If the prices are down it is because that's the value they deserve, AND THAT IS GOOD!!! It means that prices are not manipulated by a regulatory central entity. It means that we can trust more and more that the prices are trustworthy as time passes.

That's the virtue of bitcoins: It would/has become mainstream  because of its own merits.

[Bitcoinista]

derivative?

seems tricky.. and i dont think there's a need for that... we saw a huge lemming-wave like 06/2011 ...rest of the time btc is stable enough for a lot of usages. e.g. transfering money internationally with very low fees... for this you just need 30min of stability...

Unless I'm mistaken, I can't see why people bother to use BTC for international money transfers - you need to go through an agent to convert it to fiat anyway, which ends up being slightly more of a pain than just using a traditional transfer agent.

[richard_dein]

derivative?

seems tricky.. and i dont think there's a need for that... we saw a huge lemming-wave like 06/2011 ...rest of the time btc is stable enough for a lot of usages. e.g. transfering money internationally with very low fees... for this you just need 30min of stability...

A lot more than 30mins unless both parties use MtGox as a payment processor. Bank fees are also a rather expensive overhead to get money in and out of exchanges.

[hackstutz]

hm. true, 30min is too optimistic.

but the fees still should be lower...even much lower than western union, no?

[Bitcoinista]

but the fees still should be lower...even much lower than western union, no?

I think the most cost effective way of doing it it with Ripple or Transferwise.