Bitcoin Forum
October 22, 2017, 10:49:14 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: The Bitcoin Wikipedia Article Is Now Shit  (Read 1200 times)
Bitcoin Oz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700


Wat


View Profile WWW
April 15, 2013, 06:15:30 AM
 #21

On the other hand, that statement has 4 citations.  To modify it significantly (and have your edit accepted) you'd probably have to cite at least twice as many similarly-famous "commentators" that say otherwise.  Bloomberg and Krugman are pretty big names, and there aren't that many opinion writers of their reputation that have endorsed Bitcoin.
A couple of Keynesians who believe that the economy needs a constant pumping of artificial credit to avoid coming to a screeching halt don't like a currency with a fixed limit? That's a shocker.
I didn't say it was shocking, and I certainly don't agree with them, but to my knowledge I've hardly seen any libertarian/conservative economists endorse Bitcoin, which is why I was saying in the mainstream press right now it's still not regarded very highly.  If you do know of any well-known economists who have praised Bitcoin, I'd be sincerely interested in reading their opinions.  Perhaps I just haven't looked hard enough.
I think the problem is that
1. There aren't as many Austrians to begin with because that's not the form of economics that colleges teach. Since government subsidized colleges get the vast majority of students, most of them are going to turn out Keynesians; because we all know how impartial and well-read most government school teachers are, right?
2. Famous economists aren't young guys. Younger/more computer adept adults are more swift to adopt or entertain the idea of Bitcoin because the idea of virtual currencies makes perfect sense to them. To pre-internet folks, it really doesn't make much sense and sounds either completely ridiculous or very risky business.

Not that it isn't risky in certain ways, but it's not just going to suddenly implode without warning. That would be ridiculous. Unless of course people believe the Discovery Channel when they talk about a mega solar flare wiping out the power grid and all electronic devices that aren't shielded by Faraday cages in 2013.

Bitcoin is backed by mathematics and fact. Economics is mostly theory and speculation.

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
pipensa
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 10


View Profile
April 15, 2013, 08:02:31 AM
 #22

I believe wikipedia will fix it!
Wesly
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 185


View Profile WWW
April 15, 2013, 09:20:55 AM
 #23

Wikipedia is not known for unbiased view either.  I remembered reading there was a wikipedia scandals about how some of the writers are getting paid to write/edit articles for commercial entities to grant better search engine ranking.

Wikipedia isn't really known for it accuracy or thoroughness.
lostmyshit
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 11


View Profile
April 15, 2013, 11:08:38 AM
 #24

That article is one of the most active and edited ones in Wikipedia right now.

that is a good sign for bitcoin
brinebold
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 20


View Profile
April 15, 2013, 11:55:56 AM
 #25

On the other hand, that statement has 4 citations.  To modify it significantly (and have your edit accepted) you'd probably have to cite at least twice as many similarly-famous "commentators" that say otherwise.  Bloomberg and Krugman are pretty big names, and there aren't that many opinion writers of their reputation that have endorsed Bitcoin.
A couple of Keynesians who believe that the economy needs a constant pumping of artificial credit to avoid coming to a screeching halt don't like a currency with a fixed limit? That's a shocker.
I didn't say it was shocking, and I certainly don't agree with them, but to my knowledge I've hardly seen any libertarian/conservative economists endorse Bitcoin, which is why I was saying in the mainstream press right now it's still not regarded very highly.  If you do know of any well-known economists who have praised Bitcoin, I'd be sincerely interested in reading their opinions.  Perhaps I just haven't looked hard enough.
I think the problem is that
1. There aren't as many Austrians to begin with because that's not the form of economics that colleges teach. Since government subsidized colleges get the vast majority of students, most of them are going to turn out Keynesians; because we all know how impartial and well-read most government school teachers are, right?
2. Famous economists aren't young guys. Younger/more computer adept adults are more swift to adopt or entertain the idea of Bitcoin because the idea of virtual currencies makes perfect sense to them. To pre-internet folks, it really doesn't make much sense and sounds either completely ridiculous or very risky business.

Not that it isn't risky in certain ways, but it's not just going to suddenly implode without warning. That would be ridiculous. Unless of course people believe the Discovery Channel when they talk about a mega solar flare wiping out the power grid and all electronic devices that aren't shielded by Faraday cages in 2013.

Bitcoin is backed by mathematics and fact. Economics is mostly theory and speculation.
It's worth noting that only the accuracy of the creation and distribution methods are backed by math. The willingness of people to take the things in exchange for stuff (the whole point of a currency) is just as mucch in the realm of economics' theory and speculation as any other currency. The only difference in economic terms here (and it is definiteely an interesting one) is that you can absolutely, positively trust that only X coins will be printed per day and the currency will deflate steadily over its lifetime. It'd be like if the central bank of New Zealand (one of the first to set a small inflationary goal and actually hit it reliably) took over the US Federal Reserve and then decided to set a deflationary goal.
anonymous_hero
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 25


View Profile
April 18, 2013, 12:28:15 AM
 #26

On the other hand, that statement has 4 citations.  To modify it significantly (and have your edit accepted) you'd probably have to cite at least twice as many similarly-famous "commentators" that say otherwise.  Bloomberg and Krugman are pretty big names, and there aren't that many opinion writers of their reputation that have endorsed Bitcoin.
A couple of Keynesians who believe that the economy needs a constant pumping of artificial credit to avoid coming to a screeching halt don't like a currency with a fixed limit? That's a shocker.
I didn't say it was shocking, and I certainly don't agree with them, but to my knowledge I've hardly seen any libertarian/conservative economists endorse Bitcoin, which is why I was saying in the mainstream press right now it's still not regarded very highly.  If you do know of any well-known economists who have praised Bitcoin, I'd be sincerely interested in reading their opinions.  Perhaps I just haven't looked hard enough.
I think the problem is that
1. There aren't as many Austrians to begin with because that's not the form of economics that colleges teach. Since government subsidized colleges get the vast majority of students, most of them are going to turn out Keynesians; because we all know how impartial and well-read most government school teachers are, right?
2. Famous economists aren't young guys. Younger/more computer adept adults are more swift to adopt or entertain the idea of Bitcoin because the idea of virtual currencies makes perfect sense to them. To pre-internet folks, it really doesn't make much sense and sounds either completely ridiculous or very risky business.

Not that it isn't risky in certain ways, but it's not just going to suddenly implode without warning. That would be ridiculous. Unless of course people believe the Discovery Channel when they talk about a mega solar flare wiping out the power grid and all electronic devices that aren't shielded by Faraday cages in 2013.

I don't necessarily disagree; the original point (and only point) I was making is that from the view of the person who was editing that Wikipedia article, most "commentators" have written off Bitcoin.

Also, brinebold, I agree -- Bitcoin itself is worth no more nor no less than what people are willing to pay for it.  It's a fascinating sociological/economic experiment.
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!