Who ACTUALLY knows what they're talking about here?

[johnniewalker]

If I had a bitcoin for every different opinion I've read on them, I'd be rich (even at their current price). Yes, I am aware formal credentials aren't everything, but they obviously are a lot. So, if anyone who posts frequently here or in the "Speculation" thread frequently, I would just be curious of what kind of credentials you have.

[whitenight639]

If I had a bitcoin for every different opinion I've read on them, I'd be rich (even at their current price). Yes, I am aware formal credentials aren't everything, but they obviously are a lot. So, if anyone who posts frequently here or in the "Speculation" thread frequently, I would just be curious of what kind of credentials you have.

If you value Credentials highly then I suggest that the bitcoin world isn't for you.


I suspect their are many well qualified and knowlagable people on this forum and many that make up for their lack of credentials with there wisdom and intelligence, but alas many of these people value their privacy over ego / status.

[Beetle559]

The problem is that even among the people with credentials there's no agreement.

I wouldn't be too focused on the "consensus" view, just get familiar with different views and form your own judgment.

[leemar]

I don't :-)

[Tonko]

I would just be curious of what kind of credentials you have.

Same here.

Why don't you start with yours first?

[abbyd]

I would just be curious of what kind of credentials you have.

Same here.

Why don't you start with yours first?

I'd guess he's qualified to get pedos to sit down:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJLhQoxenB8

[shawshankinmate37927]

If I had a bitcoin for every different opinion I've read on them, I'd be rich (even at their current price). Yes, I am aware formal credentials aren't everything, but they obviously are a lot. So, if anyone who posts frequently here or in the "Speculation" thread frequently, I would just be curious of what kind of credentials you have.

Credentials are meaningless.  Paul Krugman, for example, has a Nobel prize in economics, but knows nothing about how a free-market economy leads to prosperity.  He's been drinking too much of that Keynesian Kool-Aid.  If you're unsure about how to "connect the dots", just dig for answers and think things through logically.  The light bulb will eventually come on.

[anonymous_hero]

Generally, people with advanced degrees in economics do not bloviate on Internet forums, and even if they did, they don't have much reason to share their credentials or their identity.  Degrees or any other such qualifications are generally hard to prove, anyway, so why bother?

[MisterMelancholy]

Generally, people with advanced degrees in economics do not bloviate on Internet forums, and even if they did, they don't have much reason to share their credentials or their identity.  Degrees or any other such qualifications are generally hard to prove, anyway, so why bother?

People with degrees are too busy making money to roam on some little BitCoin forum.

By the way, I have a PHD in Economics, Computer Sciences, Cryptography, Mathematics...

[dataphile]

Proudhon.

[ManBearPig]

Proudhon.

Almost: I'd say anti-Proudhon!

Nah I'm kidding.

OP: not me mate!

I dispense facts, sometimes opinions but unless people are paying me money (and sometimes even when they do) I'll always offer the caveat: I'm just some bloke and I make mistakes.

Anyone who says, "Do what I say and you can earn 30% daily passive income following my 7-step plan" and puts it in a large, bold, red font doesn't either IMO.

The best traders take their warm glow from profits not peer approval!

[squall1066]

I would just be curious of what kind of credentials you have.

What credentials does one need to stop oppression? Personally, I don't care if some people cant string two words together, We all here have one view, FREEDOM! If we cant get on in a society created by the society, We really are screwed!

[Spendulus]

If I had a bitcoin for every different opinion I've read on them, I'd be rich (even at their current price). Yes, I am aware formal credentials aren't everything, but they obviously are a lot. So, if anyone who posts frequently here or in the "Speculation" thread frequently, I would just be curious of what kind of credentials you have.

I got the credentials.

Then I got past them.

Fortunately.

PS: UNFORTUNATELY....

The way things are in the US right now with the government having taken over the student loan market, and the costs of education having quadruple the price increases of inflation on the average, one simply "BUYS" credentials and at very high cost, both in loans and time.

Personally I don't think such credentials are a good investment.  At least in many cases.

A more interesting question would be something like, is there a M. Friedman, Hayek or the like posting on these forums?  If so I would know from the writing and need know nothing else about the person's credentials.

[rayt5]

Unfortunately, the only real way to know anything for sure about a controversial topic is to study it yourself.

I would advise you to be skeptical of people that say things like "Bitcoin doesn't apply to these economic arguments, because it's different." A lot of these people are exhibiting special pleading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading. From the article, examples of this logical fallacy include:

• unexplained claims of exemption from principles commonly thought relevant to the subject matter
• claims to data that are inherently unverifiable, perhaps because too remote or impossible to define clearly
• appeals to "common knowledge" that bypass supporting data
• assertion that the opponent lacks the qualifications necessary to comprehend a point of view
• assertion that nobody has the qualifications necessary to comprehend a point of view

Examples of this fallacy on this forum include: "There is no bubble, because Bitcoin is different", "Deflation in Bitcoin isn't bad, because Bitcoin is different than other previous currencies", or "X criticism doesn't apply to Bitcoin, because Bitcoin is different."

It doesn't mean what they're saying isn't true, but the reason will almost never be because "Bitcoin is different," and when it is, if they can't explain why Bitcoin does not belong in a certain category of things that an argument puts it in other than the fact that it's new or unique or people just don't understand it, then it's probably safe to dismiss their argument.

[Epicurus]

I would just be curious of what kind of credentials you have.

What credentials does one need to stop oppression? Personally, I don't care if some people cant string two words together, We all here have one view, FREEDOM! If we cant get on in a society created by the society, We really are screwed!

No we don't. You might, but the True Believers are on their way to being marginalized by people who are serious about Bitcoin as a currency, and not as some Ayn Rand fantasy.

[Matthew N. Wright]

I agree with your assertion but have never really known how to describe it until now. I learned something today because of you. Thanks  

Unfortunately, the only real way to know anything for sure about a controversial topic is to study it yourself.

I would advise you to be skeptical of people that say things like "Bitcoin doesn't apply to these economic arguments, because it's different." A lot of these people are exhibiting special pleading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading From the article, examples of this logical fallacy include:

• unexplained claims of exemption from principles commonly thought relevant to the subject matter
• claims to data that are inherently unverifiable, perhaps because too remote or impossible to define clearly
• appeals to "common knowledge" that bypass supporting data
• assertion that the opponent lacks the qualifications necessary to comprehend a point of view
• assertion that nobody has the qualifications necessary to comprehend a point of view

Examples of this fallacy on this form include: "There is no bubble, because Bitcoin is different", "Deflation in Bitcoin isn't bad, because Bitcoin is different than other previous currencies", or "X criticism doesn't apply to Bitcoin, because Bitcoin is different."

It doesn't mean what they're saying isn't true, but the reason will almost never be because "Bitcoin is different," and when it is, if they can't explain why Bitcoin does not belong in a certain category of things that an argument puts it in other than the fact that it's new or unique or people just don't understand it, then it's probably safe to dismiss their argument.

[RodeoX]

I know what I'm talking about when I say that I don't know what I'm talking about. 

[Severian]

I would just be curious of what kind of credentials you have.

I started buying bitcoins when they were at about $3.

[justusranvier]

Unfortunately, the only real way to know anything for sure about a controversial topic is to study it yourself.

I would advise you to be skeptical of people that say things like "Bitcoin doesn't apply to these economic arguments, because it's different." A lot of these people are exhibiting special pleading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading. From the article, examples of this logical fallacy include:

• unexplained claims of exemption from principles commonly thought relevant to the subject matter
• claims to data that are inherently unverifiable, perhaps because too remote or impossible to define clearly
• appeals to "common knowledge" that bypass supporting data
• assertion that the opponent lacks the qualifications necessary to comprehend a point of view
• assertion that nobody has the qualifications necessary to comprehend a point of view

Examples of this fallacy on this forum include: "There is no bubble, because Bitcoin is different", "Deflation in Bitcoin isn't bad, because Bitcoin is different than other previous currencies", or "X criticism doesn't apply to Bitcoin, because Bitcoin is different."

It doesn't mean what they're saying isn't true, but the reason will almost never be because "Bitcoin is different," and when it is, if they can't explain why Bitcoin does not belong in a certain category of things that an argument puts it in other than the fact that it's new or unique or people just don't understand it, then it's probably safe to dismiss their argument.

Examples of strawmen arguments include mischaracterizing the argument, Deflation in Bitcoin isn't bad because deflation is inherently good" as "Deflation in Bitcoin isn't bad because of some special characteristic of Bitcoin."

[rayt5]

Examples of strawmen arguments include mischaracterizing the argument, Deflation in Bitcoin isn't bad because deflation is inherently good" as "Deflation in Bitcoin isn't bad because of some special characteristic of Bitcoin."

That's a different kind of argument, and not what I was talking about. Asserting that deflation in currency is inherently good is a general assertion, and it's something that can be debated on its own evidence. We can look at how deflation has affected currencies in the past. What I was saying was that IF we look at how deflation affects currencies in the past, and IF deflation appears to negatively affect the economy that uses those currencies, one can't just dismiss the argument by saying "those examples don't apply to Bitcoins because bitcoins are different."