What the Early Adoptors Don't want you to know

[malditonuke]

I'm sure a virtual currency is here to stay but I'm also fairly sure it won't be bitcoin.

I agree that the odds of success are slim, if only because we are dealing with something entirely new.  My advice (and most of the advice I see on this forum) is that bitcoin should be viewed as a noble and risky endeavor.

Approach bitcoin like you would a "hot" stock tip or a novelty.  If you're a speculator, then don't risk more than you can afford.  Otherwise, have fun.

[1713589209]

1713589209

[1713589209]

1713589209

[Oldminer]

The times they are a changing. Time to put your faith into something else other than worthless paper

http://www.youtube.com/user/davincij15

[truthcracker]

I'm sure a virtual currency is here to stay but I'm also fairly sure it won't be bitcoin.

I agree that the odds of success are slim, if only because we are dealing with something entirely new.  My advice (and most of the advice I see on this forum) is that bitcoin should be viewed as a noble and risky endeavor.

Approach bitcoin like you would a "hot" stock tip or a novelty.  If you're a speculator, then don't risk more than you can afford.  Otherwise, have fun.

Yeah, that's my take.  But I'd also emphasis that it is exciting and new, lets work on something sustainable if we want big goals, not big bucks.  And yeah nothing wrong with fun.

[malditonuke]

the early adopters have used the deflation argument not to better everybody, but to enrich themselves.  It has encouraged ridiculous speculation that is harmful and driven vendors away.

I haven't read anything in these forums by 'the early adopters' that supports what you say.

They say deflation is good.  OK, duh.

They say that speculation isn't a goal, but it's inevitable.


And as an austrian, how the hell do you know how much speculation is ridiculous?  (Where is that secret measuring rod located?)

[truthcracker]

The times they are a changing. Time to put your faith into something else other than worthless paper

http://www.youtube.com/user/davincij15

I've made video responses to the guy - he knows who I am.  I am generally supportive of alternatives to worthless paper, but I'm trying to be a voice of reason here.  I don't like the way he's presented bitcoins as almost like gold and silver - its RISKY RISKY RISKY at the moment.  I think that he's going to do more harm than good in the long run with this approach.

[truthcracker]

the early adopters have used the deflation argument not to better everybody, but to enrich themselves.  It has encouraged ridiculous speculation that is harmful and driven vendors away.

I haven't read anything in these forums by 'the early adopters' that supports what you say.

They say deflation is good.  OK, duh.

They say that speculation isn't a goal, but it's inevitable.


And as an austrian, how the hell do you know how much speculation is ridiculous?  (Where is that secret measuring rod located?)

I've listened to sefbot and whatch all 8 hours of the bitcoinshow, which is like an infomercial for bitcoins.  In all the blog pieces that are fed to the new outlets they write they downplay the initial wealth distribution like it somehow is irrelevant.

As an Austrian, its ridiculous to have daily speculation in a service that you want a vendor to use for everyday transactions.  Without the vendors the service usefulness is that of a casino.

[truthcracker]

Check out a recent interview to Doug Casey (a famous investor /speculator) on Bitcoin:
Doug Casey on Bitcoin and Currencies
http://webabuser.blogspot.com/2011/06/doug-casey-on-bitcoin-and-currencies.html

I tend to agree with him is that the main problem is that Bitcoin is "backed by nothing" but the full faith and credit of adopters.
I would add that millions of bitcoins concentrated in the few hands of founders and early adopters means that these ppl can move the price as they please. That is quite bad.

I see no problem with a deflationary currency: even gold and silver are deflationary, and they worked fine a few thousands of years.

Actually gold and silver are mostly only deflationary against fiat fractional reserve banking currency.  The gold and silver supply has increased steadily throughout history.  Its interesting to think of a medium of exchange rather than a currency because there is almost always more than one, at any time in society.  Good looks, cigg's in jail, drugs at a party, water in a hot car on a long drive, all these things go in and out of usefulness depending on the time context and situation.  Bitcoins could be very useful to drug runners and money launder's or something like it.  In war it could be bullets.  Gold and silver has traditionally been above all these currencies in that you can exchange them for what every OTHER currency you like.

If you got in a time machine and could go 4000 years back or forward, what currency would you take?

Gold and silver baby!

End of rant.

[kjj]

the early adopters have used the deflation argument not to better everybody, but to enrich themselves.  It has encouraged ridiculous speculation that is harmful and driven vendors away.

I haven't read anything in these forums by 'the early adopters' that supports what you say.

They say deflation is good.  OK, duh.

They say that speculation isn't a goal, but it's inevitable.


And as an austrian, how the hell do you know how much speculation is ridiculous?  (Where is that secret measuring rod located?)

I've listened to sefbot and whatch all 8 hours of the bitcoinshow, which is like an infomercial for bitcoins.  In all the blog pieces that are fed to the new outlets they write they downplay the initial wealth distribution like it somehow is irrelevant.

As an Austrian, its ridiculous to have daily speculation in a service that you want a vendor to use for everyday transactions.  Without the vendors the service usefulness is that of a casino.

The initial distribution is irrelevant.  Also, what do you mean by initial?  Do you mean, like really initial, the first block reward?  Or do you mean the last block reward which won't happen for a century?  Or do you mean some block in between the two?  Which one?  Justify your decision for which magic block is the final block of the "initial distribution" period.

And are you kidding about the speculation?  Speculators are everywhere.  There is speculation in everything all day, every day.  Are you sure you aren't really concerned with volatility?  If so, isn't the volatility really caused by the relative smallness of the market?

[Vladimir]

There is a good reason why Google's Serge and Larry are billionaires while suckers fall over each other to buy GOOG shares for 500$ a pop.

[truthcracker]

the early adopters have used the deflation argument not to better everybody, but to enrich themselves.  It has encouraged ridiculous speculation that is harmful and driven vendors away.

I haven't read anything in these forums by 'the early adopters' that supports what you say.

They say deflation is good.  OK, duh.

They say that speculation isn't a goal, but it's inevitable.


And as an austrian, how the hell do you know how much speculation is ridiculous?  (Where is that secret measuring rod located?)

I've listened to sefbot and whatch all 8 hours of the bitcoinshow, which is like an infomercial for bitcoins.  In all the blog pieces that are fed to the new outlets they write they downplay the initial wealth distribution like it somehow is irrelevant.

As an Austrian, its ridiculous to have daily speculation in a service that you want a vendor to use for everyday transactions.  Without the vendors the service usefulness is that of a casino.

The initial distribution is irrelevant.  Also, what do you mean by initial?  Do you mean, like really initial, the first block reward?  Or do you mean the last block reward which won't happen for a century?  Or do you mean some block in between the two?  Which one?  Justify your decision for which magic block is the final block of the "initial distribution" period.

And are you kidding about the speculation?  Speculators are everywhere.  There is speculation in everything all day, every day.  Are you sure you aren't really concerned with volatility?  If so, isn't the volatility really caused by the relative smallness of the market?

I just started a company with 21 million shares, maximum, and me and three friends already have 2.5 million,  please invest, its irrelevant, because if you invest now, you'll have more than the next guy - its going to get harder to get in.  What did we do to get these shares?  Nothing really just plugged a computer into a wall.  What do we want you to do for us?  Oh, go to work and earn money and give it to us.   Why?  Because its the money of the future (and you can tell that to someone else and sell it to them higher!).  The volatility this creates via speculation means no vendors and interested, so its just new people giving money to original people.  The volatility is caused not by the size of the market but the lack of vendors - its just speculators swapping money between each other - the vendors are almost an afterthought.  This is a real shame and will collapse a good idea.

Waiting for bitcoins II.  Who convinced you to hand your money over to people that generated 2.5 million bit coins almost for free - the same ones that told you it didn't matter?  Of course it matters otherwise your buying NOTHING!   There is no serious vendor network and there never will be.  We need to think through how to get this right next time.

[malditonuke]

I've listened to sefbot and whatch all 8 hours of the bitcoinshow, which is like an infomercial for bitcoins.  In all the blog pieces that are fed to the new outlets they write they downplay the initial wealth distribution like it somehow is irrelevant.

As an Austrian, its ridiculous to have daily speculation in a service that you want a vendor to use for everyday transactions.  Without the vendors the service usefulness is that of a casino.

Hmm.  Well, I'm not an early adopter (any more than you probably are), and I don't see anything more than a potential problem with the initial wealth distribution.  And if they really want bitcoin to be successful (and retain their wealth), then they won't turn the potential problem into a real problem.

As for bitcoin speculation, if you agree that bitcoin is, for now, a speculative investment and toy, then it shouldn't surprise you that it is volatile.  You understand that bitcoin may not last; so does EVERYONE else.  That's another reason why it is so volatile.

Luckily bitcoin isn't the world's first currency, so that it can ride the backs of other currencies until it learns to swim, so to speak.  Vendors can price in dollars/bitcoins, keep some bitcoins, sell the rest.  When bitcoins have a history, people will be more willing to hold onto it.

[Vladimir]

 What did we do to get these shares?  Nothing really just plugged a computer into a wall.

Yep. nothing, just plugged many computers in to a wall and invented revolutionary currency and principally new asset class which has a potential to cut out lots of middlemen from money transfer biz and  often reducing transactions fees from 20% to 0.01%.

[truthcracker]

 What did we do to get these shares?  Nothing really just plugged a computer into a wall.

Yep. nothing, just plugged many computers in to a wall and invented revolutionary currency and principally new asset class which has a potential to cut out lots of middlemen from money transfer biz and  often reducing transactions fees from 20% to 0.01%.

The invention was done.  The distribution was arbitrary.  Its going to be redone and if you've got a lot of bitcoins i'd suggest you start cashing them out so you can build bitcoin II

[malditonuke]

The invention was done.  The distribution was arbitrary.  Its going to be redone and if you've got a lot of bitcoins i'd suggest you start cashing them out so you can build bitcoin II I can buy them on the cheap.

fixed that for you

[Vladimir]

The invention was done.  The distribution was arbitrary.  Its going to be redone and if you've got a lot of bitcoins i'd suggest you start cashing them out so you can build bitcoin II

Ironically, I am one of those who are extremely well positioned for emergence of Bitcoin II. Though, I really doubt that this Bitcoin II would be viable at all, for many reasons.

[truthcracker]

The invention was done.  The distribution was arbitrary.  Its going to be redone and if you've got a lot of bitcoins i'd suggest you start cashing them out so you can build bitcoin II I can buy them on the cheap.

fixed that for you

LOL nice one.

No I'm in dwolla's camp - I'm not buying this round.

[truthcracker]

The invention was done.  The distribution was arbitrary.  Its going to be redone and if you've got a lot of bitcoins i'd suggest you start cashing them out so you can build bitcoin II

Ironically, I am one of those who are extremely well positioned for emergence of Bitcoin II. Though, I really doubt that this Bitcoin II would be viable at all, for many reasons.

Care to share?

[malditonuke]

The invention was done.  The distribution was arbitrary.  Its going to be redone and if you've got a lot of bitcoins i'd suggest you start cashing them out so you can build bitcoin II

Ironically, I am one of those who are extremely well positioned for emergence of Bitcoin II. Though, I really doubt that this Bitcoin II would be viable at all, for many reasons.

Care to share?

I, for one, wouldn't buy into bitcoin 2.0 if bitcoin turns out to be a dismal failure.  Would you?

[kjj]

Waiting for bitcoins II.

And the initial distribution for bitcoins II will be what exactly?

[malditonuke]

Waiting for bitcoins II.

And the initial distribution for bitcoins II will be what exactly?

Hehe, as if there is any question.