Bitcoin Forum
December 16, 2017, 08:03:45 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: The Bitcoin Fallacy  (Read 3559 times)
Piper67
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


AffBits.com Affiliate Network


View Profile WWW
September 02, 2013, 06:14:47 PM
 #21

The article is from 2012. I would like to know his opinion now.

He's not available for comment, he's having tea and cookies with the Wired writer who pronounced Bitcoin dead back in 2011  Grin

1513411425
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513411425

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513411425
Reply with quote  #2

1513411425
Report to moderator
1513411425
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513411425

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513411425
Reply with quote  #2

1513411425
Report to moderator
1513411425
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513411425

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513411425
Reply with quote  #2

1513411425
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
BCB
CTG
VIP
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050


BCJ


View Profile
September 02, 2013, 06:46:57 PM
 #22

Bitcoin too has regulatory costs which creates tremendous vacillating friction here in the US and for any legitimate company that wants to do business with US customers.

This is true in one specific use case: selling on an exchange and withdrawing the USD to your bank account. Guess how many other use cases there are? I'll give you a clue (you're in desperate need, it's only fair), it's more than one. >1.



Instead of asking everyone to guess why don't you enumerate your use cases.

Are you really so ignorant that cashing crytpocurrency out of exchanges is the only use-case imaginable? Or is this some subtle "ignorance trolling"? I'm beginning to suspect the latter, you clearly have some semblance of a presenting a logical argument, and yet no ability to research the gaps in your awareness that are consistently being pointed out to you by the majority of this community.

If not trolling, seek help

Carlton

Personal attacks do not make a good debate. I'm not going to advance your opinion for you. You make counterpoints but don't provide any support. You ask the reader to "guess."  So again Ill ask you to enumerate your use cases.
TippingPoint
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 905



View Profile
September 02, 2013, 06:50:27 PM
 #23

Carlton

Calling someone ignorant (when they are clearly intelligent) is not productive.
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848



View Profile
September 02, 2013, 07:02:09 PM
 #24

Carlton

Calling someone ignorant (when they are clearly intelligent) is not productive.


I respect your output Tipping Point, but be advised that I am referring to it's specific ignorance of Bitcoin's uses, and not it's general awareness of worldly matters. This is not ambiguous in the context.

Remember that it is quite possible to be simultaneously ignorant and intelligent, as ignorance is only a lack of awareness or of information, while intelligence is the innate or learned ability to form cognescent thought patterns. They are not synonymous, and therefore I will call a spade a spade. If it consistently behaves ignorantly, ignorant is not an inappropriate observation.

Vires in numeris
TippingPoint
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 905



View Profile
September 02, 2013, 07:06:17 PM
 #25

OK

Do what you have to do.
BCB
CTG
VIP
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050


BCJ


View Profile
September 02, 2013, 07:17:55 PM
 #26

Ok. I am ignorant. Enlighten me. Assume I've never used bitcoin before. So enumerate the use cases. If you feel this exercise is beneath you then well just move on.   

My intention is clarity and understanding.

If you assume the I know (or should know a thing) then I assume I know what you assume I know then where is the real communication. Where is the understanding. Having strong opinions (or differences of opinions) is fine. That is why I engage here.  I'm truly interested in understanding the logic and the reasoning behind those opinions. But we get nowhere when you treat this inquiry with contempt. Why do you bother responding. Clearly you have an opinion and it matters to you. I'm just asking you to share it.
johnyj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834


Beyond Imagination


View Profile
September 03, 2013, 01:38:39 AM
 #27

From an Interview with Doug Jackson, founder of e-gold. Interviewed by Mark Herpel.

http://themonetaryfuture.blogspot.com/2012/01/final-days-of-e-gold-interview-with.html

Let’s say they spend a million of these whatevers into circulation. Perhaps an exchange market even emerges. The public sends real money to the exchangers. As long as demand is such as to support growth in circulation the exchangers have incoming real money, some of which can be paid out to the occasional customers who want to sell their whatevers. At some point though aggregate demand for whatevers declines and the exchangers are deluged with whatevers from people wanting to exchange them for real money. Their trading balances are now chock full of whatevers but running low on real money. At some point the exchangers – possibly the only entities that
have been holding value (in the form of trading balances of real money) to offset the whatevers – repudiate pending exchanges [that had been locked/committed at now inconvenient-to-honor exchange rates] and everyone is shocked.

What is that "real money" that he refers to? Is it fiat money? Value is decided by supply and demand, if there is no demand, even the gold will lose its value, but demand only comes from properties that can satisfy people's desire, there is no fundamental differences between many kind of currency

OK, now let’s contrast with an issuer of real money. The techie parts for moving the bits may be roughly similar. But these bits are recognized by their issuers as constituting the embodiment of liabilities, obligations against which they must hold an equal portfolio of suitable assets, set aside expressly for their redemption. The difference between “virtual” and real money becomes evident if and when demand for the real money declines. No problema. Issuers of real money, by virtue of these holdings of current assets, some or
all of which are highly liquid, stand ready at all times to buy back (if need be) every unit of their monetary liabilities they have spent into circulation.

This concept only applies to issuing money with a hard asset backing, typically gold. But what decide gold's value? It's still supply and demand to its root


People who fall for the numbers-that-are-money fallacy tend to also say things “after all, the Fed creates money out of thin air” - which is simply incorrect. The Fed creates money by buying up (and holding) the ever-mounting debts of the US Treasury, and, these days, the mortgage backed and other securities that were recently regarded as so scary as to call into question the solvency of the banks that had been holding them.

FED first create money, and then buy government bonds and MBS. You can also first create bitcoin, and then buy government bonds and MBS. You can also mine gold and buy government bonds and MBS. No difference at all

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!