Bitcoin Mention in CNN

[kookiekrak]

http://money.cnn.com/video/technology/2011/07/18/t_bitcoin_currency.cnnmoney/

[1715636155]

1715636155

[1715636155]

1715636155

[1715636155]

1715636155

[1715636155]

1715636155

[1715636155]

1715636155

[kookiekrak]

i fail. it was more like 8$

[error]

lol, also in the example, he charges 7.035 bitcoins for a meal. At current prices, thats around  80-90$

Nope, it was 0.7035 BTC.

[done]

 

[pennytrader]

First NPR, now CNN. For some reason, it seems the more exposed we are, the lower price we are headed to

[myhoho]

I'll be rich with bitcoin .

[Bitcoin Swami]

I'll be rich with bitcoin .

not if you dont stop your gambling addiction. 

[Timo Y]

First NPR, now CNN. For some reason, it seems the more exposed we are, the lower price we are headed to

Exposure was bigger in May and June than this month.

In fact, there is a good correlation between Bitcoin popularity and price, as evidenced by google trends and alexa rankings.

[Explodicle]

First NPR, now CNN. For some reason, it seems the more exposed we are, the lower price we are headed to

My poorly grounded observation: it's always a couple days between big news stories and price rises, since it takes a while to bring USD in through exchanges. You can bet your ass I'm not selling right now.

[FlipPro]

Bruce is going to be famous ! 

[Bitcoin Swami]

Bruce is going to be famous ! 

He will be able to get any chick he wants (if he's into that kinda thing). 

[FlipPro]

Bruce is going to be famous !  

He will be able to get any chick he wants (if he's into that kinda thing).  

I see what you are doing there, and I don't like it...

[myhoho]

I'll be rich with bitcoin .

not if you dont stop your gambling addiction.  

offtopic:  I don't have any gambling addiction, moreover I'm making profit with 95% of risky investments I do (for sure, it works for bitcoin itself and some bitcoin-based activities)...

In fact, there is a good correlation between Bitcoin popularity and price, as evidenced by google trends and alexa rankings.

 It's obvious. We don't have any other relevant criteria.  

[Bitcoin Swami]

I'll be rich with bitcoin .

not if you dont stop your gambling addiction.  

offtopic:  I don't have any gambling addiction, moreover I'm making profit with 95% of risky investments I do (for sure, it works for bitcoin itself and some bitcoin-based activities)...

In fact, there is a good correlation between Bitcoin popularity and price, as evidenced by google trends and alexa rankings.

 It's obvious. We don't have any other relevant criteria.  

I was just messing around, I got a gambling link in my sig too.

[Bitcoin Swami]

Bruce is going to be famous !  

He will be able to get any chick he wants (if he's into that kinda thing).  

I see what you are doing there, and I don't like it...

Wha?

[FlipPro]

This is great news you guys! The reporting was really fair, and and genuine. Great job CNN.

[AngelusWebDesign]

I wouldn't trust CNN. They are beholden to the existing system of Big Business, Big Banks, etc.

Notice the Bitcoin "taking off like a rocket" at the beginning, implying hyperinflation or too many coins in circulation.

These stories *never* focus on the actual value of BTC -- what makes them special. It's the fact that you can't hack or fake them. Hacking or faking them would be MORE difficult than just mining some real ones. The aspect of how the block chain is un-hackable, and becomes more-so with every increase in processing power the Bitcoin network undergoes.

I mean, what if I started a website called Matthew Bucks and people deposited money there, and sent money between accounts -- basically like Paypal.

How is Bitcoin different than that? That's what I'm talking about. This isn't another Beanz, Paypal, or any other digital micro-currency. It's actually a PRODUCT albeit an electronic one. What you're PAYING FOR is a private key that gives you access to a cryptographic item that is used to transfer wealth between people anywhere in the world. And they're quite liquid.

That's one thing that repeatedly gives me pause every time I'm tempted to think Bitcoin is finished. Everything else, I have to go with the naysayers (not enough practical uses, no places to spend them, users are mostly speculators, etc.)

[evoorhees]

I wouldn't trust CNN. They are beholden to the existing system of Big Business, Big Banks, etc.

Notice the Bitcoin "taking off like a rocket" at the beginning, implying hyperinflation or too many coins in circulation.

These stories *never* focus on the actual value of BTC -- what makes them special. It's the fact that you can't hack or fake them. Hacking or faking them would be MORE difficult than just mining some real ones. The aspect of how the block chain is un-hackable, and becomes more-so with every increase in processing power the Bitcoin network undergoes.

I mean, what if I started a website called Matthew Bucks and people deposited money there, and sent money between accounts -- basically like Paypal.

How is Bitcoin different than that? That's what I'm talking about. This isn't another Beanz, Paypal, or any other digital micro-currency. It's actually a PRODUCT albeit an electronic one. What you're PAYING FOR is a private key that gives you access to a cryptographic item that is used to transfer wealth between people anywhere in the world. And they're quite liquid.

That's one thing that repeatedly gives me pause every time I'm tempted to think Bitcoin is finished. Everything else, I have to go with the naysayers (not enough practical uses, no places to spend them, users are mostly speculators, etc.)

Slam the mainstream media all you want, but when they put out a fair and reasonable piece, you should acknowledge it. The video was very balanced and, IMO, well done.

Letting your own biases cloud your judgement would be ironic given that you're critical of CNN for that very same thing...

[swusc2]

I wouldn't trust CNN. They are beholden to the existing system of Big Business, Big Banks, etc.

Notice the Bitcoin "taking off like a rocket" at the beginning, implying hyperinflation or too many coins in circulation.

These stories *never* focus on the actual value of BTC -- what makes them special. It's the fact that you can't hack or fake them. Hacking or faking them would be MORE difficult than just mining some real ones. The aspect of how the block chain is un-hackable, and becomes more-so with every increase in processing power the Bitcoin network undergoes.

I mean, what if I started a website called Matthew Bucks and people deposited money there, and sent money between accounts -- basically like Paypal.

How is Bitcoin different than that? That's what I'm talking about. This isn't another Beanz, Paypal, or any other digital micro-currency. It's actually a PRODUCT albeit an electronic one. What you're PAYING FOR is a private key that gives you access to a cryptographic item that is used to transfer wealth between people anywhere in the world. And they're quite liquid.

That's one thing that repeatedly gives me pause every time I'm tempted to think Bitcoin is finished. Everything else, I have to go with the naysayers (not enough practical uses, no places to spend them, users are mostly speculators, etc.)

That's like saying since you pay your bills with Fiat currency we can't trust you or expect you aren't telling the full story.

Sorry but I don't trust your saying to not trust them in their saying because you use the "System".

All media attention is inherently slightly biased towards whoever pays them the big bucks. Now I'm sorry the biggest corporation is "government", just as how some places the biggest corporation is the mafia, or some mega-conglomerate. News will more or less always be biased to who has money and power, now if you don't like that tough luck. It's not like it's going to change if Bitcoin dominated and some early adopter(s) became super powerful and controlled the media.

Take it for what it is worth. It could be "Bitcoin, the Devils Work." Would that be any better?

[noedaRDH]

Another biased report; mentions of the word "Ponzi scheme", "illegal activities" and etc without explaining such arguments ("some say...").

Maybe we should all stop using cash? Since cash is probably the most popular method of illegal transactions, ie drug dealing.

The fuction of a currency has nothing to with stopping it from being used for illegal or shameful purposes. As long as people want drugs or porn or whatever else, they will find ways to use any currency as a trading tool, be it cash or Bitcoins or golden nuggets. It's not Bitcoins' job, it's an issue with people.

For every hint of a "pro" Bitcoin argument, they present a dozen useless negative fallacies about Bitcoin. Why don't they mention how Bitcoin cannot be willingly printed at mass out of thin air? The guy from WIRED didn't mention any of the security aspects of Bitcoins and how it cannot be easily counterfeited.

[error]

For every hint of a "pro" Bitcoin argument, they present a dozen useless negative fallacies about Bitcoin. Why don't they mention how Bitcoin cannot be willingly printed at mass out of thin air? The guy from WIRED didn't mention any of the security aspects of Bitcoins and how it cannot be easily counterfeited.

Don't be so sure of that. It was likely a half hour interview and they only used a few seconds of it.

[swusc2]

Another biased report; mentions of the word "Ponzi scheme", "illegal activities" and etc without explaining such arguments ("some say...").

Maybe we should all stop using cash? Since cash is probably the most popular method of illegal transactions, ie drug dealing.

The aim of a currency has nothing to with stopping it from being used for illegal or shameful purposes. As long as people want drugs or porn or whatever else, they will find ways to use any currency as a trading tool, be it cash or Bitcoins or golden nuggets. It's not Bitcoins' problem, it's an issue with people.

For every hint of a "pro" Bitcoin argument, they present a dozen useless negative fallacies about Bitcoin. Why don't they mention how Bitcoin cannot be willingly printed at mass out of thin air? The guy from WIRED didn't mention any of the security aspects of Bitcoins and how it cannot be easily counterfeited.

Apparently people can't say "Some people say bad things about it."

Some people say you are an idiot.

[noedaRDH]

For every hint of a "pro" Bitcoin argument, they present a dozen useless negative fallacies about Bitcoin. Why don't they mention how Bitcoin cannot be willingly printed at mass out of thin air? The guy from WIRED didn't mention any of the security aspects of Bitcoins and how it cannot be easily counterfeited.

Don't be so sure of that. It was likely a half hour interview and they only used a few seconds of it.

Okay, I apologize. Let me restate that the problem is with the reporting, not the guy from WIRED.

[hawks5999]

I wouldn't trust CNN. They are beholden to the existing system of Big Business, Big Banks, etc.

Notice the Bitcoin "taking off like a rocket" at the beginning, implying hyperinflation or too many coins in circulation.

Ummm... that's from the opening of Bruce's "The BitCoin Show".

He will be able to get any chick he wants (if he's into that kinda thing). 

and Bruce has been out on "The BitCoin Show" since at least the MtGox crash.

Maybe Bruce needs to advertise "The BitCoin Show" more.

[hawks5999]

This is great news you guys! The reporting was really fair, and and genuine. Great job CNN.

I agree. Of course this will really be awesome when it isn't in the "Tech Talk" section and it's not on CNNMoney.

When a story like this leads in the hour on plain old vanilla CNN, then we will know it's mainstream.

[noedaRDH]

Another biased report; mentions of the word "Ponzi scheme", "illegal activities" and etc without explaining such arguments ("some say...").

Maybe we should all stop using cash? Since cash is probably the most popular method of illegal transactions, ie drug dealing.

The aim of a currency has nothing to with stopping it from being used for illegal or shameful purposes. As long as people want drugs or porn or whatever else, they will find ways to use any currency as a trading tool, be it cash or Bitcoins or golden nuggets. It's not Bitcoins' problem, it's an issue with people.

For every hint of a "pro" Bitcoin argument, they present a dozen useless negative fallacies about Bitcoin. Why don't they mention how Bitcoin cannot be willingly printed at mass out of thin air? The guy from WIRED didn't mention any of the security aspects of Bitcoins and how it cannot be easily counterfeited.

Apparently people can't say "Some people say bad things about it."

Some people say you are an idiot.

And who are those "some people"? What do they base their arguments on?

No need for personal attacks.

[BillX]

Another biased report; mentions of the word "Ponzi scheme", "illegal activities" and etc without explaining such arguments ("some say...").

Maybe we should all stop using cash? Since cash is probably the most popular method of illegal transactions, ie drug dealing.

The aim of a currency has nothing to with stopping it from being used for illegal or shameful purposes. As long as people want drugs or porn or whatever else, they will find ways to use any currency as a trading tool, be it cash or Bitcoins or golden nuggets. It's not Bitcoins' problem, it's an issue with people.

For every hint of a "pro" Bitcoin argument, they present a dozen useless negative fallacies about Bitcoin. Why don't they mention how Bitcoin cannot be willingly printed at mass out of thin air? The guy from WIRED didn't mention any of the security aspects of Bitcoins and how it cannot be easily counterfeited.

Apparently people can't say "Some people say bad things about it."

Some people say you are an idiot.

And who are those "some people"? What do they base their arguments on?

No need for personal attacks.

I think what he is trying to say is that CNN is going to put a fluff piece about bitcoin on the air. People have different views and CNN is going to bring those different views on the air.

[swusc2]

Another biased report; mentions of the word "Ponzi scheme", "illegal activities" and etc without explaining such arguments ("some say...").

Maybe we should all stop using cash? Since cash is probably the most popular method of illegal transactions, ie drug dealing.

The aim of a currency has nothing to with stopping it from being used for illegal or shameful purposes. As long as people want drugs or porn or whatever else, they will find ways to use any currency as a trading tool, be it cash or Bitcoins or golden nuggets. It's not Bitcoins' problem, it's an issue with people.

For every hint of a "pro" Bitcoin argument, they present a dozen useless negative fallacies about Bitcoin. Why don't they mention how Bitcoin cannot be willingly printed at mass out of thin air? The guy from WIRED didn't mention any of the security aspects of Bitcoins and how it cannot be easily counterfeited.

Apparently people can't say "Some people say bad things about it."

Some people say you are an idiot.

And who are those "some people"? What do they base their arguments on?

No need for personal attacks.

People on this forum, experts, whoever wants to say it is.

a) It can be used for illegal activies. We all know it can. Any currency can. People know USD can.

b) Money inherently is a Ponzi scheme whether it be Fiat(USD) or pseudo-fiat(Bitcoin). They all derive their value from the # of people willing to use and accept it whether as currency or just a method of wealth storage.

Some say Mac is safer than Windows some say the opposite. Both sides cite some evidence. Am I not allowed to say "Some say Windows is safer than Mac and some say it isn't" or is that too bias?

[Vod]

b) Money inherently is a Ponzi scheme whether it be Fiat(USD) or pseudo-fiat(Bitcoin). They all derive their value from the # of people willing to use and accept it whether as currency or just a method of wealth storage.

That is not even close to the definition of a Ponzi.  A simple definition would be using today's money to pay yesterday's bills.  Bitcoin is not a Ponzi, although money (USD) is.

[swusc2]

b) Money inherently is a Ponzi scheme whether it be Fiat(USD) or pseudo-fiat(Bitcoin). They all derive their value from the # of people willing to use and accept it whether as currency or just a method of wealth storage.

That is not even close to the definition of a Ponzi.  A simple definition would be using today's money to pay yesterday's bills.  Bitcoin is not a Ponzi, although money (USD) is.

"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors."

Other than the word fraudulent, I stand corrected.

All forms of money are Pyramid based, the value increases as per more investors. If there are less investors the value decreases, the people who most recently invested in it lose money. Whether or not is a "scheme" is a another story.


TO BE CLEAR:
I'm not saying Pyramid based currency is a bad thing. All of them are, some people just associate the Pyramid/Ponzi idea as negative and don't understand what they really mean. The only difference between Bitcoin and a Ponzi Scheme, is intent.

[BillX]

Some say Mac is safer than Windows some say the opposite. Both sides cite some evidence. Am I not allowed to say "Some say Windows is safer than Mac and some say it isn't" or is that too bias?

How dare you mention even the possibility of something Apple is not perfect in every way!!! You are most definitely biased sir!!!   

[Vod]

"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors."

"Subsequent" is the key word.  Once you stop getting new investors, a Ponzi scheme will collapse, even if every single person in the world has taken part.

Bitcoin is not like that.  Once it matures and finds its place, it will not need any new influx of coins or users to keep it running or keep it valued.

[swusc2]

"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors."

"Subsequent" is the key word.  Once you stop getting new investors, a Ponzi scheme will collapse, even if every single person in the world has taken part.

Bitcoin is not like that.  Once it matures and finds its place, it will not need any new influx of coins or users to keep it running or keep it valued.

Incorrect. A Ponzi scheme does not necessarily collapse without new investors. The value of the investment in a Ponzi scheme does not change as long as the people at the top are not siphoning off value.

[Smalleyster]

Seemed relatively "fair and balanced" to me.

[elk-tamer]

Their animated explanation was great. I'm going to use it next time I have to explain the concept to someone.

[enmaku]

Their animated explanation was great. I'm going to use it next time I have to explain the concept to someone.

... it's the "what is bitcoin" video from http://www.weusecoins.com/

[Jered Kenna (TradeHill)]

First NPR, now CNN. For some reason, it seems the more exposed we are, the lower price we are headed to

Exposure was bigger in May and June than this month.

In fact, there is a good correlation between Bitcoin popularity and price, as evidenced by google trends and alexa rankings.

Hi ForeverD,

Yeah, the G-trends correlation was really tight.

There has been a slew of papers in the last year showing how Google trends data can be used to anticipate stocks moves. Some researchers from the Central Bank of Chile wrote a paper showing these methods even work in emerging markets where internet saturation is still low.

What have you found?

Thanks,
Adam - Tradehill

[MrJoshua]

b) Money inherently is a Ponzi scheme whether it be Fiat(USD) or pseudo-fiat(Bitcoin). They all derive their value from the # of people willing to use and accept it whether as currency or just a method of wealth storage.

That is not even close to the definition of a Ponzi.  A simple definition would be using today's money to pay yesterday's bills.  Bitcoin is not a Ponzi, although money (USD) is.

"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors."

Other than the word fraudulent, I stand corrected.

All forms of money are Pyramid based, the value increases as per more investors. If there are less investors the value decreases, the people who most recently invested in it lose money. Whether or not is a "scheme" is a another story.


TO BE CLEAR:
I'm not saying Pyramid based currency is a bad thing. All of them are, some people just associate the Pyramid/Ponzi idea as negative and don't understand what they really mean. The only difference between Bitcoin and a Ponzi Scheme, is intent.

Not to derail the thread but you're missing a key feature that distinguishes ponzi schemes from legitimate investments, and bitcoins.  It is more then just intent.

In legitimate investments you are buying a percentage of something.  If you hold 1% of Apple, it will always be 1% of apple, even if they issue more stock, or split the stock that is already issued.  This is not true of ponzi schemes in which the scheme continues to sell shares, the shares have no relationship to a percentage of ownership (even of the scheme itself).  With bitcoins what you hold is a fixed percentage of the 21 million bitcoins that will exist.  Just like owning stock in a company.  What you own will _always_ represent the same percentage, distinctly unlike ponzi schemes, and fiat currencies.

I really want people to understand this point, so that we can kill this ponzi argument once and for all.

[Bitcoin Swami]

So it was on tv apparently.  The intro was full of wrong infromation but oh well.  Here is teh intro.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OcTFOQpz0c

[CurbsideProphet]

In legitimate investments you are buying a percentage of something.  If you hold 1% of Apple, it will always be 1% of apple, even if they issue more stock, or split the stock that is already issued.  This is not true of ponzi schemes in which the scheme continues to sell shares, the shares have no relationship to a percentage of ownership (even of the scheme itself).  With bitcoins what you hold is a fixed percentage of the 21 million bitcoins that will exist.  Just like owning stock in a company.  What you own will _always_ represent the same percentage, distinctly unlike ponzi schemes, and fiat currencies.

I really want people to understand this point, so that we can kill this ponzi argument once and for all.

Your ownership percentage in a company can absolutely go down.  It's called stock dilution.

[error]

So it was on tv apparently.  The intro was full of wrong infromation but oh well.  Here is teh intro.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OcTFOQpz0c

I believe that YouTube channel is owned by Meze Grill's owner. Sure, the intro wasn't so great, though it wasn't THAT wrong.

[evoorhees]

So it was on tv apparently.  The intro was full of wrong infromation but oh well.  Here is teh intro.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OcTFOQpz0c

I believe that YouTube channel is owned by Meze Grill's owner. Sure, the intro wasn't so great, though it wasn't THAT wrong.

I liked when he said "the company's valuation is $100m"... like it's a stock or something. It's very hard for people to REALLY get their heads around the idea of a de-centralized currency. It's truly a paradigm shift... and thank goodness it's arrived.

[BusmasterDMA]

Of course it was a fluff piece.  Everything on CNN is fluff these days (with the exception Fareed Zakaria).  Given the target audience though, I think it was still balanced coverage and overall some good PR for Bitcoin.  (I would have expected them to have opted for a more sensationalist story, focusing on black markets and what not.)

And honestly if they had started diving into the more technical benefits, the typical viewer would have tuned out.  Instead they showed someone buying lunch with an iPhone, which will appeal to many more people.  And the story mentioned how Bitcoin ideologically opposes fiat, which should appeal to any Teapartiers who happen to be watching CNN instead of Fox.   Collectively,  iPhone owners (and would-be owners) and Teapartiers should easily account for the large majority of the American population.

[MrJoshua]

Your ownership percentage in a company can absolutely go down.  It's called stock dilution.

True, under certain circumstances.  I didn't want to complicate the issue.  The upshot is is that Bitcoins are even better then stock in that respect.

[AngelusWebDesign]

Another biased report; mentions of the word "Ponzi scheme", "illegal activities" and etc without explaining such arguments ("some say...").

Maybe we should all stop using cash? Since cash is probably the most popular method of illegal transactions, ie drug dealing.

The fuction of a currency has nothing to with stopping it from being used for illegal or shameful purposes. As long as people want drugs or porn or whatever else, they will find ways to use any currency as a trading tool, be it cash or Bitcoins or golden nuggets. It's not Bitcoins' job, it's an issue with people.

For every hint of a "pro" Bitcoin argument, they present a dozen useless negative fallacies about Bitcoin. Why don't they mention how Bitcoin cannot be willingly printed at mass out of thin air? The guy from WIRED didn't mention any of the security aspects of Bitcoins and how it cannot be easily counterfeited.

Yes, it looks like only a few people are tuned to how the media works. They throw out little digs, under the guise of "balanced reporting", even if those digs are completely unfounded. "Some say Bitcoin is a scam..a ponzi scheme..." without bothering to say why, or why it isn't.

Do you know the best way to destroy something, media wise (or on a discussion forum)?

A) to be a completely obvious troll, ripping on it for all it's worth
B) pretend to be fair and balanced, admitting some obvious strong points while throwing in a dozen possible bad points, including unfounded charges
C) pretend to be the PRO, while subtly undermining it

With the media, you have to watch a clip and ask yourself, "What do I take away from this video? What general FEELING or impression do I have?"

For this specific video, you might add, "How do I feel about Bitcoin? Would I be likely to go out and get involved?" If not, ask yourself WHY -- what ideas have been planted in your head to lead to that feeling?

And you often times can figure out what the media has just "done".

For all those who disagree with me, and the post I'm quoting --
Think about it. That's all I ask. Think about it.

[hawks5999]

I primarily disagree with your use of "myself" instead of "me" in the sentence beginning "For all those who disagree with myself,"

It made me forget everything else you had written.

 

[LeonGeeste]

Good points, but I have to nitpick one thing:

 If you hold 1% of Apple, it will always be 1% of apple, even if they issue more stock, ...

If Apple issues more stock, that dilutes your share to less than 1%.  The value may not change, though, since they'll usually get money for the new stock, which increases the value of the assets you own a share of, but you will own a smaller fraction of the company.

Generally, owning a number of shares is no guarantee that your percentage ownership will stay constant because of e.g. exercise of stock options, conversion of debt, etc.

[AngelusWebDesign]

I primarily disagree with your use of "myself" instead of "me" in the sentence beginning "For all those who disagree with myself,"

It made me forget everything else you had written.

 

Come on, you're giving Bitcoiners a reputation for being anal. 

Why bother reading this forum then... I'm certainly not the poster with the poorest command of the English language, even among the native speakers.

[Apolo29]

I`d like to know if this is the 10,000 btc pizza guy

[error]

I`d like to know if this is the 10,000 btc pizza guy

It is not.

[hawks5999]

I primarily disagree with your use of "myself" instead of "me" in the sentence beginning "For all those who disagree with myself,"

It made me forget everything else you had written.

 

Come on, you're giving Bitcoiners a reputation for being anal. 

Why bother reading this forum then... I'm certainly not the poster with the poorest command of the English language, even among the native speakers.

A bunch of crypto-currency hardware torturing or elliott wave trading geeks anal? Never!

All you're grammar are belong too us.