Mises on BitCoin

[wobber]

Nobody can argue that Bitcoin is a success now, today. If most of the people will have the same trust in bitcoin one year from now, bitcoin will still be a success. My response to that article is: i back bitcoin up. and kiba, and creighto and everybody else.

[1713574740]

1713574740

[1713574740]

1713574740

[1713574740]

1713574740

[1713574740]

1713574740

[1713574740]

1713574740

[eMansipater]

Nobody can argue that Bitcoin is a success now, today. If most of the people will have the same trust in bitcoin one year from now, bitcoin will still be a success. My response to that article is: i back bitcoin up. and kiba, and creighto and everybody else.

Amen to that.  Establishing a new currency is a lot of work, but we're going out there and doing it.  That's what's going to make it succeed.

[Local]

Nobody can argue that Bitcoin is a success now, today. If most of the people will have the same trust in bitcoin one year from now, bitcoin will still be a success. My response to that article is: i back bitcoin up. and kiba, and creighto and everybody else.

We'll actually get wrecked if it doesn't grow some. The number of coins is going to double over the next 2 years.

I think it will grow, but holding coins is a bet on growth, not just on our staying interested.

[kiba]

We'll actually get wrecked if it doesn't grow some. The number of coins is going to double over the next 2 years.

I think it will grow, but holding coins is a bet on growth, not just on our staying interested.

Then it's our job to produce looooooooooooooooooot of goods and services so that bitcoin stays valuable.

[myrkul]

IMO: BTC > Gold

BTC: Scarce, and over time, deflationary. some will inevitably be lost due to idiocy on the part of bitcoin holders. No new bitcoins will be minted over 21 million.
Gold: Scarce, but effectively, over time, infinite. new deposits, asteroid mining, potential future scientific breakthroughs in atomic science, all these could make new gold. Even gold inflates, albeit at a very slow (if punctuated) rate.

[Nefario]

We'll actually get wrecked if it doesn't grow some. The number of coins is going to double over the next 2 years.

I think it will grow, but holding coins is a bet on growth, not just on our staying interested.

Then it's our job to produce looooooooooooooooooot of goods and services so that bitcoin stays valuable.

This is already happening with bitcoin companies forming to make use of capital, this process will speed up a lot when we get a stockmarket to efficiently allocate resouces and capital.When that happens things will kick into overdrive.

[caveden]

IMO: BTC > Gold

That's quite obvious to me too.

I think the people who don't believe in this either aren't geek enough to understand bitcoins (so they lack trust), or they just worship gold without really understanding why this noble metal was such a good money for so long. If you understand what are the features that make gold useful as money, you'll easily that bitcoins upgrade each one of these features, by orders of magnitude in some cases.

[no to the gold cult]

Nobody can argue that Bitcoin is a success now, today. If most of the people will have the same trust in bitcoin one year from now, bitcoin will still be a success. My response to that article is: i back bitcoin up. and kiba, and creighto and everybody else.

Amen to that.  Establishing a new currency is a lot of work, but we're going out there and doing it.  That's what's going to make it succeed.

It's not a currency yet, it's a commodity. In time, it will become currency.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Yes, BTC are limited to 21 million but that is a mortal construct. I mean how hard is the 21 million limit really?
In 5 years time when the globe is screaming out for more BTC, it is conceivable that a mob of evil people will round up the programmers of BTC. Then with guns to their heads, and their families heads they could imaginably sign-off on a change in the source code to 42 million BTC.

Gold scarcity is a natural thing and out of the hands of human weaknesses, for now.

[theymos]

In 5 years time when the globe is screaming out for more BTC, it is conceivable that a mob of evil people will round up the programmers of BTC. Then with guns to their heads, and their families heads they could imaginably sign-off on a change in the source code to 42 million BTC.

That won't make everyone else accept the change. No one who already has BTC will want it to go down in value.

[marcus_of_augustus]

That won't make everyone else accept the change. No one who already has BTC will want it to go down in value.

It makes no difference what people want, it will be coded into the system at that point. It's the same as the Fed. Res. printing money.

[kiba]

It makes no difference what people want, it will be coded into the system at that point. It's the same as the Fed. Res. printing money.

It's called forking.

[barbarousrelic]

IMO: BTC > Gold

That's quite obvious to me too.

I think the people who don't believe in this either aren't geek enough to understand bitcoins (so they lack trust), or they just worship gold without really understanding why this noble metal was such a good money for so long. If you understand what are the features that make gold useful as money, you'll easily that bitcoins upgrade each one of these features, by orders of magnitude in some cases.

Bitcoin is still unproven. This site itself still warns that it's experimental beta software. There are fears that a bug will be found flooding the market with fake bitcoins, or that a new, better online currency will be introduced, or that someone with enormous computer resources will attack the network. All these might make everyone's Bitcoins worthless. These reasons are why I, and a lot of people, don't put more than a small amount of net wealth into Bitcoin.

Gold, on the other hand, has 6,000 years of history of keeping its value.

[barbarousrelic]

That won't make everyone else accept the change. No one who already has BTC will want it to go down in value.

It makes no difference what people want, it will be coded into the system at that point. It's the same as the Fed. Res. printing money.

As of now there is no mechanism to force people to upgrade to a newer, less desirable version of Bitcoin. the scenario you describe would require that people controlling over 50% of the network computing power adopt the newer, different software.

[no to the gold cult]

IMO: BTC > Gold

That's quite obvious to me too.

I think the people who don't believe in this either aren't geek enough to understand bitcoins (so they lack trust), or they just worship gold without really understanding why this noble metal was such a good money for so long. If you understand what are the features that make gold useful as money, you'll easily that bitcoins upgrade each one of these features, by orders of magnitude in some cases.

Bitcoin is still unproven. This site itself still warns that it's experimental beta software. There are fears that a bug will be found flooding the market with fake bitcoins, or that a new, better online currency will be introduced, or that someone with enormous computer resources will attack the network. All these might make everyone's Bitcoins worthless. These reasons are why I, and a lot of people, don't put more than a small amount of net wealth into Bitcoin.

Gold, on the other hand, has 6,000 years of history of keeping its value.

True. Nonetheless...

"Qui audet adipiscitur".

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

That won't make everyone else accept the change. No one who already has BTC will want it to go down in value.

It makes no difference what people want, it will be coded into the system at that point. It's the same as the Fed. Res. printing money.

As of now there is no mechanism to force people to upgrade to a newer, less desirable version of Bitcoin. the scenario you describe would require that people controlling over 50% of the network computing power adopt the newer, different software.

As far as i understand, controlling >50% of the network would only allow some double-spending attacks.
However if you want to print money, there is technically no possibility of enforcing "government-controlled version of Bitcoin" on everybody.

For example, if you make 60% of the network accept new type of blocks, which will allow printing more money, then the remaining 40% of the network will completely reject these blocks, which effectively will make Bitcoin split into 2 networks: the "new" one which is government - controlled, and the "classic" one.

Of course, people will choose the "classic" network (nobody want's his money to be stolen by government), and the whole operation will fail. Unless of course govs make that illegal, and Bitcoin will go underground.

[malditonuke]

Just as gold is backed by the assets that people are willing to exchange for it, so too is Bitcoin.

[caveden]

Bitcoin is still unproven. This site itself still warns that it's experimental beta software. There are fears that a bug will be found flooding the market with fake bitcoins

That's what I meant by "lack of trust".
Faking digital signatures? Has this ever happened with the algorithms used by bitcoin?

, or that a new, better online currency will be introduced

That wouldn't change what I said. Bitcoin would keep being better as money than gold. This new, better online currency would only be even better than that.

Don't confuse "being good as money" with "being good as an investment". Bitcoins are definitely more risky as investment than gold right now.

, or that someone with enormous computer resources will attack the network.

All this rich criminal would be able to do is to fraud transactions, by double-spending. That's not an "attack to the network" but rather an attack to some individuals who are unlucky enough to deal with the criminal. And, I really doubt that the eventual benefits one could get out of such criminal activity would be even close to the great cost of gathering more processing power than the entire network. Somebody with that much resources would probably earn more by just generating, actually.

All these might make everyone's Bitcoins worthless.

Worthless, I doubt it. At most, it would see a decrease in value if, for example, a better currency shows up or most governments worldwide declare a War on Bitcoins Exchangers. But that has nothing to do with bitcoin's qualities as money.

These reasons are why I, and a lot of people, don't put more than a small amount of net wealth into Bitcoin.

Again, you're confusing "being good as money" with "being a safe investment". I don't doubt gold is a safer investment right now than bitcoins.

[myrkul]

... or most governments worldwide declare a War on Bitcoins Exchangers.

In my experience, making something illegal exponentially increases it's value. Should the US gov make btc illegal, I will immediately transfer as much assets into it as possible. They just made it the de facto currency of the black market.

[barbarousrelic]

Being a good investment, or at least a stable one, is a requirement for something to be a good form of money. (At least when it's not legal tender).  Few people would voluntarily accept something as money when it has what they consider to be an unreasonable risk of losing its value.