Jessica Irvine "Trust me" (But I don't have a clue what I am talking about)

[solex]

Jessica Irvine, the National Economics Editor at the Australian Daily Telegraph overviews Bitcoin and concludes: "bitcoin is a distraction. It's a classic bubble. Trust me."

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/business/jessica-irvine

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/business/jessica-irvine/bitcoin-a-bubble-best-avoided-argues-jessica-irvine/story-fnj45kvd-1226766825875

https://i.imgur.com/V1KNdwr.jpg

"Bit coins are created every day by users. Presently 12 million exist, but the founders have said only 21 million will ever exist. [...]
So should you run out an buy bitcoins?

Short answer: no.

Remember, currencies are only worth what people will pay for them. And that depends on trust and scarcity.

First, scarcity. While the number of bitcoins is supposed to stop at 21 million, whose to say that will happen? The whole point is that it is user generated and not policed by a middle man.

Which brings me to trust. All transactions must be based on trust, and it's hard to see how anonymous users making promises to each other can be trusted in the long term There is a genuine revolution underway in internet transactions. But bitcoin is a distraction. It's a classic bubble.

Trust me."

Trust me? She wants her readers to trust her when she has not researched her subject, has no clue about peer-to-peer decentralized consensus, the Bitcoin protocol, or what mining actually does. You don't have to be a programmer to know that the same software running on 200,000 separate computers which cross-checks its results is incredibly resilient. Did she not read that even the US Federal Reserve admits that Bitcoin is technically a tour-de-force?

This is a National Economics Editor happy to dismiss a revolutionary economic paradigm without learning about it properly. This might be OK when making a decision for oneself, but not happily advising thousands of readers who, presumably, she wants to take her articles, and indeed her newspaper seriously.

F- for this one. Got to try much harder.

(Not in the press section - because this is illustrating the general point that many journalists and economists who dismiss Bitcoin have not learned about it properly).

[bitcoinpsftp]

I love the part about "who's to stay they'll stop at 21 million".  I know right?  Should we take the miner's word that they'll stop mining?  She's a genius, nobody else ever thought of that one.  HUGE security fail...

o_0-

Wow what a retard.  You'd think she'd have the sense not to write about things she has no idea about!

[corebob]

All transactions must be based on trust, and it's hard to see how anonymous users making promises to each other can be trusted in the long term

This is kind of right I guess. It is hard to see for the enslaved how chaos can be prevented when the master is gone

There is a genuine revolution underway in internet transactions. But bitcoin is a distraction

This one is harder though. I haven't seen anything like this on the horizon

[501]

First, scarcity. While the number of bitcoins is supposed to stop at 21 million, whose to say that will happen? The whole point is that it is user generated and not policed by a middle man.

I hope she is trolling.

I'm an investor. I know absolutely nothing about programming. But it took me about 1 second of research into bitcoin to understand that the number of coins would stop at 21M. Surely if you just google "bitcoin" there will be a couple links on the first page that cover this.

Either she is trolling, or she thinks bitcoins are actually magic beans that can deny the laws of math.

[markjamrobin]

First, scarcity. While the number of bitcoins is supposed to stop at 21 million, whose to say that will happen? The whole point is that it is user generated and not policed by a middle man.

I hope she is trolling.

I'm an investor. I know absolutely nothing about programming. But it took me about 1 second of research into bitcoin to understand that the number of coins would stop at 21M. Surely if you just google "bitcoin" there will be a couple links on the first page that cover this.

Either she is trolling, or she thinks bitcoins are actually magic beans that can deny the laws of math.

Technically a network consensus to a hard fork could keep the currency flow going, correct?

[jojo69]

Isn't she going to look stupid in a couple years?

[markjamrobin]

Isn't she going to look stupid in a couple years?

She already looks stupid now

[jojo69]

well yeah...to us

[beetcoin]

this is one thing that really irritates me. people come to conclusions before properly researching the subject.

my friend 3 weeks ago was condescendingly being a dick about 3 weeks ago, telling me that i'd be an idiot for not selling at $150. i haven't talked to him since.

[HeliKopterBen]

Isn't she going to look stupid in a couple years?

She already looks stupid now

She cant be that stupid.  A national economics editor cant be that stupid.  I agree with the post above, she is trolling.

[markjamrobin]

Isn't she going to look stupid in a couple years?

She already looks stupid now

She cant be that stupid.  A national economics editor cant be that stupid.  I agree with the post above, she is trolling.

I don't think a national economics editor trolls though.

[beetcoin]

Isn't she going to look stupid in a couple years?

She already looks stupid now

She cant be that stupid.  A national economics editor cant be that stupid.  I agree with the post above, she is trolling.

why not? seems like economics "experts" go by conventional wisdom.. BTC is anything but conventional. that's what seems to happen in many industries, where people stop giving a shit about thinking in new ways.

[Voogru]

People people people.

If all of the media is like OMG bitcoin is awesome BUY BUY BUY BUY BUY it's gonna be best thing ever, the price will go up even faster.

Which doesn't allow us to buy in as easily when it's cheap.

So we want everyone saying its a ponzi scheme, tulip bubble, so that the insiders can acquire more coins until it comes and slaps everyone in the face.

They're doing us a favor.

[markjamrobin]

People people people.

If all of the media is like OMG bitcoin is awesome BUY BUY BUY BUY BUY it's gonna be best thing ever, the price will go up even faster.

Which doesn't allow us to buy in as easily when it's cheap.

So we want everyone saying its a ponzi scheme, tulip bubble, so that the insiders can acquire more coins until it comes and slaps everyone in the face.

They're doing us a favor.

Well, if the public think it is a ponzi, they won't buy, and price will stay low.

[solex]

Isn't she going to look stupid in a couple years?

She already looks stupid now

She cant be that stupid.  A national economics editor cant be that stupid.  I agree with the post above, she is trolling.

I don't think a national economics editor trolls though.

Definitely no troll there, just "F-" for homework, for sure.

[justusranvier]

Isn't she going to look stupid in a couple years?

I need to update the Journalist Honor Roll thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=326656.0

[Impaler]

First, scarcity. While the number of bitcoins is supposed to stop at 21 million, whose to say that will happen? The whole point is that it is user generated and not policed by a middle man.

I hope she is trolling.

I'm an investor. I know absolutely nothing about programming. But it took me about 1 second of research into bitcoin to understand that the number of coins would stop at 21M. Surely if you just google "bitcoin" there will be a couple links on the first page that cover this.

Either she is trolling, or she thinks bitcoins are actually magic beans that can deny the laws of math.

Technically a network consensus to a hard fork could keep the currency flow going, correct?

Exactly, people often falsely claim or believe that 'cryptography' some how creates the 21 million cap (people who 'know nothing about programming' seem to be very likely to hold this belief as our friend above dose), nothing could be further from the truth.  

It is only the honesty of the mining network (and by that we mean literally just the handful of major pool operators) that enforces the cap.  Obviously the high visibility of breaking the cap and the fact that many miners hold many coins that would crash (And I mean a Hyper crash the likes of which would make all prior crashes look like hiccups) provides a huge disincentive, but it's nothing more then an incentive structure, one that gets weaker all the time as mining becomes more of a cartel and margins become thinner.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Those are fake breasts. Trust me! I've seen breasts, and those are fake. I went to a doctor once and we all know some doctors specialize in breasts, thus trust me when I say them are fake breasts. There's only two of them, but who's to say that somewhere down the road more won't be added? Notice how she keeps her breasts hidden. I've yet to find a image of her naked breasts, but even clothed, one can clearly see that they are fake. Trust me, for I have the highest post count on this forum and I'm...

~TMIBTCITW

[Voogru]

People people people.

If all of the media is like OMG bitcoin is awesome BUY BUY BUY BUY BUY it's gonna be best thing ever, the price will go up even faster.

Which doesn't allow us to buy in as easily when it's cheap.

So we want everyone saying its a ponzi scheme, tulip bubble, so that the insiders can acquire more coins until it comes and slaps everyone in the face.

They're doing us a favor.

Well, if the public think it is a ponzi, they won't buy, and price will stay low.

Except none of us believe it's actually a ponzi scheme or bubble. We believe it's legit obviously. No point in driving the price up to the moon prematurely, if it's really that big, it's going to get to the moon anyway, regardless of what the talking heads say.

[bitcoinpsftp]

Fun thread.  What are the odds of miners getting together and forging fake bitcoins?  Isn't that a bit unlikely?  I'd assume that if miners stop mining, difficulty goes down, and more would come back in no?  Shouldn't the system stabilize itself, the less people mine, the more profit, and reach a point of balance?  Could someone really invest so much money as to have more than 50% of all mining power?

Now that I think about it, LC has an advantage there, that home computers are still very strong miners, and there are millions of billions of them.