In an argument about Bitcoin, need help

[zellfaze]

I just got into an argument about Bitcoin on Google+.  I want to make sure that I win this, and hopefully convert someone who didn't like Bitcoin into someone who does.

Bitcoin is worthless.

Messaged you a bet. Put your money where you mouth is.

I had messaged him a copy of the Memory dealers bet (Google it "Memory Deals CEO Bitcoin $10,000).  I offered to put down some money (no where close to $10k) on the same bet.

I do put my money where my mouth is, it's not on bitcoin at all. I don't waste server resources computing hashes. I don't have to deal with the exchange scam/exploit/hack of the month which devalues the 'currency'. I don't have to deal with security issues from people trying to exploit my desktop systems to access my wallet files - there isn't even an authority that can stop people from performing theft. I place no value in bitcoin, because the cost to maintain it far outweighs any monetary gains or existing monetary handling systems.

No central authority == feature.

Bitcoin has actually stabilized because of those hacks. It now has more trading volume than ever, the exchanges are seeing more depth, and the price has remained fairly consistent ($10-13) for over a month now. The hacks scared off all the investors who were just trying to make a quick buck.

Your wallet file is just like your physical wallet. It has to be kept safe. You wouldn't just put your physical wallet on the seat next to you on a crowded train would you? Likewise you (if your smart) wouldn't leave your wallet unsecured on your computer when connected to the "crowded" Internet.

I am pulling this information from a recent talk by the Choas Computer Club.  Also Googlable.  I'll add links later to where I got it.



I would like to (with the help of the community) examine his possible arguments and ways to refute them.  Along with additional ways to refute his current arguments.  I would like to keep this argument civil and logical (although I realize my response was a poor example of this).

[1715450357]

1715450357

[1715450357]

1715450357

[1715450357]

1715450357

[jackjack]

I think I'm going to love this

Is it on a public page or PMs?

[zellfaze]

Public page: https://plus.google.com/114671721881901481251/posts/LMP1nJVJ5fe

+Derric Atzrott, the stability of Bitcoin will only remain until another large scale hack occurs or when numerous small ones happen within close proximity of each other.

My IDS has detected numerous times Metasploit type exploits being used against the specific static IP address of the computer running the Bitcoin software on it, as security aware as I am, I can't deal with that shit. I cannot protect a desktop system against zero day exploits that get added to Metasploit. The best I can do is to have an isolated netbook that is only connected to the network to make transactions with everything firewalled, which would not be good for the network if everyone did that. Even that isn't free of being exploited, but the minimum cost in my eyes to do this is plainly insane.

The lack of central authority means that to deal with any theft, you're pretty much screwed unless you're batman, especially because of the anonymity inherent in Bitcoins. Sorry, I don't consider that a feature.

Much like you said, I wouldn't leave my physical wallet out, it has to be kept safe. I feel the same way about any digital currency, I do not believe I am capable of keeping any bitcoins safe with the sort of nefarious activity from people, so I wouldn't put any money into Bitcoin. because it's like putting your money in a box (add locks and such as necessary to represent your security) in front of your house. Someone might still open it and walk off with it.

[Trader Steve]

It's pointless trying to convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced. if you believe in bitcoin buy it - if not, don't. Only time will tell.

[zellfaze]

But as it is a public post on Google+ other people may see it.

I don't want them to just hear his side.  So I want to put up a good argument.  Although what he has put up has me stumped.  Mostly because I don't want to get into how to properly secure your computer and I don't feel it would do any good to point out that no matter what the software you can't protect against zero-day exploits.

[BookLover]

Yesss!(fist pumps)  He played the wasting computer resources card.  This means you can point out how much energy(aka money, computer resources, ect.) PayPal is wasting trying to keep his fiat money safe.  

Here are two other things I would mention:

1 Research and point out some security problems with PayPal.(Don't mention decentralized, most people love government control and will just think your a nut.)

2 Point out Bitcoin is in the Guineas Book of World Records.(This will hopefully make him realize this is actually something to consider and not just some nutty idea.

P.S. Define a zero-day exploit.

[zellfaze]

You keep moving the goalposts. First you say Bitcoin is worthless. Then you say you dont put resources into it; in other words, it is worth something, but you choose not to try and mine Bitcoins. Then you throw in the red herring of security. This has nothing to do with wether or not Bitcoin is worth anything. Then you say there is no central authority "that can stop people from performing theft." There is no central authority that can stop the theft of anything in the world. Also, if it is worth nothing, why are people so busy trying to steal it? These are absolutely pure fallacious arguments.

You say that, "stability of Bitcoin will only remain until another large scale hack occurs". What you have done there is substitute 'stability' for value. You had to do this because if you say 'value' or 'price' of Bitcoin, you would be contradicting your previous assertion that 'Bitcoin is worthless' It cant be worthless and have a market value at the same time, obviously.

You then say "The lack of central authority means that to deal with any theft... Batman". With cash, the same is true; Bitcoin is no different in this aspect. Another straw man argument.

Finally you say that you are not capable of using Bitcoins, and that using them is like keeping money in box in front of your house. Poor analogy aside, what is the problem with keeping a 'worthless' thing in a box in front of your house? Surely no one is going to steal it, and even if they did, why would you even care, since Bitcoins are 'worthless'? If you have a mailbox outside your house, the mail man leaves your mail in it for you to stroll down and collect; anyone could go out and steal it, and yet millions of people collect their mail in this way, with only a statistically small number having their mail stolen... but I digress.

The fact of the matter is, you just do not like Bitcoin. You admit you are not capable of using it. You do not like the fact that it is not issued by a government (a central authority).

All of this is perfectly OK.

What is not OK, is to claim that Bitcoin is worthless, because this is simply not true. Whenever we make arguments against something, it is important to be consistent, otherwise its hard to take the arguments seriously.

Bitcoin, like the different browsers that people use, will be adopted by some and rejected by others. This is how the market works.

The people who said that the internet would never take off, all look very silly now, and in the near future so will all the people who used faulty logic to dismiss Bitcoin today. They will all end up using Bitcoin, just like all the people who said the internet would amount to nothing who now use it on a daily basis.

I think he summed it up much better than I could have.  Thank you.  I think that may wrap up this argument, I know I wouldn't try to argue with that.  If the opposition posts something else, I'll keep you guys up to date.

[zellfaze]

I'm not moving goal posts, it is a worthless system. It's impossible to secure (see previous points) due to lack of authority to prevent theft, stability is only as big as to the next security issue, the cost to maintain properly goes beyond every other monetary system for the common man when you take into account everything involved, in particular, security, electricity, running systems to compute the hashes etc.

Have you ever looked into the security of centralized systems? Look at what happened to VISA, Mastercard, and Paypal just last year.

And although the cost to maintain the network may be high, people are willing to do it. We are in the world records (guiness).

[indio007]

Abandon your attempt a conversion of your friend.

This statement proves he is a hopeless ward of the state,
 

there isn't even an authority that can stop people from performing theft.

Leave him where you found him.

[Graet]

just one last word..... Sony .....

But some ppl like living in a nanny state too

And actually while there is no "centralized authority" there is a group of concerned bitcoin users that have done an awful lot of work to unravel the MyBitcoin fiasco, I think the eventual return of 49% of users fund is partly or even mainly due to this groups efforts.
http://bitcoin.crimeunit.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

my 2c

[indio007]

What blows me away is that these people don't realize that the government has no duty to protect whatsoever. Self-defense is your own duty.

[zellfaze]

Just an update.  The guy who posted the original post that sparked this argument deleted it.

So the link is now bad and as far as I know the argument is forcibly over.

Thank you guys for all your help.  Although we didn't convert someone (it was probably hopeless from the start) I think we did make a good argument.

[BookLover]

+1 for Bitcoin on the long road to acceptance.