Bitcoin should not be seen as a currency, warns Ernst & Young

[yenom]

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/dec/11/ernst-young-warn-bitcoin-payment-problems

[1714242989]

1714242989

[1714242989]

1714242989

[1714242989]

1714242989

[Carlton Banks]

Out of all the journalists, technology specialists, financial firms and commentators, when is one of them going to say something genuinely enlightening about cryptocurrency? Surely someone can come up with something original, something that's not some shallow, impressionistic "it'll never work" attempt that is refuted by theory as well as (now frequent and numerous) practice?

They all seem to get stuck right at the very beginnings of getting to grips with the most basic aspects of the concept. I mean, does this guy really understand any of the issues around why 6 confirms is considered a standard for faith in transaction irreversibility?

The people who make commentary that implies they really do understand at least something about the underlying technology are almost exclusively those that admire it. The rest seem to come from the one-finger typist, "ring the Computer Repair guys to get the printer working" kind of crowd. Are they just afraid of being the last of the technically inept dinosaurs?

[cryptocoinlog]

First, they will laugh and ridicule.

Next, they will fight.

They will lose.

Then, they will be in a state of denial.

Lastly, they will accept.

This always happen with disruptive ideas that have merits.

[oxxymoronn]

And eventually they jump onboard and enter the marketplace, wait for it....

[Probably]

Out of all the journalists, technology specialists, financial firms and commentators, when is one of them going to say something genuinely enlightening about cryptocurrency? Surely someone can come up with something original, something that's not some shallow, impressionistic "it'll never work" attempt that is refuted by theory as well as (now frequent and numerous) practice?

They all seem to get stuck right at the very beginnings of getting to grips with the most basic aspects of the concept. I mean, does this guy really understand any of the issues around why 6 confirms is considered a standard for faith in transaction irreversibility?

The people who make commentary that implies they really do understand at least something about the underlying technology are almost exclusively those that admire it. The rest seem to come from the one-finger typist, "ring the Computer Repair guys to get the printer working" kind of crowd. Are they just afraid of being the last of the technically inept dinosaurs?

Are you asking hypotheticals? The answer is obviously: they won't say anything enlightening, they don't understand it fully.

You're asking when the established, old-money mouthpieces are going to start talking against their old-money teet? The second they want to starve. If anything, you can see who these various "media outlets" are in bed with by what they're allowed to write about and how it's allowed to be handled.

When do you think the editor-in-chiefs of these various outlets called a meeting and said "all right, someone explain what this fucking bitcoin is?" They barely, if at all, adopted WEB TECHNOLOGY, let alone this... most institutions in the world barely have their shit together running antiquated systems from 15-20 years ago because its too expensive to upgrade or they can't (don't) afford decent IT staff.



It's honestly no different than other 'money news'... the news surrounding it is reactionary to policies, disasters, official launches of product/industry/tech around it.

That simply doesn't exist in any substantial volume regarding bitcoin, so its relegated to a 'blog tag' for some op-ed commentary that just parrots whatever launches, releases, big topics that are out there.

With the crazy volatility you just have a lot more high profile "don't get it at all" posts and assertions and less of the common huckster bullshit that you see surrounding the dollar (mad money, CRAZY TIPS, etc)...

stakes are way, way higher with less investment here. if you could really divine these changes you would not share them, no amount of 'investment reputation' could make up for the profit you'd gain by actually keeping it to yourself.

It is a very nice filter. . . the "how to get rich via bitcoin" is a very short book.

[franky1]

people say that cigarettes are not a currency.

but if you avoid paying your income tax when you cash out back to FIAT and land yourself in prison.

cigarettes are definitely a currency.

anything can be a currency. the rich use artwork to swap funds between eachother. street racers use their cars as currency to bet on races, government and criminals use weapons and pharmaceuticals to swap between countries. women use their bodies as currency, and kids use emotional blackmail to get what they want for christmas from their parents.

there are many things that have duel purposes

i guess Ernst & Young are buying bitcoins and do not want competition, which causes excessive price rises. hense the only reason i can think of for them to make such a statement

[LiteCoinGuy]

"Overall, Ernst and Young "have a balanced view" on bitcoin, according to Colin Pickard, a financial services director at the company."

thats all i wanted and waited for  

[Kazimir]

"One of the weaknesses with bitcoin is you generally have to wait for five to six transaction confirmations before you're sure that the money hasn't been 'double spent', and that can take up to 40 or 50 minutes," Willis says.

This Roger Willis figure has been following bitcoin since its inception in 2009, and STILL doesn't get this?

No, you generally don't have to wait for five to six confirmations. For pretty much any 'common' transaction (i.e. no huge amounts, like hundreds of BTC) you only have to wait until the transaction appears in the network, which takes up to 1 to 2 seconds. Not 40 to 50 minutes.

[Kouye]

cigarettes are definitely a currency.

Yeah. Silk Road was just an exchange, too. Not a marketplace.

[Desensitizer]

Bitcoins fit every definition of currency. They have exchanges that translate their value into agreed upon amounts, you can own them, they can be exchanged for goods/services, they are universal, etc. The writers of this article clearly do not understand Bitcoins properly, a problem that plagues a lot of mainstream media.

[Carlton Banks]

Out of all the journalists, technology specialists, financial firms and commentators, when is one of them going to say something genuinely enlightening about cryptocurrency? Surely someone can come up with something original, something that's not some shallow, impressionistic "it'll never work" attempt that is refuted by theory as well as (now frequent and numerous) practice?

They all seem to get stuck right at the very beginnings of getting to grips with the most basic aspects of the concept. I mean, does this guy really understand any of the issues around why 6 confirms is considered a standard for faith in transaction irreversibility?

The people who make commentary that implies they really do understand at least something about the underlying technology are almost exclusively those that admire it. The rest seem to come from the one-finger typist, "ring the Computer Repair guys to get the printer working" kind of crowd. Are they just afraid of being the last of the technically inept dinosaurs?

Are you asking hypotheticals? The answer is obviously: they won't say anything enlightening, they don't understand it fully.

You're asking when the established, old-money mouthpieces are going to start talking against their old-money teet? The second they want to starve. If anything, you can see who these various "media outlets" are in bed with by what they're allowed to write about and how it's allowed to be handled.

When do you think the editor-in-chiefs of these various outlets called a meeting and said "all right, someone explain what this fucking bitcoin is?" They barely, if at all, adopted WEB TECHNOLOGY, let alone this... most institutions in the world barely have their shit together running antiquated systems from 15-20 years ago because its too expensive to upgrade or they can't (don't) afford decent IT staff.

Loldom, people on this board are beginning to sound even more like me than I do 

I think this whole "stop the world, I wanna get off" mentality is going to cause some real social tension by the end of this decade. Being part of the lazy, entrenched class that rely on the business paradigms that accompany them is going to be really hard on those that don't want to let go. And they may conceivably lash out, using whatever leverage they're clinging to, as they may refuse to imagine any other way of life than what they thought was always theirs forever. The fireworks may be unpredictable, and could maybe uncover some interesting untold truths (as if we've not had enough of those after finding out 20th century currency is a con-game). Should be fun, when watched from a safe distance anyway.

[empoweoqwj]

Why should I care what Earnst & Young think?

Reminds me of the analyst on CNBC years back that said cameras on phones would never take off 

[MikeyVeez]

First, they will laugh and ridicule.

Next, they will fight.

They will lose.

Then, they will be in a state of denial.

Lastly, they will accept.

This always happen with disruptive ideas that have merits.

Bitcoin is not distruptive digital currencies have existed before, only thing different about bitcoin is its decentralized. When a competitor comes out with a stable exchange rate, and instant transactions that will be distruptive. End of the day though all these non governments coins will be shut out of economies and people will transact in digital government currencies.

This is all a method for more control using bitcoin as it's catalyst.

[Carlton Banks]

Bitcoin is not distruptive digital currencies have existed before, only thing different about bitcoin is its decentralized. When a competitor comes out with a stable exchange rate, and instant transactions that will be distruptive. End of the day though all these non governments coins will be shut out of economies and people will transact in digital government currencies.

This is all a method for more control using bitcoin as it's catalyst.

Why?

[ajax3592]

First, they will laugh and ridicule.

Next, they will fight.

They will lose.

Then, they will be in a state of denial.

Lastly, they will accept.

This always happen with disruptive ideas that have merits.

This seems to be inspired by the quote of Mahatama Gandhi, right?

[PenAndPaper]

What the analyst says is pretty normal. Only the most idiots among the bitcoin fanatics think of bitcoin as a replacement for dollar.
Dollar will never gets replaced with bitcoin, and bitcoin can still succeed as a payment system and a currency.

[tondiego]

I have read lotsa articles on BTC lately. I have noticed most of them are overlooking one important fact about BTC when considering to name it a currency and see its real possibilities. The fact it can be divided - 0.001, 0.000001, 0.00000000000001 or whatever. There is practically no limitation.

I think this is essential for wider acceptance too. People are used to think in scales of 1$, 1EUR,...when it comes to currency and now 1 BTC. But this is wrong. There will be only 21mil of BTCs (actually less as some coins will be lost forever), but number of BTC users will be probably in hundreds of millions. There will be definitelly need to find apropriate name for smaller BTC unit for masses to use - something pretty catchy 

[jones31]

Not any problems with the article itself.
Just like somebody mentioned before : "Overall, Ernst and Young "have a balanced view" on bitcoin, according to Colin Pickard, a financial services director at the company."

Whats did you expect to read?
Burn all your dollars bills and work for bitcoins alone?
Cause nobody will sell you bitcoins for fiat since fiat are of no value!?

[empoweoqwj]

I have read lotsa articles on BTC lately. I have noticed most of them are overlooking one important fact about BTC when considering to name it a currency and see its real possibilities. The fact it can be divided - 0.001, 0.000001, 0.00000000000001 or whatever. There is practically no limitation.

I think this is essential for wider acceptance too. People are used to think in scales of 1$, 1EUR,...when it comes to currency and now 1 BTC. But this is wrong. There will be only 21mil of BTCs (actually less as some coins will be lost forever), but number of BTC users will be probably in hundreds of millions. There will be definitelly need to find apropriate name for smaller BTC unit for masses to use - something pretty catchy 

The limit is actually 8 decimal places, but I get your point 

[Spaceman_Spiff]

I have read lotsa articles on BTC lately. I have noticed most of them are overlooking one important fact about BTC when considering to name it a currency and see its real possibilities. The fact it can be divided - 0.001, 0.000001, 0.00000000000001 or whatever. There is practically no limitation.

I think this is essential for wider acceptance too. People are used to think in scales of 1$, 1EUR,...when it comes to currency and now 1 BTC. But this is wrong. There will be only 21mil of BTCs (actually less as some coins will be lost forever), but number of BTC users will be probably in hundreds of millions. There will be definitelly need to find apropriate name for smaller BTC unit for masses to use - something pretty catchy  

The limit is actually 8 decimal places, but I get your point  

Easy to change that if need be.

[Mylon]

I have read lotsa articles on BTC lately. I have noticed most of them are overlooking one important fact about BTC when considering to name it a currency and see its real possibilities. The fact it can be divided - 0.001, 0.000001, 0.00000000000001 or whatever. There is practically no limitation.

I think this is essential for wider acceptance too. People are used to think in scales of 1$, 1EUR,...when it comes to currency and now 1 BTC. But this is wrong. There will be only 21mil of BTCs (actually less as some coins will be lost forever), but number of BTC users will be probably in hundreds of millions. There will be definitelly need to find apropriate name for smaller BTC unit for masses to use - something pretty catchy 

The limit is actually 8 decimal places, but I get your point 

Easy to change that.

Yup and the best part, nobody minds as their money will still be worth the same (rather than adding money and making everyones money worth less)

[empoweoqwj]

I have read lotsa articles on BTC lately. I have noticed most of them are overlooking one important fact about BTC when considering to name it a currency and see its real possibilities. The fact it can be divided - 0.001, 0.000001, 0.00000000000001 or whatever. There is practically no limitation.

I think this is essential for wider acceptance too. People are used to think in scales of 1$, 1EUR,...when it comes to currency and now 1 BTC. But this is wrong. There will be only 21mil of BTCs (actually less as some coins will be lost forever), but number of BTC users will be probably in hundreds of millions. There will be definitelly need to find apropriate name for smaller BTC unit for masses to use - something pretty catchy  

The limit is actually 8 decimal places, but I get your point  

Easy to change that if need be.

Yes its possible to change that. Easy to code the changes? No. I certainly wouldn't say "practically no limitation" - I wouldn't like to code beyond 64-bit integers.

[Coin_Master]

Out of all the journalists, technology specialists, financial firms and commentators, when is one of them going to say something genuinely enlightening about cryptocurrency? Surely someone can come up with something original, something that's not some shallow, impressionistic "it'll never work" attempt that is refuted by theory as well as (now frequent and numerous) practice?

They all seem to get stuck right at the very beginnings of getting to grips with the most basic aspects of the concept. I mean, does this guy really understand any of the issues around why 6 confirms is considered a standard for faith in transaction irreversibility?

The people who make commentary that implies they really do understand at least something about the underlying technology are almost exclusively those that admire it. The rest seem to come from the one-finger typist, "ring the Computer Repair guys to get the printer working" kind of crowd. Are they just afraid of being the last of the technically inept dinosaurs?

Brilliantly said.  Love the "one-finger typist" remark.  I found your post quite refreshing to read and I have to agree there appears to be a complete lack of understanding or willingness on the part of the said "journalists, technology specialists, financial firms and commentators" to accurately report the changes cryptocurrencies are bringing to the world.  Having said that, behind the scenes there are powerful established figures making preparations for the roll-out of their own cryptocurrency.  Time will tell if they can challenge Bitcoin for the number 1 spot.

[jongameson]

this article is correct.  what we need is a Paypal type system that will accept credit cards, and allow people to pay each with bitcoins, and convert it back to fiat after transferring

[empoweoqwj]

this article is correct.  what we need is a Paypal type system that will accept credit cards, and allow people to pay each with bitcoins, and convert it back to fiat after transferring

I think thats called paypal .... except paypal will never allow bitcoins to be used to fund accounts IMHO.