Bitcoin Forum
December 14, 2024, 06:47:26 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 28.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: 2013-12-15 - Wall Street Journal - How Much Does that Burger Cost in Bitcoins?  (Read 1677 times)
El Cabron (OP)
Gnomo
VIP
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 840
Merit: 1000



View Profile
December 16, 2013, 02:45:25 AM
 #1

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303497804579241790259672808

Anyone able to read this?

I'd love to see the text.

Sorry El Cabron, you are banned from posting or sending personal messages on this forum.
Trolling
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=622250.msg7030081#msg7030081
Mylon
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140
Merit: 100

Mining FTW


View Profile
December 16, 2013, 03:00:27 AM
 #2

Quote

In the 1930s, when the Federal Reserve let the money supply contract, there was a true shortage of currency. At least 150 communities experimented with scrip—printing their own money to grease the wheels of commerce. None worked, and all have disappeared.

Today, because of worries about the Fed printing too much money, a private online global scrip, called Bitcoin, has been created. This scrip is supposed to protect society from inflationary monetary policy.

Could Bitcoins become an alternative to the money or monies that exist across the globe? One of the biggest investors in Bitcoins thinks so. The Winklevoss twins, of Facebook FB +2.87% fame, think the market for Bitcoins could increase 100-fold to more than $400 billion. And a Costa Mesa, Calif., luxury car dealer is reportedly selling cars, including a Tesla S and a Lamborghini Gallardo, for Bitcoins.
Enlarge Image

Reuters

Bitcoins are "mined" by running a computer algorithm, creating a digitized code. That code can then be used to complete online transactions. The algorithm makes it progressively harder to mine Bitcoins as the total number increases. Preset limits supposedly cap the maximum number of Bitcoins at 21 million, and right now there are roughly 12 million in existence. Rising hope of wider acceptance drove the price of a Bitcoin to more than $1,200 a few weeks ago. But when Baidu.com, BIDU -0.15% the Chinese web services company, said it would not accept the scrip, the price fell sharply and it currently trades near $900.

Bitcoins meet most of the criteria of money. They are a medium of exchange, a unit of account, a store of value and a standard of deferred payment. But what ultimately gives money value is that it is accepted by others in trade for something of value. And that is why scrip doesn't work.

Let's say a barber in a Wisconsin town accepts scrip for haircuts and uses it to eat at a local restaurant that buys its produce from a local farmer. As long as each of these businesses kept all their purchases in the community, all would be well. But why would a scissor manufacturer in Germany or China or even Chicago accept this scrip? The car dealer in California, for example, is not actually accepting Bitcoins for his vehicles—they first have to be converted to U.S. dollars.

To become a true alternative currency, Bitcoins need to be accepted in a wide enough swath of society to facilitate the normal transaction of business. If they aren't, they will always trade at a discount to their potential value.

Right now, total cash and deposits in the U.S. banking system (the M2 money supply), is roughly $11 trillion. Assuming 21 million Bitcoins are mined and they become an accepted currency, each one could be worth as much as $524,000. This is a massive potential appreciation from their current level.

However, the list of companies that accept Bitcoin as payment for actual transactions make up what I estimate to be less than one-hundredth of a percent of all spending, or GDP. Since money gets its value from the goods, services and assets that it can purchase, a Bitcoin is currently worth only 0.01% of its true potential, or about $52.40.

Bitcoins require storage space (in a computer), power to run the computer (electricity), security (from hacking), and computational power (serious encryption) on both sides of a transaction. There are firms that act as middlemen in Bitcoin transactions, and firms that make a market in Bitcoins, but they are new and have no serious financial track record. Many Bitcoin transactions facilitate illegal commerce. The Bitcoin world is not friction-free, or clean.

And is it really true that no more than 21 million Bitcoins can be produced? Hackers keep getting better, and the temptation to expand the supply of money has been powerful (and profitable, for the issuer) since the time of the Romans. These costs and questions all impact the value of a Bitcoin substantially.

To become a real alternative currency, Bitcoins must be recognized by a majority of businesses and consumers. They must be as safe, or safer, than currency issued by a central bank. And they must be transportable. Currently, the Bitcoin does not meet any of these requirements, and this is why it is trading for much less than its actual convertible U.S. dollar value.

If you believe Bitcoin in time will become an alternative to the world's currencies, there are huge potential profits as the value of a Bitcoin rises to $524,000—or higher if drug dealers and other nefarious users are willing to pay a premium for anonymity.

But to be truly successful, Bitcoins have to win the battle of money on all levels of competition and that is a very high hurdle to clear.

Mr. Wesbury is chief economist at First Trust Advisors LP.

Don't ask me how I got that... I googled and hit the link... and somehow got the full article... (always have scripts off..)

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303497804579241790259672808

"All Your Base Are Belong To Us" by CATS
bitbouillion
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868
Merit: 250



View Profile
December 16, 2013, 03:00:36 AM
 #3

Anyone able to read this?

Try this:
https://www.google.com/search?&q=%22How+Much+Does+that+Burger+Cost+in+Bitcoins%3F%22+and+site%3Awsj.com

Kluge
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1015



View Profile
December 16, 2013, 03:26:49 AM
 #4

They really have to stop letting economists write about Bitcoin without knowing what it is. Why do the editors let these run? There are over five factual errors in his Bitcoin explanations, the most ridiculous being the claim that bitcoins aren't "transportable." I don't know how anyone could arrive at that conclusion with even the most hazy understanding of Bitcoin.
bitbouillion
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868
Merit: 250



View Profile
December 16, 2013, 03:50:33 AM
 #5

economists write about Bitcoin without knowing what it is.

Economics it one of the last existing dogmas until replaced by real science.

empoweoqwj
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 500


View Profile
December 16, 2013, 03:50:53 AM
 #6

They really have to stop letting economists write about Bitcoin without knowing what it is. Why do the editors let these run? There are over five factual errors in his Bitcoin explanations, the most ridiculous being the claim that bitcoins aren't "transportable." I don't know how anyone could arrive at that conclusion with even the most hazy understanding of Bitcoin.

Its called "modern journalism". Best avoided at all costs.
nate008
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 10


View Profile
December 16, 2013, 10:17:23 AM
 #7


And is it really true that no more than 21 million Bitcoins can be produced? Hackers keep getting better, and the temptation to expand the supply of money has been powerful (and profitable, for the issuer) since the time of the Romans. These costs and questions all impact the value of a Bitcoin substantially.

Why hasn't he asked these questions either here or on reddit?  By now he would have got his answers.
pand70
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250



View Profile
December 16, 2013, 10:53:59 AM
 #8

They really have to stop letting economists write about Bitcoin without knowing what it is. Why do the editors let these run? There are over five factual errors in his Bitcoin explanations, the most ridiculous being the claim that bitcoins aren't "transportable." I don't know how anyone could arrive at that conclusion with even the most hazy understanding of Bitcoin.

The article is pretty good and quite objective. Obviously the writer fails to understand some basic things but nothing that hurts the way he presents bitcoins.

seldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 353
Merit: 250



View Profile
December 16, 2013, 10:56:21 AM
 #9

Not actually bad article - but as always funny to see the US-centric point of view. Does the author seriously think only the us uses btc?
pand70
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250



View Profile
December 16, 2013, 11:28:25 AM
 #10

Not actually bad article - but as always funny to see the US-centric point of view. Does the author seriously think only the us uses btc?

Are you talking about his reference to the M2 money supply?

empoweoqwj
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 500


View Profile
December 16, 2013, 11:35:56 AM
 #11

Not actually bad article - but as always funny to see the US-centric point of view. Does the author seriously think only the us uses btc?

Yep of course - he's from the us
Gabi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1008


If you want to walk on water, get out of the boat


View Profile
December 16, 2013, 02:53:19 PM
 #12

Its funny thinking that it is their job. They write bullshit and despite that they get a wage.

seldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 353
Merit: 250



View Profile
December 16, 2013, 03:43:43 PM
 #13

Not actually bad article - but as always funny to see the US-centric point of view. Does the author seriously think only the us uses btc?

Are you talking about his reference to the M2 money supply?

Indeed, his whole "valuation" theory is based in US-Numbers
pand70
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250



View Profile
December 17, 2013, 02:11:07 AM
 #14

Not actually bad article - but as always funny to see the US-centric point of view. Does the author seriously think only the us uses btc?

Are you talking about his reference to the M2 money supply?

Indeed, his whole "valuation" theory is based in US-Numbers

Most Americans, even Wall Street Journal staff, do not know much about Geography. I honestly doubt he even knows that other countries even exist. He odds are thinks Canada and England are states....



I 'm not sure if they know that other countries exist  but some don't know that other currencies exist and i 'm pretty sure about that now...

Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!