Why Bitcoin Will Never Be a Currency—in 2 Charts

[svetbg]

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/12/why-bitcoin-will-never-be-a-currency-in-2-charts/282364/

What Bitcoin really needs is a central bank to stabilize its value. When the demand for Bitcoin goes up, they need to print more to keep it from skyrocketing.

This guy might has an idea of Economics but definitely does not understand Bitcoin!

[1715098091]

1715098091

[1715098091]

1715098091

[1715098091]

1715098091

[hilariousandco]

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/12/why-bitcoin-will-never-be-a-currency-in-2-charts/282364/

What Bitcoin really needs is a central bank to stabilize its value. When the demand for Bitcoin goes up, they need to print more to keep it from skyrocketing.

This guy might has an idea of Economics but definitely does not understand Bitcoin!

Jeeze, cryptoplebs. It already is a currency. And I don't think he has a great understanding of economics at all. It's the banking institutions that got us into this mess and printing more money just devalues cash.

[Lewis2]

Another writer to be ignored. It is amazing how many things about bitcoin get published by people that have absolutely no knowledge about it whatsoever.

[hilariousandco]

Another writer to be ignored. It is amazing how many things about bitcoin get published by people that have absolutely no knowledge about it whatsoever.

What do you expect from bloggers and mainstream media? Do you really expect them to know what they're talking about and actually check facts?

[Raptas]

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/12/why-bitcoin-will-never-be-a-currency-in-2-charts/282364/

What Bitcoin really needs is a central bank to stabilize its value. When the demand for Bitcoin goes up, they need to print more to keep it from skyrocketing.

This guy might has an idea of Economics but definitely does not understand Bitcoin!

Damn that guy really doesn't know what he's talking about.

[deisik]

Yeah, I understand that the article is written for newbs in economics, but could you instead of blaming and cursing that guy try to actually refute the points? The author didn't indeed say anything new about bitcoin, but he didn't in fact say anything wrong about it either. Bitcoin deflationary nature is not a point of debate between its opponents as well as its supporters, so wtf?

[hilariousandco]

Yeah, I understand that the article is written for newbs in economics, but could you instead of blaming and cursing that guy try to actually refute the points? The author didn't indeed say anything new about bitcoin, but he didn't in fact say anything wrong about it either. Bitcoin deflationary nature is not a point of debate between its opponents as well as its supporters, so wtf?

He said lots of things wrong:

This self-perpetuating cycle of doom is what sunk the global economy in the 1930s, and what, to a lesser extent, has sunk Japan since the 1990s. And it's what has been sinking us since 2008, though this time central banks have at least kept prices from falling, just barely.

Now, it doesn't make much sense, but there's actually a currency designed to create these kind of economic calamities.

Bitcoin is designed to create these "economic calamities"? wtf. It's designed to try stop the banks creating these economic calamities.

Bitcoin, the virtual currency you can theoretically use to buy things online

.

Theoretically? No, you can literally & actually buy things online. What is he talking about?

See, there's a predetermined number of bitcoins that will only grow at a low rate until 2040—and then stop

.

Wrong.

Plus more. Read the comments on the article. Even Atlantic fans are complaining about it being a terrible article, which it is.

[deisik]

Yeah, I understand that the article is written for newbs in economics, but could you instead of blaming and cursing that guy try to actually refute the points? The author didn't indeed say anything new about bitcoin, but he didn't in fact say anything wrong about it either. Bitcoin deflationary nature is not a point of debate between its opponents as well as its supporters, so wtf?

He said lots of things wrong:

This self-perpetuating cycle of doom is what sunk the global economy in the 1930s, and what, to a lesser extent, has sunk Japan since the 1990s. And it's what has been sinking us since 2008, though this time central banks have at least kept prices from falling, just barely.

Now, it doesn't make much sense, but there's actually a currency designed to create these kind of economic calamities.

Bitcoin is designed to create these "economic calamities"? wtf. It's designed to try stop the banks creating these economic calamities.

He was referring to the deflationary nature of bitcoin. And yes, with a deflationary currency you are more prone to get into trouble, as the late 19th century crises, war in Europe and Great Depression have shown. This doesn't mean that you couldn't ruin the economy with an inflating/depreciating fiat (as with anything), but at least in the latter case you effectively get rid of some well-known issues associated with deflationary money...

[Ibian]

Then there was the part about needing a bitcoin bank that could print or destroy bitcoins as needed. And the plug for bernie at the end. The word ponzi was used which automatically discredits him and his article. Lots of other stuff.

But look. If both inflation and deflation is bad, then the obvious answer is to have a stable currency. Bitcoin could theoretically be it. If everything is priced in bitcoins, then inflation and deflation is a thing of the past.

[deisik]

Then there was the part about needing a bitcoin bank that could print or destroy bitcoins as needed. And the plug for bernie at the end. The word ponzi was used which automatically discredits him and his article. Lots of other stuff.

The actual wording about Ponzi doesn't claim that bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme as such, as you probably meant it to look or sound by saying that the word automatically discredits the author and his article. Actually, the article says it would be for central bankers to decide whether they wanted bitcoin to be a Ponzi scheme or an actual medium of exchange. Simple logic tells that the author doesn't think bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme by itself...

[Ibian]

Considered by bankers because they make money on it. Not good enough.

[deisik]

Considered by bankers because they make money on it. Not good enough.

I don't think this discredits the article itself somehow (in fact, rather bankers for that matter). Don't shoot the messenger

Also, some small inflation (2-3 percent per year, maybe lower than that) is considered to be positive for economy (in fact, a currency should be depreciating for it to work properly). If economy and population would be growing, Bitcoin would be appreciating (gaining more purchasing power) too, meaning there is less bitcoins per good per capita. That point is correct as well...

[chrsjrcj]

Guys, he's trolling:

So who's the perfect person to run Bitcoin? It'd have to be someone with central banking experience. Someone who understands why deflation is a problem. And someone who thinks virtual currencies hold promise. Someone like ... Ben Bernanke.

No one could be this bloody stupid.

[Ibian]

Guys, he's trolling:

So who's the perfect person to run Bitcoin? It'd have to be someone with central banking experience. Someone who understands why deflation is a problem. And someone who thinks virtual currencies hold promise. Someone like ... Ben Bernanke.

No one could be this bloody stupid.

Of course he can. If it really was obvious to those kinds of people what bitcoin is they would either be busy grabbing as much as they can or trying to get it shut down.

[RodeoX]

OMG two charts! 

I would not panic if he only had one chart, but two, this changes all the facts!!!

[Ibian]

Considered by bankers because they make money on it. Not good enough.

I don't think this discredits the article itself somehow (in fact, rather bankers for that matter). Don't shoot the messenger

Also, some small inflation (2-3 percent per year, maybe lower than that) is considered to be positive for economy (in fact, a currency should be depreciating for it to work properly). If economy and population would be growing, Bitcoin would be appreciating (gaining more purchasing power) too, meaning there is less bitcoins per good per capita. That point is correct as well...

Oh right, about that. The western population is in fact shrinking so don't worry about that.

[deisik]

Considered by bankers because they make money on it. Not good enough.

I don't think this discredits the article itself somehow (in fact, rather bankers for that matter). Don't shoot the messenger

Also, some small inflation (2-3 percent per year, maybe lower than that) is considered to be positive for economy (in fact, a currency should be depreciating for it to work properly). If economy and population would be growing, Bitcoin would be appreciating (gaining more purchasing power) too, meaning there is less bitcoins per good per capita. That point is correct as well...

Oh right, about that. The western population is in fact shrinking so don't worry about that.

Okay then. What about economy? If bitcoin will not go to the economy, the economy must come to bitcoin, right?

[miner4coin]

If he would only have 3 charts.... i might have read the first sentence... notttt.

[Impaler]

Actually BTC DOSE have a Central Banker, it is just a mindless unresponsive piece of code that is executing a programmed exponentially decreasing mining schedule that Satoshi created years ago.  Yet a bunch of silly libertarians have convinced themselves that living under the economic dictates of a mindless machine central banker is better then under that of any human.  How anyone claiming to be a believer in individual liberty and the free market would submit to a system which ignores the market, ignores all economic activity and ignores all human wishes is beyond absurd, it show that the so-called libertarian in America is a stooge and knows nor cares for anything resembling liberty.

He is in fact a slave at heart and yearns only for the tyrannical.

[RodeoX]

Actually BTC DOSE have a Central Banker, it is just a mindless unresponsive piece of code that is executing a programmed exponentially decreasing mining schedule that Satoshi created years ago.  Yet a bunch of silly libertarians have convinced themselves that living under the economic dictates of a mindless machine central banker is better then under that of any human.  How anyone claiming to be a believer in individual liberty and the free market would submit to a system which ignores the market, ignores all economic activity and ignores all human wishes is beyond absurd, it show that the so-called libertarian in America is a stooge and knows nor cares for anything resembling liberty.

He is in fact a slave at heart and yearns only for the tyrannical.

Or they could just trust math more than humans? I know I do.