The Legitimization and Inevitability of Bitcoin

[ahbritto]

The Legitimization and Inevitability of Bitcoin :
http://bitcoin-trader.blogspot.com/2011/09/legitimization-and-inevitability-of_10.html

[cypherdoc]

it IS inevitable.  just like whats happening with Linux, Firefox, BitTorrent, email, Apache, Skype, Android, OpenOffice, Wikipedia.

[dooglus]

What on earth is Skype doing on that list?

[cypherdoc]

What on earth is Skype doing on that list?

it should be there as far as i'm concerned since it is a P2P technology that is putting pressure on the telecom industry.

[Shinobi]

Cryptocurrency is an inevitability. Not Bitcoin.

it IS inevitable.  just like whats happening with Linux, Firefox, BitTorrent, email, Apache, Skype, Android, OpenOffice, Wikipedia.

[cypherdoc]

Cryptocurrency is an inevitability. Not Bitcoin.

it IS inevitable.  just like whats happening with Linux, Firefox, BitTorrent, email, Apache, Skype, Android, OpenOffice, Wikipedia.

it will evolve with the markets being the first of its kind.  its already beaten off the alt chains convincingly.

[Shinobi]

I think that's debatable, but even so, it is only because the Alternatives didn't provide any meaningful changes apart from a chance to be an early adopter. At some point, one of the corporate deep pockets - perhaps a consortium of sorts - will come along and release a version of the system with a polished UI, customer support, and nicely done branding. When given the choice between a well-crafted venture with deep backing versus an initiative with so much negative baggage surrounding it, the layman will choose the former. Despite the libertarian dream Bitcoin fed into, I truly believe the only real adoption of cryptocurrency will come at the hand of a more controlled and regulated initiative.

Cryptocurrency is an inevitability. Not Bitcoin.

it IS inevitable.  just like whats happening with Linux, Firefox, BitTorrent, email, Apache, Skype, Android, OpenOffice, Wikipedia.

it will evolve with the markets being the first of its kind.  its already beaten off the alt chains convincingly.

[Surawit]

OK, let's suppose that interest in your internet funbux doesn't die off and becomes quite popular. Maybe it even starts to be a competitive alternative to conventional banking.

What's to stop the conventional banks replicating it? They could have their own blockchain set up in minutes, and they have the clout and customer base to make it instantly more popular, stable and useful than the original. With a single software update they could put their version in every ATM and payment machine in the world. This beats a bunch of nerds selling slimjims out of their garages.
Sorry, do you think the banks are just going to roll over and let a new system (in which you guys are the new major wealthholders) supercede them?

The whole bitcoin thing is blinded by greed. You desperately want to be rich and powerful, and so ignore reality to construct a vision in which that happens. Your bitcoins are not going to be thousands and thousands of dollars, sorry

[cypherdoc]

I think that's debatable, but even so, it is only because the Alternatives didn't provide any meaningful changes apart from a chance to be an early adopter. At some point, one of the corporate deep pockets - perhaps a consortium of sorts - will come along and release a version of the system with a polished UI, customer support, and nicely done branding. When given the choice between a well-crafted venture with deep backing versus an initiative with so much negative baggage surrounding it, the layman will choose the former. Despite the libertarian dream Bitcoin fed into, I truly believe the only real adoption of cryptocurrency will come at the hand of a more controlled and regulated initiative.

then you really don't understand Bitcoin.  the whole pt behind its success is the uncontrolled unregulated initiatives behind its creation.  the mindless USD printing to save its constituent banks is what the masses hate.  

the only negative baggage surrounds the peripheral aspects of Bitcoin.  do you really think Bruce Wagner means anything to the source code?  or the various hacks of the exchanges that just allow trading of Bitcoins?  come on.  be real.  

corporate deep pocket control of Bitcoin would be a disaster.  the UI is great as far as i'm concerned.  easy to use, simple.  sure it needs encryption and a few additional tweaks for the advanced users like being able to choose the keys from which coins get sent or received.  but it WORKS and is stable and hasn't lost anyone any coins yet.  

the alts failed  miserably in measuring up to Bitcoin.  this should really make you sit up and appreciate the virtues of what it is.

you would be smart to shed your handlers and buy Bitcoin as it will pay you way more in profits and stored value than what they are paying you.

[Surawit]

then you really don't understand Bitcoin.  the whole pt behind its success is the uncontrolled unregulated initiatives behind its creation.  the mindless USD printing to save its constituent banks is what the masses hate.  

No, idealist libertarian nutters hate USD printing and regulations and that sortof thing.

The "masses" either don't care or like money printing, because hey, free money

[cypherdoc]

OK, let's suppose that interest in your internet funbux doesn't die off and becomes quite popular. Maybe it even starts to be a competitive alternative to conventional banking.

What's to stop the conventional banks replicating it? They could have their own blockchain set up in minutes, and they have the clout and customer base to make it instantly more popular, stable and useful than the original. With a single software update they could put their version in every ATM and payment machine in the world. This beats a bunch of nerds selling slimjims out of their garages.
Sorry, do you think the banks are just going to roll over and let a new system (in which you guys are the new major wealthholders) supercede them?

The whole bitcoin thing is blinded by greed. You desperately want to be rich and powerful, and so ignore reality to construct a vision in which that happens. Your bitcoins are not going to be thousands and thousands of dollars, sorry

b/c they will never be able to create a superior product and the mere fact that they would want to control and profit off an alt chain goes against the very concept of a decentralized, P2P, fixed amount of currency.  you clearly have a vested interest in not understanding what you don't want to understand.

[cypherdoc]

The "masses" either don't care or like money printing, because hey, free money

if they don't care or like money printing then you have nothing to worry about and shouldn't be wasting your valuable time here, right?

[Surawit]

if they don't care or like money printing then you have nothing to worry about and shouldn't be wasting your valuable time here, right?

You object to "mindless USD printing". Isn't that what bitcoin printing/mining is by design? It's unalterable, there is no human input at all, it is literally mindless. In contrast a great deal of thought goes into how much USD to print each month... You may disagree with the reasoning they use, but it's stupid to call it "mindless".

I'm not as naysaying as some, who think bitcoin is totally worthless. I think bitcoin does have a medium-term future, as a niche currency for internet pedophiles, libertarians and drug dealers... also vested interest? You're the one that has spent actual cash on monopoly money. Clearly you have a vested interest in convincing others your monopoly money is worth something. I am, on the other hand, free of such conflicts.

b/c they will never be able to create a superior product and the mere fact that they would want to control and profit off an alt chain goes against the very concept of a decentralized, P2P, fixed amount of currency.  you clearly have a vested interest in not understanding what you don't want to understand.

OK, even if you are right (you're not)... Whats to stop them making a decentralized, P2P, fixed amount of currency bankcoin? They could alter the protocol so (say) instead of all 50btc or whatever going to miners for each block mined, a percentage of it would go straight to their accounts. Functionally identical to bitcoin for end users, with the exception that conventional banks are holding most of the reserves instead of nerds

[cypherdoc]

In contrast a great deal of thought goes into how much USD to print each month... You may disagree with the reasoning they use, but it's stupid to call it "mindless".

99.99% of the population that isn'a banker disagrees with mindless printing of USD's which bankers get first access to at 0% interest.  if you or i go to the bank for a mortgage we get to pay 6-7%.  the system as it is rapes taxpayers at the expense of banker bonuses and the game is rigged. you know better.

OK, even if you are right (you're not)... Whats to stop them making a decentralized, P2P, fixed amount of currency bankcoin? They could alter the protocol so (say) instead of all 50btc or whatever going to miners for each block mined, a percentage of it would go straight to their accounts. Functionally identical to bitcoin for end users, with the exception that conventional banks are holding most of the reserves instead of nerds

b/c the majority of computing nodes and power is not owned by bankers and they will NOT go along with enriching banks.  their block chain won't get off the mark.  the gig is up Man.  get used to it.  the power of the internet is going to take down your handlers once and for all.  

btw, its happening as we speak as the Greeks are going to f*ck all the banker debt they owe.

[evoorhees]

You object to "mindless USD printing". Isn't that what bitcoin printing/mining is by design? It's unalterable, there is no human input at all, it is literally mindless. In contrast a great deal of thought goes into how much USD to print each month... You may disagree with the reasoning they use, but it's stupid to call it "mindless".

Just as Americans were supposed to have "a nation of laws and not men," Bitcoin is in fact a currency of laws and not men. Bitcoin is at the whim of no person or group, and while this makes early adoption difficult, strange, and awkward, it is in fact the greatest strength of the system.

And indeed, what would be the point of a central group creating a decentralized money system? If the transaction ledger is centralized, then it possesses none of those benefits so crucial to Bitcoin. If the transaction ledger is decentralized, then why would a central group benefit from creating it, for once created it would be beyond their control.

Look, if you don't like Bitcoin, then don't touch it. But I'd prefer not to touch USD or other fiat currencies. Unfortunately, I'm not given this freedom.

[Synaptic]

You object to "mindless USD printing". Isn't that what bitcoin printing/mining is by design? It's unalterable, there is no human input at all, it is literally mindless. In contrast a great deal of thought goes into how much USD to print each month... You may disagree with the reasoning they use, but it's stupid to call it "mindless".

Just as Americans were supposed to have "a nation of laws and not men," Bitcoin is in fact a currency of laws and not men. Bitcoin is at the whim of no person or group, and while this makes early adoption difficult, strange, and awkward, it is in fact the greatest strength of the system.

And indeed, what would be the point of a central group creating a decentralized money system? If the transaction ledger is centralized, then it possesses none of those benefits so crucial to Bitcoin. If the transaction ledger is decentralized, then why would a central group benefit from creating it, for once created it would be beyond their control.

Look, if you don't like Bitcoin, then don't touch it. But I'd prefer not to touch USD or other fiat currencies. Unfortunately, I'm not given this freedom.

Bitcoin is a fiat currency, if you want to pretend it's a currency.

[evoorhees]

Bitcoin is a fiat currency, if you want to pretend it's a currency.

From Dictionary.com (bold added):

fi·at   [fee-aht, -at; fahy-uht, -at]  Show IPA
noun
1.
an authoritative decree, sanction, or order: a royal fiat. Synonyms: authorization, directive, ruling, mandate, diktat, ukase.
2.
a fixed form of words containing the word fiat,  by which a person in authority gives sanction, or authorization.
3.
an arbitrary decree or pronouncement, especially by a person or group of persons having absolute authority to enforce it: The king ruled by fiat.

[Surawit]

From Dictionary.com (bold added):

fi·at   [fee-aht, -at; fahy-uht, -at]  Show IPA
noun
1.
an authoritative decree, sanction, or order: a royal fiat. Synonyms: authorization, directive, ruling, mandate, diktat, ukase.
2.
a fixed form of words containing the word fiat,  by which a person in authority gives sanction, or authorization.
3.
an arbitrary decree or pronouncement, especially by a person or group of persons having absolute authority to enforce it: The king ruled by fiat.

From Wikipedia.org (bold added):

FIAT, an acronym for Fabbrica Italiana Automobili Torino^[2] (English: Italian Automobile Factory of Turin), is an Italian automobile manufacturer, engine manufacturer, financial and industrial group based in Turin in the region of Piedmont. Fiat was founded in 1899 by a group of investors including Giovanni Agnelli. During its more than century long history, Fiat has also manufactured railway engines and carriages, military vehicles and aircraft. As of 2009, Fiat (not including Chrysler) was the world's ninth largest carmaker and the largest in Italy.^[3]

[cypherdoc]

From Dictionary.com (bold added):

fi·at   [fee-aht, -at; fahy-uht, -at]  Show IPA
noun
1.
an authoritative decree, sanction, or order: a royal fiat. Synonyms: authorization, directive, ruling, mandate, diktat, ukase.
2.
a fixed form of words containing the word fiat,  by which a person in authority gives sanction, or authorization.
3.
an arbitrary decree or pronouncement, especially by a person or group of persons having absolute authority to enforce it: The king ruled by fiat.

From Wikipedia.org (bold added):

FIAT, an acronym for Fabbrica Italiana Automobili Torino^[2] (English: Italian Automobile Factory of Turin), is an Italian automobile manufacturer, engine manufacturer, financial and industrial group based in Turin in the region of Piedmont. Fiat was founded in 1899 by a group of investors including Giovanni Agnelli. During its more than century long history, Fiat has also manufactured railway engines and carriages, military vehicles and aircraft. As of 2009, Fiat (not including Chrysler) was the world's ninth largest carmaker and the largest in Italy.^[3]

when one can't address the merits of the argument, distract.

[Surawit]

Sorry, I thought we were playing the quote-websites-with-the-word-fiat-in-them-to-show-bitcoin-is-not-fiat game

[cypherdoc]

Sorry, I thought we were playing the quote-websites-with-the-word-fiat-in-them-to-show-bitcoin-is-not-fiat game

distract=obfuscate

[netrin]

Bitcoin is cash. I am buying works of art with paper cash and can sell them across the world with as much finality and assurance as I bought the pieces. I make real personal exchanges based on trust with no intermediaries. I don't believe a bank will recreate this. A banking institution might create a slicker, faster, easier, insured and reversible transaction, and under such a system we can be happily unproductive consumers.

[Surawit]

Just because you are too simple to follow an argument, it does not mean that argument is intended to obfuscate.

The guy before picked up on one section of an irrelevant definition from a place called dictionary.com to argue that bitcoin is not fiat currency. I then posted an equally relevant section of an encylopaedia article to satirise his point.

Hint: Bitcoin has no intrinsic value, nor is it fixed to any objective standard => it is fiat currency by almost all useful definitions of the word fiat, sorry

[Colargol]

From Wikipedia.org (bold added):

FIAT, an acronym for Fabbrica Italiana Automobili Torino^[2] (English: Italian Automobile Factory of Turin), is an Italian automobile manufacturer, engine manufacturer, financial and industrial group based in Turin in the region of Piedmont. Fiat was founded in 1899 by a group of investors including Giovanni Agnelli. During its more than century long history, Fiat has also manufactured railway engines and carriages, military vehicles and aircraft. As of 2009, Fiat (not including Chrysler) was the world's ninth largest carmaker and the largest in Italy.^[3]

                           Fiat


                        Bitcoin

     

[GoWest]

Don't even bother trying to have an intelligent conversation on these forums.  It's like the mental institution in 12-Monkeys.

[netrin]

Fiat is just a word and bitcoin hasn't yet been well defined in the internet, banking, legal vernacular. Yes, bitcoin has value 'by decree' of the people who verify and use it. By such a loose definition, gold is fiat money as well, and even kings have declared it's value and stamped their mugs on it. But the average guy on the street, should he have even heard the word, understands that fiat is an object that is generally useless and undesirable, if not for an authority's insistence upon its use to pay taxes and the community's acquiescence. Likewise for bitcoin which is also inherently worthless if not for its unique transactional function and the fact that people give it value.

[cypherdoc]

Just because you are too simple to follow an argument, it does not mean that argument is intended to obfuscate.

The guy before picked up on one section of an irrelevant definition from a place called dictionary.com to argue that bitcoin is not fiat currency. I then posted an equally relevant section of an encylopaedia article to satirise his point.

Hint: Bitcoin has no intrinsic value, nor is it fixed to any objective standard => it is fiat currency by almost all useful definitions of the word fiat, sorry

his definition was particularly appropriate.  fiat currency is imposed by gov't.  bitcoin is not.  

bitcoin has backing.  it is backed by the conscious decisions of thousands upon thousands of computer owners/citizens of the world to dedicate enormous computational and electrical power and fiat USD's to ensuring bitcoin's survival thru verification and protection of the block chain.  and gov'ts and banks can do nothing about this.

you're right in that bitcoin is not fixed to anything; its its own currency.  we just happen to like to monitor how its doing in terms of USD's.  but very soon, we will be monitoring how the USD is doing in terms of BTC.

[Surawit]

Don't even bother trying to have an intelligent conversation on these forums.  It's like the mental institution in 12-Monkeys.

Are you the guy who wrote the article? No wonder you won't/can't defend it.

"Bitcoin is so fantastic, its so efficient there are no fees! Wonderful! Of course to make it actually usable and as good as normal money we'll need exchange services, payment processors to absorb the volatility, a service to protect consumers by allowing chargebacks, etc...." lol.

You end up just invoking some magical future in which all these bitcoin services are super-efficient. Why can't I do that with normal banking? Why can't I invoke a magic future in which banks increase the efficiency of their wire services to the point that fees are negligible when transferring currency between countries? It's not like normal banking is static and unchanging. A few years ago someone in france would have to pay exchange fees when sending his francs to a german. Now, he can send that cash straight over at very little cost.

[netrin]

I've heard Ben Bernanke knows a few things about fiat currency. Well one day he said:

"...Indeed, under a fiat (that is, paper) money system, a government (in practice, the central bank in cooperation with other agencies) should always be able to generate increased nominal spending and inflation, even when the short-term nominal interest rate is at zero. The conclusion that deflation is always reversible under a fiat money system follows from basic economic reasoning.

If that were a definition, I'd say bitcoin is not fiat. He continues in the next paragraph:

"Like gold, U.S. dollars have value only to the extent that they are strictly limited in supply. But the U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost. By increasing the number of U.S. dollars in circulation, or even by credibly threatening to do so, the U.S. government can also reduce the value of a dollar in terms of goods and services, which is equivalent to raising the prices in dollars of those goods and services. We conclude that, under a paper-money system, a determined government can always generate higher spending and hence positive inflation."

[evoorhees]

The guy before picked up on one section of an irrelevant definition from a place called dictionary.com to argue that bitcoin is not fiat currency. I then posted an equally relevant section of an encylopaedia article to satirise his point.

Hint: Bitcoin has no intrinsic value, nor is it fixed to any objective standard => it is fiat currency by almost all useful definitions of the word fiat, sorry

Alright bud, listen. I picked that definition from dictionary.com (you call it "a place?") to provide the definition of that term. This definition is wholly relevant to its usage in monetary economics, as a "fiat currency" is a currency "by decree" of a ruler or government.

We could go to another "place" and get another definition, this time of "fiat money," specifically. The first line from Wikipedia: "Fiat money is money that has value only because of government regulation or law."

Given these two definitions provided, we can observe your statement, "bitcoin is a fiat currency by almost all useful definitions of the word fiat" and it becomes apparent that you don't quite know of what you speak. Bitcoin is in no way a fiat currency. It is not created by any government. Its value does not come from a mandate for usage.

And on "intrinsic value"... nothing has intrinsic value, for that would mean the thing has value without a human to value it. Things have value to the extent they are useful to humans and scarce. Bitcoin is both absurdly useful and limited in quantity, thus it commands a market price. You don't have to agree with the price, but at least try to make sure your statements regarding fiat money and value are valid.

[cypherdoc]

Don't even bother trying to have an intelligent conversation on these forums.  It's like the mental institution in 12-Monkeys.

Are you the guy who wrote the article? No wonder you won't/can't defend it.

"Bitcoin is so fantastic, its so efficient there are no fees! Wonderful! Of course to make it actually usable and as good as normal money we'll need exchange services, payment processors to absorb the volatility, a service to protect consumers by allowing chargebacks, etc...." lol.

You end up just invoking some magical future in which all these bitcoin services are super-efficient. Why can't I do that with normal banking? Why can't I invoke a magic future in which banks increase the efficiency of their wire services to the point that fees are negligible when transferring currency between countries? It's not like normal banking is static and unchanging. A few years ago someone in france would have to pay exchange fees when sending his francs to a german. Now, he can send that cash straight over at very little cost.

b/c the obscene banker bonuses must be maintained at a growing level as they were in 2009-10 after the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. 

what they would supposedly take from one hand to give to the consumers they would take back with the other hand in the form of banker bailouts or leached taxpayer interest rates in the form of ZIRP.  do you know anything about economics?

[GoWest]

Don't even bother trying to have an intelligent conversation on these forums.  It's like the mental institution in 12-Monkeys.

Are you the guy who wrote the article? No wonder you won't/can't defend it.

"Bitcoin is so fantastic, its so efficient there are no fees! Wonderful! Of course to make it actually usable and as good as normal money we'll need exchange services, payment processors to absorb the volatility, a service to protect consumers by allowing chargebacks, etc...." lol.

You end up just invoking some magical future in which all these bitcoin services are super-efficient. Why can't I do that with normal banking? Why can't I invoke a magic future in which banks increase the efficiency of their wire services to the point that fees are negligible when transferring currency between countries? It's not like normal banking is static and unchanging. A few years ago someone in france would have to pay exchange fees when sending his francs to a german. Now, he can send that cash straight over at very little cost.

Alright, my friend.  You ask, "why can't I do that with normal banking?"  The answer is, because it's inefficient, and it costs money to pay hundreds of thousands of employees, to give them pensions and benefits, and to build and maintain physical infrastructure.  Banks also have to absorb the costs of fraud, theft, and disputed transactions.  Also, banks have to show a profit to their shareholders.  

Bitcoin avoids all of these costs.  Transaction fees only have to be enough to allow the people who are processing transactions to pay their bills and make a small profit.  That, my friend, is why Bitcoin is more efficient that traditional banking, and why it will ALWAYS be cheaper to transact in Bitcoin.

[GoWest]

And I will add that all of the major banks in the western world would have gone under were it not for taxpayer bailouts.  They are SO inefficient, that they are not even viable businesses.  Don't even get me started on the pending financial apocalypse that was only avoided in 2008 by the expert use of the printing press.

[Surawit]

Alright bud, listen. I picked that definition from dictionary.com (you call it "a place?") to provide the definition of that term. This definition is wholly relevant to its usage in monetary economics, as a "fiat currency" is a currency "by decree" of a ruler or government.

We could go to another "place" and get another definition, this time of "fiat money," specifically. The first line from Wikipedia: "Fiat money is money that has value only because of government regulation or law."

Given these two definitions provided, we can observe your statement, "bitcoin is a fiat currency by almost all useful definitions of the word fiat" and it becomes apparent that you don't quite know of what you speak. Bitcoin is in no way a fiat currency. It is not created by any government. Its value does not come from a mandate for usage.

And on "intrinsic value"... nothing has intrinsic value, for that would mean the thing has value without a human to value it. Things have value to the extent they are useful to humans and scarce. Bitcoin is both absurdly useful and limited in quantity, thus it commands a market price. You don't have to agree with the price, but at least try to make sure your statements regarding fiat money and value are valid.

I'd disagree with that. What is a government? A group of people who hold the power. In what way is the way in which a government controls currency not functionally identical to the way in which the majority of miners control bitcoin? All you are doing is swapping the suits in a grandiose capital city building for cheetos-stained tshirts in basements spread around the world. You could argue that anyone can buy a supercomputer and sway the decisionmaking process... but in the same way anyone can get a job in government?

As for intrinsic value, you know what I mean. In the sense e.g. like the dollar used to be backed by gold. Do I have to spell everything out?

If you want to be pedantic about it, yes, it fails the dictionary test for fiat currency. But the dictionary was written long before anyone could concieve of such a thing as bitcoin. I think if bitcoin were to become ubiquitous it would be functionally identical to fiat currency, and hence my statement that bitcoin is fiat by all useful definitions.

[Surawit]

Alright, my friend.  You ask, "why can't I do that with normal banking?"  The answer is, because it's inefficient, and it costs money to pay hundreds of thousands of employees, to give them pensions and benefits, and to build and maintain physical infrastructure.  Banks also have to absorb the costs of fraud, theft, and disputed transactions.  Also, banks have to show a profit to their shareholders.  

Bitcoin avoids all of these costs.  Transaction fees only have to be enough to allow the people who are processing transactions to pay their bills and make a small profit.  That, my friend, is why Bitcoin is more efficient that traditional banking, and why it will ALWAYS be cheaper to transact in Bitcoin.

Nope, no costly physical infrastructure necessary with bitcoin. And no thefts, frauds or scams either. Are you an idiot?

[GoWest]

Alright, my friend.  You ask, "why can't I do that with normal banking?"  The answer is, because it's inefficient, and it costs money to pay hundreds of thousands of employees, to give them pensions and benefits, and to build and maintain physical infrastructure.  Banks also have to absorb the costs of fraud, theft, and disputed transactions.  Also, banks have to show a profit to their shareholders.  

Bitcoin avoids all of these costs.  Transaction fees only have to be enough to allow the people who are processing transactions to pay their bills and make a small profit.  That, my friend, is why Bitcoin is more efficient that traditional banking, and why it will ALWAYS be cheaper to transact in Bitcoin.

Nope, no costly physical infrastructure necessary with bitcoin. And no thefts, frauds or scams either. Are you an idiot?

*Checks to see how much transaction fees have gone up due to Bitcoin thefts, frauds, or scams*  Hmm, they're still zero.  Are YOU an idiot?

[Surawit]

*Checks to see how much transaction fees have gone up due to Bitcoin thefts, frauds, or scams*  Hmm, they're still zero.  Are YOU an idiot?

My mistake. You think that it's a good thing that thefts, frauds and scams can be carried out without consequences or recompense?

I'm quite happy to pay a little on extra fees to my credit card to cover chargebacks and fraud. Because I know if something bad were to happen (eg my card was stolen), I'd not end up homeless

[netrin]

Surawit, when you lose an argument, it is customary to say, "I was mistaken" and carry on with the discussion or gracefully withdrawl.

As for intrinsic value, you know what I mean. In the sense e.g. like the dollar used to be backed by gold. Do I have to spell everything out?

Dollars once were certificates or promissory notes for a particular weight of gold or silver. Today, their only intrinsic value include paper crafts, burning for fuel, wall paper, and toilet paper. Perhaps their are a few other intrinsic values.

in·trin·sic (adjective) belonging to a thing by its very nature: the intrinsic value of a gold ring.

If you want to be pedantic about it, yes, it fails the dictionary test for fiat currency. But the dictionary was written long before anyone could concieve of such a thing as bitcoin.

My friend, by your definition, my toe nail clippings are fiat currency.

Please read how Ben Bernanke, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, defines fiat. Or anyone else who has studied finance.

I think if bitcoin were to become ubitiquitous it would be functionally identical to fiat currency, and hence my statement that bitcoin is fiat by all useful definitions.

Is gold a fiat currency?

[cypherdoc]

Alright bud, listen. I picked that definition from dictionary.com (you call it "a place?") to provide the definition of that term. This definition is wholly relevant to its usage in monetary economics, as a "fiat currency" is a currency "by decree" of a ruler or government.

We could go to another "place" and get another definition, this time of "fiat money," specifically. The first line from Wikipedia: "Fiat money is money that has value only because of government regulation or law."

Given these two definitions provided, we can observe your statement, "bitcoin is a fiat currency by almost all useful definitions of the word fiat" and it becomes apparent that you don't quite know of what you speak. Bitcoin is in no way a fiat currency. It is not created by any government. Its value does not come from a mandate for usage.

And on "intrinsic value"... nothing has intrinsic value, for that would mean the thing has value without a human to value it. Things have value to the extent they are useful to humans and scarce. Bitcoin is both absurdly useful and limited in quantity, thus it commands a market price. You don't have to agree with the price, but at least try to make sure your statements regarding fiat money and value are valid.

I'd disagree with that. What is a government? A group of people who hold the power. In what way is the way in which a government controls currency not functionally identical to the way in which the majority of miners control bitcoin? All you are doing is swapping the suits in a grandiose capital city building for cheetos-stained tshirts in basements spread around the world. You could argue that anyone can buy a supercomputer and sway the decisionmaking process... but in the same way anyone can get a job in government?

As for intrinsic value, you know what I mean. In the sense e.g. like the dollar used to be backed by gold. Do I have to spell everything out?

If you want to be pedantic about it, yes, it fails the dictionary test for fiat currency. But the dictionary was written long before anyone could concieve of such a thing as bitcoin. I think if bitcoin were to become ubiquitous it would be functionally identical to fiat currency, and hence my statement that bitcoin is fiat by all useful definitions.

facepalm; i'm so tired...

[evoorhees]

I'd disagree with that. What is a government? A group of people who hold the power. In what way is the way in which a government controls currency not functionally identical to the way in which the majority of miners control bitcoin? All you are doing is swapping the suits in a grandiose capital city building for cheetos-stained tshirts in basements spread around the world. You could argue that anyone can buy a supercomputer and sway the decisionmaking process... but in the same way anyone can get a job in government?

As for intrinsic value, you know what I mean. In the sense e.g. like the dollar used to be backed by gold. Do I have to spell everything out?

If you want to be pedantic about it, yes, it fails the dictionary test for fiat currency. But the dictionary was written long before anyone could concieve of such a thing as bitcoin. I think if bitcoin were to become ubitiquitous it would be functionally identical to fiat currency, and hence my statement that bitcoin is fiat by all useful definitions.

Wow... you are suggesting that the government mandating usage of USD by coercion (ie - throwing you in prison if you don't accept dollars or pay taxes with them) is equivalent to a distributed group of Bitcoin users who have absolutely no power to coerce anyone else to use the system?  You are equating those things? You are calling those two things "functionally identical?"  

And Dictionary.com, and Wikipedia, were not written "long before anyone could conceive of such a thing as Bitcoin." They are not ancient tomes of outdated terminology. You can go to Wikipedia right now and update it if you think it's outdated. But you won't.

"Fiat currency" has a very specific meaning. It means, a currency that is valuable due to the decree of a government, ie - by force. Bitcoin is the very opposite, getting its value from an open market of voluntary decision making. One has value purely by diktat, the other has value purely by choice. Your attempt to equate the two betrays either a gross negligence on the nature of monetary systems, or an intentional insult to Bitcoin, despite your knowledge of the invalidity of the basis of that insult.

Do you really want to persist in your wrongness here? Or will you graciously admit that perhaps you made a mistake?

[GoWest]

*Checks to see how much transaction fees have gone up due to Bitcoin thefts, frauds, or scams*  Hmm, they're still zero.  Are YOU an idiot?

My mistake. You think that it's a good thing that thefts, frauds and scams can be carried out without consequences or recompense?

I'm quite happy to pay a little on extra fees to my credit card to cover chargebacks and fraud. Because I know if something bad were to happen (eg my card was stolen), I'd not end up homeless

Non-sequitur much?

[cypherdoc]

when you're paid to not understand something, you won't.

[netrin]

Now, what was the OP about? Oh yes, an article about the legality of bitcoins. Well, the author defends the assertion that bitcoin is a liability that requires regulation to counter illegal acts. That will probably be the motive, but I'm not sure that is a good offense. Because that would impose more restrictions on the present commons. When I tip the waiter, give money to charity, a homeless individual, or give money in a congratulatory card, I would prefer not to have that transaction recorded. Studies have shown that even with the convenience of credit cards and the like, cash will never die because people demand it, and when it is not available they will make transactions by other means, whether by bananas or bitcoins.

[evoorhees]

when you're paid to not understand something, you won't.

Let's not assume that just because someone disagrees with us that they're a paid shill of some nefarious scheming enemy. More likely, they just don't know what they're talking about. Ignorance is far greater in quantity than conspiracy.

[Surawit]

perhaps I focused a little heavily on the semantics of a particular word which it looks like most of you have some inflexible opinions on  . We can agree to disagree on that.

I remain unconvinced that BTC offers a significant improvement to our current systems... I don't think a rise in FREEDOM will necessarily occur with bitcoin. The rich will still be able to play the system to their advantage.
"Distributed" sounds awfully nice and egalitarian until you look at how wealth would really be concentrated: Disproportionately in the hands of the early adopters (aka the current bitcoin community). Great for you guys. Again, this project seems now to be motivated mainly by greed rather than any desire to change society.

Frankly I think I'd rather be ruled by my current [$]rich white corporate masters than a bunch of BTCrich white libertarian nerds, you people have some hella dumb ideas

[GoWest]

Now, what was the OP about? Oh yes, an article about the legality of bitcoins. Well, the author defends the assertion that bitcoin is a liability that requires regulation to counter illegal acts. That will probably be the motive, but I'm not sure that is a good offense. Because that would impose more restrictions on the present commons. When I tip the waiter, give money to charity, a homeless individual, or give money in a congratulatory card, I would prefer not to have that transaction recorded. Studies have shown that even with the convenience of credit cards and the like, cash will never die because people demand it, and when it is not available they will make transactions by other means, whether by bananas or bitcoins.

From the (well-written, I must say) article:

...which is why it’s essential that a legal framework be put in place to govern businesses that facilitate Bitcoin transactions, like the exchanges.

No one's talking about documenting person-to-person Bitcoin transactions, which would be next-to-impossible, anyway.

[GoWest]

perhaps I focused a little heavily on the semantics of a particular word which it looks like most of you have some inflexible opinions on  . We can agree to disagree on that.

I remain unconvinced that BTC offers a significant improvement to our current systems... I don't think a rise in FREEDOM will necessarily occur with bitcoin. The rich will still be able to play the system to their advantage.
"Distributed" sounds awfully nice and egalitarian until you look at how wealth would really be concentrated: Disproportionately in the hands of the early adopters (aka the current bitcoin community). Great for you guys. Again, this project seems now to be motivated mainly by greed rather than any desire to change society.

Frankly I think I'd rather be ruled by my current [$]rich white corporate masters than a bunch of BTCrich white libertarian nerds, you people have some hella dumb ideas

Then why is this your signature block?:

PROUD TO BE A SUPPORTER OF CAPITALISM
15rBQe46XjCzSYbQN9dWYwaSLRqiXckSDb

[Surawit]

Then why is this your signature block?:

PROUD TO BE A SUPPORTER OF CAPITALISM
15rBQe46XjCzSYbQN9dWYwaSLRqiXckSDb

Joined to troll, stayed to argue

I am a marxist irl

[evoorhees]

I remain unconvinced that BTC offers a significant improvement to our current systems... I don't think a rise in FREEDOM will necessarily occur with bitcoin. The rich will still be able to play the system to their advantage.
"Distributed" sounds awfully nice and egalitarian until you look at how wealth would really be concentrated: Disproportionately in the hands of the early adopters (aka the current bitcoin community). Great for you guys. Again, this project seems now to be motivated mainly by greed rather than any desire to change society.

Alright Surawit now there is a genuine and worthwhile critique of Bitcoin. I disagree with you for a number of reasons, but you bring up good points. I will say that greed and the desire to change society are not mutually exclusive, and typically the former is the cause of the latter.

Frankly I think I'd rather be ruled by my current [$]rich white corporate masters than a bunch of BTCrich white libertarian nerds, you people have some hella dumb ideas

But when a rich white libertarian nerd has a hella dumb idea, he doesn't force it upon you with guns and imprisonment.

[GoWest]

But when a rich white libertarian nerd has a hella dumb idea, he doesn't force it upon you with guns and imprisonment.

Correct; that only happens with fiat currencies.  Oh look, we've come full circle.

[cypherdoc]

Then why is this your signature block?:

PROUD TO BE A SUPPORTER OF CAPITALISM
15rBQe46XjCzSYbQN9dWYwaSLRqiXckSDb

Joined to troll, stayed to argue

I am a marxist irl

finally an admission.  now we know what we're dealing with guys.

[evoorhees]

Then why is this your signature block?:

PROUD TO BE A SUPPORTER OF CAPITALISM
15rBQe46XjCzSYbQN9dWYwaSLRqiXckSDb

Joined to troll, stayed to argue

I am a marxist irl

finally an admission.  now we know what we're dealing with guys.

I would have no problem with Marxists, if they didn't advocate coercion, theft, and violence.

[GoWest]

Then why is this your signature block?:

PROUD TO BE A SUPPORTER OF CAPITALISM
15rBQe46XjCzSYbQN9dWYwaSLRqiXckSDb

Joined to troll, stayed to argue

I am a marxist irl

finally an admission.  now we know what we're dealing with guys.

Definitely 12-Monkeys material.

[bitstarter]

Not sure if that is your blog but I really like it!

[Surawit]

But when a rich white libertarian nerd has a hella dumb idea, he doesn't force it upon you with guns and imprisonment.

Yes, but that is only because he doesn't have any power to do so  . Besides, libertarianism itself is dumb/harmful enough even without a state violently enforcing its ideas... What good is freedom from government coercion when you are suffocated at birth by your own umbilical cord  because you can't get to the hospital because there are no roads to your house and also because there is no hospital as your mother can't pay the fees

finally an admission.  now we know what we're dealing with guys.

What is this, ghostbusters?

[GoWest]

Not sure if that is your blog but I really like it!

It is - thanks!

[cypherdoc]

What is this, ghostbusters?

yes it is.  how much do they pay you to troll, Surawit?  is it worth it given the shellacking you're taking?  it must be hourly b/c you sure are wasting a lot of valuable time trying to discredit something you despise so much.  don't you have anything better to do?

[Surawit]

yes it is.  how much do they pay you to troll, Surawit?  is it worth it given the shellacking you're taking?  it must be hourly b/c you sure are wasting a lot of valuable time trying to discredit something you despise so much.  don't you have anything better to do?

Sorry, I find it horribly vulgar to discuss wages, and I don't think the guys at the lodge would be too happy with me if I did either lol

[cypherdoc]

yes it is.  how much do they pay you to troll, Surawit?  is it worth it given the shellacking you're taking?  it must be hourly b/c you sure are wasting a lot of valuable time trying to discredit something you despise so much.  don't you have anything better to do?

Sorry, I find it horribly vulgar to discuss wages, and I don't think the guys at the lodge would be too happy with me if I did either lol

i'll bet its per post isn't it?

[Surawit]

i'll bet its per post isn't it?

Yeah. I'm freelancing atm, but I've heard there are a couple of salaried trolling positions opening up soon... they really don't like bitcoins! The pay is definitely nothing special but the benefits are great (full health+dental). Way better than my last gig trolling homeopathic forums on behalf of pfizer

[cypherdoc]

i'll bet its per post isn't it?

Yeah. I'm freelancing atm, but I've heard there are a couple of salaried trolling positions opening up soon... they really don't like bitcoins! The pay is definitely nothing special but the benefits are great (full health+dental). Way better than my last gig trolling homeopathic forums on behalf of pfizer

i'd ask them for a per post fee as well as an hourly rate.  that way you don't get screwed over for your study time trying to understand what you're arguing against.  its only fair. 

oh, and i'd ask them for a raise also.  given the momentous nature, or i should say disruptive nature, of what this means to their trillion dollar franchise you should be getting top dollar.  or maybe you should ask them to pay you in bitcoin.  now that would get them to sit up.

[evoorhees]

Dude... nobody is getting paid to troll bitcoin forums lol. If I'm wrong please present evidence.

[cypherdoc]

Dude... nobody is getting paid to troll bitcoin forums lol. If I'm wrong please present evidence.

Surawit, you've been arguing with this guy all nite.  this is your chance to set him straight.  will you please?

[netrin]

Smartcards displaying a balance on eInk, perhaps a keypad on the device itself. One can carry one or numerous smart cards and exchange the physical card itself without trace.

[memvola]

Bitcoin is too complicated for the average person. It needs to be made simpler to get any kind of widespread adoption. Mainstream financial institutions wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole. They constantly change their systems to meet the expections of "Joe idiot on the street."

Free software, decentralization and free market does that to a project -- in order to taste "free" anything, we need to get through this. Bitcoin is the Linux of currency. Look at how many years and how many failed attempts it took to get Linux into mainstream, it's almost painful to think about. And it still doesn't dominate the Desktop. For something to be "easy to use", it's not enough for it to be easy to use, you must acknowledge that it is so and that you are dumb if you can't do it. Most people need an authority to suggest that. That's why Android is a success. Bitcoin will have its Android but it will take a long time. So long that trolling Bitcoin forums will be considered lame.

[GoWest]

It's just too hard to explain to people. I tell them how great it is and that I'm mining for Bitcoins and buy things with them. Then I need to go through this whole process of trying to make them understand. What a pain in the ass. There is no way banks would ever go through that cost. There is no upside for them to do it. Give me an argument I can use to tell people i'm not crazy, one thing that Bitcoin can do/buy that a Visa card can't. No fair using Silk Road my grandmother doesn't shop there anyway. Don't use hide from the IRS either she would think that's wrong.

Here: http://bitcoin-trader.blogspot.com/2011/09/14-things-you-can-do-with-bitcoin-that.html

[FreeMonies]

deleted. Making a thread instead.

[memvola]

It's just too hard to explain to people. I tell them how great it is and that I'm mining for Bitcoins and buy things with them. Then I need to go through this whole process of trying to make them understand. What a pain in the ass. There is no way banks would ever go through that cost. There is no upside for them to do it. Give me an argument I can use to tell people i'm not crazy, one thing that Bitcoin can do/buy that a Visa card can't. No fair using Silk Road my grandmother doesn't shop there anyway. Don't use hide from the IRS either she would think that's wrong.

Established banks wouldn't want it to succeed, let alone support it. Luckily for us, we don't need banks, we need software developers. Consider how Bitcoin would grow if it was integrated to eBay. It would be better for eBay too, because they would be the escrow service, and wouldn't have to worry about external entities, fees and chargebacks. It would also be better for sellers and buyers for similar reasons. Plus, you would trust their wallet service so it would be instant and "easy to use".

Anyway, why do you yourself think it's a good idea? I think you should begin with that. Yet, again like Linux, it can be hard to explain. I use Linux because I want the whole control of my system, I want it to do my bidding to the extend it can. I can't explain this to an ordinary Windows user, you have to experience the need first. You need to know what you can do with a computer and it must be worth your time. Usually it isn't, because you've already invested time on learning a different system which in the meantime taught you what you want to do with it. Pretty similar to our dominant monetary system, don't you think?

Society gets stuck like this. IMO, online bank accounts are much more complicated than Bitcoin. And they don't have a standardized interface. Yet, people use them because they have to. Credit cards aren't inherently easy either. People need to see "someone else use it" and imitate, that's how Bitcoin will go mainstream. We need a payment method that reptilian brains can imitate. I think foolproof standardized smartphone POS interfaces would suffice.

All in all, I'd try the "when there is frictionless value transfer globally, possibilities are endless" approach.

[memvola]

I guess if I was a Linux user I'd understand. Your right I'm a Windows user because the ramp up is just too time consuming. I'm not a dinosaur. I do like trying new things but i have a job, kids, bla bla. When I sit at a computer I just want to use it not go back to school. I guess over time it could become something everybody can use but I think that's a long way off. Just like a Linux machine in every home is a long way off. In both cases (Linux & Bitcoin) the establishment is really big and it will take a very talented Samson to knock down either Goliath.

That's why I said Android. Replacing what you already have can be costly but it was easy to introduce Linux in something you'd have to learn from scratch anyway.

[netrin]

Smartcards displaying a balance on eInk, perhaps a keypad on the device itself. One can carry one or numerous smart cards and exchange the physical card itself without trace.

If the cards are disposible how would the smart card know that the transaction is valid for $1.35. The frigin card would be

I'm not sure if disposable means the same thing to you as to me. Gramma may use a smartcard at the grocery store just as she uses a debit card today. If she can't do that, she can't use bitcoin. The card accepts the pruned merkel tree, sends signed transactions, and displays the balance on the card itself. She can plug it into her grandson's laptop if it doesn't have some wireless interface.

I guess over time it could become something everybody can use but I think that's a long way off. Just like a Linux machine in every home is a long way off. In both cases (Linux & Bitcoin) the establishment is really big and it will take a very talented Samson to knock down either Goliath.

Momentum and fear of the unknown are powerful forces. The trick is to introduce technology so that people don't notice. I installed Ubuntu on my ex-girlfriends computer who uses a Mac at work. Granted, I did all the configs, backup, and security upgrades, but she used Ubuntu just about every day for two weeks and didn't realize it wasn't Windows. I think Android is a better example though. Linux is everywhere, you just don't see it. Bitcoin is rough today, but when people don't see the difference between a credit card and bitcoin is when it's mainstream. Within the year we'll have an app on a smartphone, a dialog window will pop up on screen and ask, "Purchase pack of gum .08 BTC from ABC Shop? [Send] [Cancel]" Will you use very often? Probably not yet. But the tech is already here today.