The Dangerous State of Bitcoin (.com)

[Are-you-a-wizard?]

You forgot the bit where Bruce Wagner becomes an a-list celebrity, then gets caught by paparazzi doing a boy in a public toilet. Then he kills him self and we all rejoice.

[1713578205]

1713578205

[1713578205]

1713578205

[DeathAndTaxes]

They aren't responsible as should be clear by the fact they're trying to make a bitcoin client with integrated tradehill, preventing the free market from working.

Um that IS the free market at work.  That is capitalism at its finest.  The free market isn't sitting around a campfire singing kumbaya and talking about fairly distributing marketshare in this new economy.   It is about brutally beating your competitors into submission and taking marketshare by any legal means possible.  

May the most brutal, aggressive competitor willing to take the big risks win.  A-fraking-men to Capitalism!

[onesalt]

They aren't responsible as should be clear by the fact they're trying to make a bitcoin client with integrated tradehill, preventing the free market from working.

Um that IS the free market at work.  That is capitalism at its finest.  The free market isn't sitting around a campfire singing kumbaya and talking about fairly distributing marketshare in this new economy.   It is about brutally beating your competitors into submission and taking marketshare by any legal means possible.  

May the most brutal, aggressive competitor willing to take the big risks win.  A-fraking-men to Capitalism!

See this is what Standard oil did and then as soon as they "won" they become one of the most corrupt, ineffecient and morally bankrupt companies that the US has ever seen before and since. If companies get to a point where they are a monopoly then the free market stops working (competetion driving effeciency up) and just becomes a massive bloated orgy of "lets screw everyone over"

[Raoul Duke]

You must prove that google will prefer .com...
I don't see bitcoin.com even on the entire first page, much less on #1.

Google prefers backlinks(and well SEO'ed sites), and tradehill isn't going to get more backlinks with the anchor text Bitcoin to bitcoin.com than the backlinks which already exist to Bitcoin.org, well, at least not the whitehat way...

The narrative is very beautiful, but i stopped giving inportance to your speech in the sentence you said Google prefers .com's...

[I.Goldstein]

They aren't responsible as should be clear by the fact they're trying to make a bitcoin client with integrated tradehill, preventing the free market from working.

Um that IS the free market at work.  That is capitalism at its finest.  The free market isn't sitting around a campfire singing kumbaya and talking about fairly distributing marketshare in this new economy.   It is about brutally beating your competitors into submission and taking marketshare by any legal means possible.  

May the most brutal, aggressive competitor willing to take the big risks win.  A-fraking-men to Capitalism!

See this is what Standard oil did and then as soon as they "won" they become one of the most corrupt, ineffecient and morally bankrupt companies that the US has ever seen before and since. If companies get to a point where they are a monopoly then the free market stops working (competetion driving effeciency up) and just becomes a massive bloated orgy of "lets screw everyone over"

Uh, no. They brought us the lowest oil prices in history.

[DeathAndTaxes]

See this is what Standard oil did and then as soon as they "won" they become one of the most corrupt, ineffecient and morally bankrupt companies that the US has ever seen before and since. If companies get to a point where they are a monopoly then the free market stops working (competetion driving effeciency up) and just becomes a massive bloated orgy of "lets screw everyone over"

First I would say the govt interfernce both lead to the rise of Standard oil and created problems after they took it down.
Still Tradehill isn't a monopoly.  Unless a natural monopoly exists it usually require governmental support to sustain a monopoly.  

Neither is an issue with Bitcoin.

So bring on the brutal capital wars.  It is going to take some real money to move Bitcoin mainstream. The potential profits/rewards is what leads companies/investors to take risks.  You aren't going to see the deployment of capital without some benefit to those taking the risk.  If Tradehill is well rewarded for their business skill and risk taking then I have absolutely no problem with it.


The great thing is that Tradehill needs profits to secure a dominant position.  If you don't like their gameplan then don't trade their.  Of course I see Mt.Gox as a greater monopolistic threat than Tradehill.  I would much rather see Tradehill volume go up not down relative to Mt.Gox.

[onesalt]

They aren't responsible as should be clear by the fact they're trying to make a bitcoin client with integrated tradehill, preventing the free market from working.

Um that IS the free market at work.  That is capitalism at its finest.  The free market isn't sitting around a campfire singing kumbaya and talking about fairly distributing marketshare in this new economy.   It is about brutally beating your competitors into submission and taking marketshare by any legal means possible.  

May the most brutal, aggressive competitor willing to take the big risks win.  A-fraking-men to Capitalism!

See this is what Standard oil did and then as soon as they "won" they become one of the most corrupt, ineffecient and morally bankrupt companies that the US has ever seen before and since. If companies get to a point where they are a monopoly then the free market stops working (competetion driving effeciency up) and just becomes a massive bloated orgy of "lets screw everyone over"

Uh, no. They brought us the lowest oil prices in history.

Yes, by purchasing up a lot of the railroads and ports and pipelines and then raising rates on their competitors use of them to the point that they were unable to compete, and then raised prices on their own oil to make more money, among other things.

[I.Goldstein]

They aren't responsible as should be clear by the fact they're trying to make a bitcoin client with integrated tradehill, preventing the free market from working.

Um that IS the free market at work.  That is capitalism at its finest.  The free market isn't sitting around a campfire singing kumbaya and talking about fairly distributing marketshare in this new economy.   It is about brutally beating your competitors into submission and taking marketshare by any legal means possible.  

May the most brutal, aggressive competitor willing to take the big risks win.  A-fraking-men to Capitalism!

See this is what Standard oil did and then as soon as they "won" they become one of the most corrupt, ineffecient and morally bankrupt companies that the US has ever seen before and since. If companies get to a point where they are a monopoly then the free market stops working (competetion driving effeciency up) and just becomes a massive bloated orgy of "lets screw everyone over"

Uh, no. They brought us the lowest oil prices in history.

Yes, by purchasing up a lot of the railroads and ports and pipelines and then raising rates on their competitors use of them to the point that they were unable to compete, and then raised prices on their own oil to make more money, among other things.

So?

[onesalt]

You really don't see a problem with a company holding enough assets and resources to prevent any competition at all? When companies have demonstrated quite dramatically recently that they do not give a shit about the customer and just want to make money?

[I.Goldstein]

You really don't see a problem with a company holding enough assets and resources to prevent any competition at all? When companies have demonstrated quite dramatically recently that they do not give a shit about the customer and just want to make money?

The consumers loved the company as far as I'm concerned. If SO stopped providing cheap oil, I am sure competition would find its way in.

Anyways, the only way for a company to make money in a free market is to provide equivalent value. Otherwise, there are parasites in the system.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Um companies are never suppose to "care" about the consumer.  The sole purpose of a corporation is to make money.  Period.  There is no other reason for their existence.  When a company is being "nice" to a consumer hopefully (for shareholders) they are doing so because it increases shareholder value.

What company has ever "cared" about you?  Please I am genuinely interested.  If you want someone to "care" about you find a wife, or get a hug from your mom (that was a joke ... kinda).  Corporations exist to maximize shareholder value.

A monopoly doesn't mean it is impossible for others to compete. As long as a corporation doesn't break the law more power to them. In any new business many of the business ventures simply SUCK.  Have you seen how crappy some of the bitcoin businesses are?  They have no "right" to survive.  If you want to profit then be better than the next corporation who is looking to rip you apart for the benefit of their shareholders.  

[I.Goldstein]

Companies that don't care for the consumer won't be profitable for long.

[onesalt]

Companies that don't care for the consumer won't be profitable for long.

You'd be amazed how wrong you are when it's something everyone needs and there's only one supplier and they're charging a 500% mark-up for no obvious reason other than "more money for us; fuck you". I mean shit, look at Britains energy companies, turned out they've been working together for the last few years to all put prices up on gas when gas prices have been staying pretty stable. Companies exist to make money and having a situation where there is nothing to reign in a company doing so is a bad fucking idea.

[I.Goldstein]

Companies that don't care for the consumer won't be profitable for long.

You'd be amazed how wrong you are when it's something everyone needs and there's only one supplier and they're charging a 500% mark-up for no obvious reason other than "more money for us; fuck you". I mean shit, look at Britains energy companies, turned out they've been working together for the last few years to all put prices up on gas when gas prices have been staying pretty stable. Companies exist to make money and having a situation where there is nothing to reign in a company doing so is a bad fucking idea.

Your examples are government-granted and/or provisioned monopolies. They did not get to their current position of power without the violent force of government.

[evoorhees]

You really don't see a problem with a company holding enough assets and resources to prevent any competition at all?

Such a scenario is impossible. It's a scary myth - based in large part on the fallacy that companies ever "hold" assets.

When companies have demonstrated quite dramatically recently that they do not give a shit about the customer and just want to make money?

Companies only wanting to make money is not a "recent development," and self-interest is not exclusive to groups of people organized under a corporate structure. Next time you go to the store, pay $4 for $3 bread, and then tell me corporations are evil. If you do not pay $4 for the $3 bread, one might say you don't give a shit about the baker.

[onesalt]

Standard oil existed before the government really regulated industries at all, and in the end had to be broken up under anti-trust laws because of the horrifically uncompetitive nature of the company.

But yeah apparantly the people I'm arguing with have a severe case of brain damage or something because I don't even fuckin know.

[I.Goldstein]

Look, let's not forget to acknowledge there are corporations fucking people over but it's not because they are fairly making profit from willing consumers. It's because competition and the ability to fail are being destroyed by government subsidies and regulation that keep the small guy out and the big guy on top. There is a problem with business today but it isn't the free market at work.

[I.Goldstein]

Standard oil existed before the government really regulated industries at all, and in the end had to be broken up under anti-trust laws because of the horrifically uncompetitive nature of the company.

But yeah apparantly the people I'm arguing with have a severe case of brain damage or something because I don't even fuckin know.

Standard Oil actually had help from the state governments that banned companies from crossing state borders. It got around it by founding a new SO in every state. Other oil companies didn't take advantage of this and remained limited by the state laws. Regulation did in fact help Standard Oil form into a monopoly in the first place.

It was only broken up because the other companies founded a coalition and lobbied the government to take SO down.

[DeathAndTaxes]

You'd be amazed how wrong you are when it's something everyone needs and there's only one supplier and they're charging a 500% mark-up for no obvious reason other than "more money for us; fuck you".

1) How do you know they are making 500% markup?
2) If you know they have 500% markup why don't you buy stock
3) It would not be possible to sustain 500% markup without the ACTIVE SUPPORT of the government (i.e. the govt creating and enforcing a prohibition on competitors).

Likely this 500% markup is something in your mind only.

[I.Goldstein]

You'd be amazed how wrong you are when it's something everyone needs and there's only one supplier and they're charging a 500% mark-up for no obvious reason other than "more money for us; fuck you".

1) How do you know they are making 500% markup?
2) If you know they have 500% markup why don't you buy stock
3) It would not be possible to sustain 500% markup without the ACTIVE SUPPORT of the government (i.e. the govt creating and enforcing a prohibition on competitors).

Likely this 500% markup is something in your mind only.

You're wasting your time. Energy companies receive countless government subsidies. The argument is now bunk. If he can't accept our contentions after this fact, it's hopeless.