.

[Vladimir]

.

[1714033765]

1714033765

[1714033765]

1714033765

[1714033765]

1714033765

[1714033765]

1714033765

[spenvo]

Wow, what a crock of shit.  As media outlets mention Bitcoin for the first time, we can immediately see what side of the coin they're on:

CNN = It's cool
Forbes = Cyber Criminals use it
Washington Post = Forgot to do its homework/fired the fact checking department
TWiT = It's Steve Gibson vs. Leo = Neutral

[Ricochet]

Let's just hope that the "Any publicity is good publicity" saying holds true.

[byronbb]

Wow, what a crock of shit.  As media outlets mention Bitcoin for the first time, we can immediately see what side of the coin they're on:

CNN = It's cool
Forbes = Cyber Criminals use it
Washington Post = Forgot to do its homework/fired the fact checking department
TWiT = It's Steve Gibson vs. Leo = Neutral

CIA = ??

[Bit_Happy]

...
Looks like Barry had a problem groking bitcoin.

He gets paid to write that?

[tomcollins]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/imagining-a-world-without-the-dollar/2011/04/26/AFjawKEF_story.html

...
While there have already been some attempts to create a true electronic currency, such as Bitcoin, these have had difficulty getting off the ground. It is not hard to see why. If it is possible to imagine one private electronic currency, then it’s possible to imagine several, and there would be no guarantee that other people would accept the particular electronic money you use.

Moreover, these payment systems would be only as reliable as the individual companies’ software and servers, which would be impossible for end users to judge. Also, nothing would ensure that the electronic money you accumulate would hold its value, and nothing would prevent the operators of the platform from issuing more, in the first instance to themselves. If people worried that their electronic money was losing value, they would rush to convert it into merchandise; others might simply refuse to accept it as payment. The whole scheme would come crashing down.

That’s why we have the Fed. It regulates the supply of money. ...

[by] Barry Eichengreen is a professor of economics at the University of California at Berkeley and the author of “Exorbitant Privilege: The Rise and Fall of the Dollar and the Future of the International Monetary System.”

Looks like Barry had a problem groking bitcoin.

The Fed has pretty much every economist on their payroll.  Not surprising that an economist comes out against this.  Especially one at Bezerkley.

[bracek]

it's a shame that a head like this generates more heads like this,
gets paid,  more so,  for doing it

and he has no increase in difficulty of generation
over time...

we are doomed

[cypherdoc]

that is a totally ridiculous argument.  the Fed stabilizing the money supply?  what a joke!  bottom line:  its a private bank owned by all the other banks to bail themselves out of their speculative excesses.  the head of the Hydra.  legalized counterfeiting for the benefit of the financial elite.  criminal cartel extraordinaire. vampire squid with blood funnel jammed down the throat of the US Treasury.  FerBanke the enabler.  Head Twit.  Alan Greenspan, former Head Twit.  Mr. Magoo.  I'm tired.

[dust]

I posted in the comments calling out the author for not researching Bitcoin (it's decentralized design, etc) yesterday.  I'm 99% sure my comment was deleted or reported as I check through all the comments today and couldn't Ctrl+F a single mention of Bitcoin.

[gareth69]

Thanks for posting Vlad.

Absolutely laughable article from a so called "Professor of Economics" - Barry Eichengreen.

He obviously does not know the first thing about bitcoin, or more likely shilling for his paymasters - read big government/banks.

His little plug at the end for the "Fed" was risible, as if our current central banking model must be taken as axiomatic. I despair sometimes at the people in academia; I think the posters on this board have either a higher IQ than him or at least more integrity.

[goatpig]

I cackled

[bitlotto]

Great seeing Bitcoin in the news even if they are wrong on some things. It will slowly bring more people into looking up Bitcoin themselves and learning the facts. It will grow despite all the incorrect reporting. It will grow because it works! 

[trentzb]

that is a totally ridiculous argument.  the Fed stabilizing the money supply?  what a joke!  bottom line:  its a private bank owned by all the other banks to bail themselves out of their speculative excesses.  the head of the Hydra.  legalized counterfeiting for the benefit of the financial elite.  criminal cartel extraordinaire. vampire squid with blood funnel jammed down the throat of the US Treasury.  FerBanke the enabler.  Head Twit.  Alan Greenspan, former Head Twit.  Mr. Magoo.  I'm tired.

C'mon, give the Fed a break...they are were smarter than us in creating and operating their monopoly.

[proudhon]

I posted a comment.  I did my best, but I'm not an expert on all the ins-and-outs of bitcoin.  I probably got something wrong.  If I did, I hope somebody registers and corrects my post.

[Alex Beckenham]

I posted a comment.  I did my best, but I'm not an expert on all the ins-and-outs of bitcoin.  I probably got something wrong.  If I did, I hope somebody registers and corrects my post.

Can't even find it... I too searched the entire list of 136 comments.

Censored perhaps.

[proudhon]

I posted a comment.  I did my best, but I'm not an expert on all the ins-and-outs of bitcoin.  I probably got something wrong.  If I did, I hope somebody registers and corrects my post.

Can't even find it... I too searched the entire list of 136 comments.

Censored perhaps.

Interesting.  Can't find it now either.  After I posted my comment there were 138 comments.  When I refreshed after seeing your post there were 137.  Nice.

[proudhon]

Nevermind, it's there now.  Search 'hupe'.

[Alex Beckenham]

Nevermind, it's there now.  Search 'hupe'.

I'm on the 'all_comments' page, I can even see that in the address bar... I've clicked the MORE button until I can click it no more, but still 'hupe' isn't on the page.

[gareth69]

Negative comments, or comments not in line with the editorial "slant" of the paper are more often than not deleted.

Try posting anything critical of global warming on the Guardian UK ---deleted
Post something critical of the central banking system on Telegraph UK ---delted

The comments are pointless they are there to create a false concensus and to trick people into the idea that they have some sort of  "say" in the matter.

[dust]

Negative comments, or comments not in line with the editorial "slant" of the paper are more often than not deleted.

Try posting anything critical of global warming on the Guardian UK ---deleted
Post something critical of the central banking system on Telegraph UK ---delted

The comments are pointless they are there to create a false concensus and to trick people into the idea that they have some sort of  "say" in the matter.

There are a lot of fairly "extreme" comments (pro gold, pro-Ron Paul, anti-Obama) that were not deleted.  It seems odd for them to delete Bitcoin related comments considering the article mentioned it.  My comment was just trying to clear up false information propagated by the author.