Barriers to introducing people to bitcoin

[thaohaitrieu9]

precious time as gold
people to keep it offline

[1715008914]

1715008914

[1715008914]

1715008914

[Professor Plums]

I try start with telling them why fiat money is corrupt first and then about how credit cards and payment processors are rip offs. You need to show them the benefits of bitcoin against the negatives of the current system.

[Chef Ramsay]

One of the main problems I have w/ introducing people to BTC is that the pitch can take upwards of 10 minutes to give them all the key ingredients as to the why and how of things, including fiat money/banker/fed debt talk. 2ndly, when we've been in a bear market up until recently for such an extended time, there's been plenty of people who I've discussed this with that even if they were monitoring the price, they'd think I'm a stooge for playing in this game at all. All the average person sees is the value in paper money as they can't comprehend a time when the fednote won't be the bread and butter, despite rising costs. However, in a primed bull market ready to take off, it's a lot easier to entice people to come aboard.

[DhaniBoy]

I do not think it is difficult to introduce to the bitcoin community, the first thing one should be clear is that bitcoin as currency cryptocurrency, where as currency bitcoin cryptocurrency must have internet connection in each transaction, meaning that bitcoin does not have the physical form as well as currency prevailing in each country, while the second should we explain to the public about bitcoin is that bitcoin now has a very high exchange rate against the American dollar, about 4 million per bitcoin, it is the main attraction of bitcoin ... 

[MF Doom]

most people are brainwashed by the media and are under the assumption their only option is the USD/Euro/etc.  The biggest barrier is getting people to think outside the box, and realize there is more than one way to pay/get paid.

[My Name Was Taken]

I think if the value of the currency wasn't so volatile it would be easier. Money is supposed to be a store of value, and right now we have rapid swings (compared to USD fiat). I think something slowing adoption for most people is the risk that if you have a significant amount of value in bitcoin, it could depreciate 25% in a month. The USD has experienced inflation, sure, but it's a stable rock compared to the risk of volatility associated with bitcoin.

On the other hand, bitcoin's rapid appreciation last year was what brought so many people into it, to speculate. But this kind of reinforces my first point. When last year's bubble has deflated through this year, people leave with a bad taste in their mouth. It would have been better if the currency was more stable. Ultimately, people want stability and predictability.

[cryptocoiner]

I usially ask for payment in bitcoins or offer a payment in bitcoins for job/service/goods etc. after that people usually starting using bitcoin in they own.

[koshgel]

Other than people looking to trade Bitcoin for profit due to the volatile nature, I haven't had much success in having people adopt Bitcoin as a payment source. There are already safer and easier methods available so people don't see a reason for it YET.

[My Name Was Taken]

Other than people looking to trade Bitcoin for profit due to the volatile nature, I haven't had much success in having people adopt Bitcoin as a payment source. There are already safer and easier methods available so people don't see a reason for it YET.

The benefits are far greater for merchants. They pay a couple percentage points on each transaction to accept credit cards, they could accept btc instead and offer a discount for consumers to pay in bitcoin, and still come out ahead compared to credit cards. This sounds like a good thing, more merchants drive more people to use bitcoin. The problem though is no merchant accepts bitcoin and holds it. They can't risk the volatility eating their profit margin and turning sales into losses. So they immediately convert to fiat, because it's stable. This puts a lot of downward pressure on the price of bitcoin. So you think wider merchant acceptance helps the price, but I think it's having the opposite effect.

[username18333]

Other than people looking to trade Bitcoin for profit due to the volatile nature, I haven't had much success in having people adopt Bitcoin as a payment source. There are already safer and easier methods available so people don't see a reason for it YET.

The benefits are far greater for merchants. They pay a couple percentage points on each transaction to accept credit cards, they could accept btc instead and offer a discount for consumers to pay in bitcoin, and still come out ahead compared to credit cards. This sounds like a good thing, more merchants drive more people to use bitcoin. The problem though is no merchant accepts bitcoin and holds it. They can't risk the volatility eating their profit margin and turning sales into losses. So they immediately convert to fiat, because it's stable. This puts a lot of downward pressure on the price of bitcoin. So you think wider merchant acceptance helps the price, but I think it's having the opposite effect.

Merchants cater to markets, not ideals. (Remember, "The customer is always right.")

[My Name Was Taken]

Other than people looking to trade Bitcoin for profit due to the volatile nature, I haven't had much success in having people adopt Bitcoin as a payment source. There are already safer and easier methods available so people don't see a reason for it YET.

The benefits are far greater for merchants. They pay a couple percentage points on each transaction to accept credit cards, they could accept btc instead and offer a discount for consumers to pay in bitcoin, and still come out ahead compared to credit cards. This sounds like a good thing, more merchants drive more people to use bitcoin. The problem though is no merchant accepts bitcoin and holds it. They can't risk the volatility eating their profit margin and turning sales into losses. So they immediately convert to fiat, because it's stable. This puts a lot of downward pressure on the price of bitcoin. So you think wider merchant acceptance helps the price, but I think it's having the opposite effect.

Merchants cater to markets, not ideals. (Remember, "The customer is always right.")

Can you elaborate? I don't follow in response to what I said. 

[username18333]

Other than people looking to trade Bitcoin for profit due to the volatile nature, I haven't had much success in having people adopt Bitcoin as a payment source. There are already safer and easier methods available so people don't see a reason for it YET.

The benefits are far greater for merchants. They pay a couple percentage points on each transaction to accept credit cards, they could accept btc instead and offer a discount for consumers to pay in bitcoin, and still come out ahead compared to credit cards. This sounds like a good thing, more merchants drive more people to use bitcoin. The problem though is no merchant accepts bitcoin and holds it. They can't risk the volatility eating their profit margin and turning sales into losses. So they immediately convert to fiat, because it's stable. This puts a lot of downward pressure on the price of bitcoin. So you think wider merchant acceptance helps the price, but I think it's having the opposite effect.

Merchants cater to markets, not ideals. (Remember, "The customer is always right.")

Can you elaborate? I don't follow in response to what I said. 

Roughly, "Merchants generally respond to market demand."

[My Name Was Taken]

Other than people looking to trade Bitcoin for profit due to the volatile nature, I haven't had much success in having people adopt Bitcoin as a payment source. There are already safer and easier methods available so people don't see a reason for it YET.

The benefits are far greater for merchants. They pay a couple percentage points on each transaction to accept credit cards, they could accept btc instead and offer a discount for consumers to pay in bitcoin, and still come out ahead compared to credit cards. This sounds like a good thing, more merchants drive more people to use bitcoin. The problem though is no merchant accepts bitcoin and holds it. They can't risk the volatility eating their profit margin and turning sales into losses. So they immediately convert to fiat, because it's stable. This puts a lot of downward pressure on the price of bitcoin. So you think wider merchant acceptance helps the price, but I think it's having the opposite effect.

Merchants cater to markets, not ideals. (Remember, "The customer is always right.")

Can you elaborate? I don't follow in response to what I said. 

Roughly, "Merchants generally respond to market demand."

Ah, sure, but not exclusively. They could respond to a lot of different types of incentives. My point was that a cheaper non-cash method to accept payment than what currently exists could draw merchants in, which could help consumer adoption. I had a secondary point that this could cause more downward pressure on orice though, but that's not as germane to the OP now.

[username18333]

Other than people looking to trade Bitcoin for profit due to the volatile nature, I haven't had much success in having people adopt Bitcoin as a payment source. There are already safer and easier methods available so people don't see a reason for it YET.

The benefits are far greater for merchants. They pay a couple percentage points on each transaction to accept credit cards, they could accept btc instead and offer a discount for consumers to pay in bitcoin, and still come out ahead compared to credit cards. This sounds like a good thing, more merchants drive more people to use bitcoin. The problem though is no merchant accepts bitcoin and holds it. They can't risk the volatility eating their profit margin and turning sales into losses. So they immediately convert to fiat, because it's stable. This puts a lot of downward pressure on the price of bitcoin. So you think wider merchant acceptance helps the price, but I think it's having the opposite effect.

Merchants cater to markets, not ideals. (Remember, "The customer is always right.")

Can you elaborate? I don't follow in response to what I said. 

Roughly, "Merchants generally respond to market demand."

Ah, sure, but not exclusively. They could respond to a lot of different types of incentives. My point was that a cheaper non-cash method to accept payment than what currently exists could draw merchants in, which could help consumer adoption. I had a secondary point that this could cause more downward pressure on orice though, but that's not as germane to the OP now.

"Educating" consumers is notoriously expensive.

[My Name Was Taken]

Other than people looking to trade Bitcoin for profit due to the volatile nature, I haven't had much success in having people adopt Bitcoin as a payment source. There are already safer and easier methods available so people don't see a reason for it YET.

The benefits are far greater for merchants. They pay a couple percentage points on each transaction to accept credit cards, they could accept btc instead and offer a discount for consumers to pay in bitcoin, and still come out ahead compared to credit cards. This sounds like a good thing, more merchants drive more people to use bitcoin. The problem though is no merchant accepts bitcoin and holds it. They can't risk the volatility eating their profit margin and turning sales into losses. So they immediately convert to fiat, because it's stable. This puts a lot of downward pressure on the price of bitcoin. So you think wider merchant acceptance helps the price, but I think it's having the opposite effect.

Merchants cater to markets, not ideals. (Remember, "The customer is always right.")

Can you elaborate? I don't follow in response to what I said. 

Roughly, "Merchants generally respond to market demand."

Ah, sure, but not exclusively. They could respond to a lot of different types of incentives. My point was that a cheaper non-cash method to accept payment than what currently exists could draw merchants in, which could help consumer adoption. I had a secondary point that this could cause more downward pressure on orice though, but that's not as germane to the OP now.

"Educating" consumers is notoriously expensive.

I think for most, but take Overstock for example. They implemented bitcoin as a payment option. It's not costing them anything to do so, in fact saving them money. Where people use it. Anyone who orders there see it as an option and it cheaply spreads the message. Dell computers has the same thing. I think that's the best to hope for right now. You can't change ingrained consumer habits quickly. I don't know what else could be done to cheaply to spread the word.

[username18333]

Other than people looking to trade Bitcoin for profit due to the volatile nature, I haven't had much success in having people adopt Bitcoin as a payment source. There are already safer and easier methods available so people don't see a reason for it YET.

The benefits are far greater for merchants. They pay a couple percentage points on each transaction to accept credit cards, they could accept btc instead and offer a discount for consumers to pay in bitcoin, and still come out ahead compared to credit cards. This sounds like a good thing, more merchants drive more people to use bitcoin. The problem though is no merchant accepts bitcoin and holds it. They can't risk the volatility eating their profit margin and turning sales into losses. So they immediately convert to fiat, because it's stable. This puts a lot of downward pressure on the price of bitcoin. So you think wider merchant acceptance helps the price, but I think it's having the opposite effect.

Merchants cater to markets, not ideals. (Remember, "The customer is always right.")

Can you elaborate? I don't follow in response to what I said. 

Roughly, "Merchants generally respond to market demand."

Ah, sure, but not exclusively. They could respond to a lot of different types of incentives. My point was that a cheaper non-cash method to accept payment than what currently exists could draw merchants in, which could help consumer adoption. I had a secondary point that this could cause more downward pressure on orice though, but that's not as germane to the OP now.

"Educating" consumers is notoriously expensive.

I think for most, but take Overstock for example. They implemented bitcoin as a payment option. It's not costing them anything to do so, in fact saving them money. Where people use it. Anyone who orders there see it as an option and it cheaply spreads the message. Dell computers has the same thing. I think that's the best to hope for right now. You can't change ingrained consumer habits quickly. I don't know what else could be done to cheaply to spread the word.

Present these men more than mere word.

[Elwar]

I told my family about it but that is about it.

The people who can use it and understand why it is good will find it. People who are sheep will be late to the game. Those that are against it will be on the streets begging for bitcoins down the road.

I would rather people who actually understand it be the ones using it. They will help it to grow and reap the benefits. If you have to convince someone...let them be late to the game and find out later because eventually they will use it.

[username18333]

I told my family about it but that is about it.

The people who can use it and understand why it is good will find it. People who are sheep will be late to the game. Those that are against it will be on the streets begging for bitcoins down the road.

I would rather people who actually understand it be the ones using it. They will help it to grow and reap the benefits. If you have to convince someone...let them be late to the game and find out later because eventually they will use it.

Why would one comply with this transfer of power away from himself‽

[Elwar]

I told my family about it but that is about it.

The people who can use it and understand why it is good will find it. People who are sheep will be late to the game. Those that are against it will be on the streets begging for bitcoins down the road.

I would rather people who actually understand it be the ones using it. They will help it to grow and reap the benefits. If you have to convince someone...let them be late to the game and find out later because eventually they will use it.

Why would one comply with this transfer of power away from himself‽

Happens every day for most people. Taxes, inflation, more regulations. People transfer money away from themselves daily without a thought.

With Bitcoin it is about people holding onto power they used to so easily give away.

[username18333]

I told my family about it but that is about it.

The people who can use it and understand why it is good will find it. People who are sheep will be late to the game. Those that are against it will be on the streets begging for bitcoins down the road.

I would rather people who actually understand it be the ones using it. They will help it to grow and reap the benefits. If you have to convince someone...let them be late to the game and find out later because eventually they will use it.

Why would one comply with this transfer of power away from himself‽

Happens every day for most people. Taxes, inflation, more regulations. People transfer money away from themselves daily without a thought.

With Bitcoin it is about people holding onto power they used to so easily give away.

So others may, more conspicuously, advance their economic standing among men?

[EternalWingsofGod]

I have not had much success introducing people to bitcoin. I thought a good awareness of fiat currency inflation combine with some medium IT skill would be enough, but alas, no. Do you guys have any experiences?

It's difficult to explain
And it takes a whitepaper for the point to get across otherwise people just draw blanks for a while

In a few words or less it is a distributed transaction and ledger based system that allows people to transfer infromation and units of value over the internet smoothly and succintly at lower costs than banks and other similar services.

The proper term is digital money to some and Bitcoin to the rest of us who know what else it can do

[username18333]

I have not had much success introducing people to bitcoin. I thought a good awareness of fiat currency inflation combine with some medium IT skill would be enough, but alas, no. Do you guys have any experiences?

It's difficult to explain
And it takes a whitepaper for the point to get across otherwise people just draw blanks for a while

In a few words or less it is a distributed transaction and ledger based system that allows people to transfer infromation and units of value over the internet smoothly and succintly at lower costs than banks and other similar services.

The proper term is digital money to some and Bitcoin to the rest of us who know what else it can do

"Distributed," there, implies "relies on someone else." Physical exchange of bills doesn't rely upon others.

[EternalWingsofGod]

I have not had much success introducing people to bitcoin. I thought a good awareness of fiat currency inflation combine with some medium IT skill would be enough, but alas, no. Do you guys have any experiences?

It's difficult to explain
And it takes a whitepaper for the point to get across otherwise people just draw blanks for a while

In a few words or less it is a distributed transaction and ledger based system that allows people to transfer infromation and units of value over the internet smoothly and succintly at lower costs than banks and other similar services.

The proper term is digital money to some and Bitcoin to the rest of us who know what else it can do

"Distributed," there, means "relies on someone else." Physical exchange of bills doesn't rely on others.

Ah but distributed also means dispersed over a network in the sense that no one transaction belongs to anyone in particular hence its pseudoanonymous
It's a play on words

That said explain bitcoin in two sentences and see what you get ^_^.

[username18333]

I have not had much success introducing people to bitcoin. I thought a good awareness of fiat currency inflation combine with some medium IT skill would be enough, but alas, no. Do you guys have any experiences?

It's difficult to explain
And it takes a whitepaper for the point to get across otherwise people just draw blanks for a while

In a few words or less it is a distributed transaction and ledger based system that allows people to transfer infromation and units of value over the internet smoothly and succintly at lower costs than banks and other similar services.

The proper term is digital money to some and Bitcoin to the rest of us who know what else it can do

"Distributed," there, means "relies on someone else." Physical exchange of bills doesn't rely on others.

Ah but distributed also means dispersed over a network in the sense that no one transaction belongs to anyone in particular hence its pseudoanonymous
It's a play on words

That said explain bitcoin in two sentences and see what you get ^_^.

Pseudo-anonymity doesn't withhold one's identity from sufficiently capable (and determined) adversaries.

[EternalWingsofGod]

Pseudo-anonymity doesn't withhold one's identity from sufficiently capable (and determined) adversaries.

Well unless your the CIA and have a legion of computers or the police force
It's good enough for most purposes  

Unless your a true one address at a time user with a proxy using a mixer then you just win lol.
Can't think of a trace for that.

[vipgelsi]

Hardess part is people think its a coin like silver coins etc lol when i tell them about them about it.

[username18333]

Pseudo-anonymity doesn't withhold one's identity from sufficiently capable (and determined) adversaries.

Well unless your the CIA and have a legion of computers or the police force
It's good enough for most purposes  

Unless your a true one address at a time user with a proxy using a mixer then you just win lol.
Can't think of a trace for that.

Physical money is also "good enough for most purposes."

[EternalWingsofGod]

Pseudo-anonymity doesn't withhold one's identity from sufficiently capable (and determined) adversaries.

Unless your a true one address at a time user with a proxy using a mixer then you just win lol.
Can't think of a trace for that.

Physical money is also "good enough for most purposes."

But its just one App in the Bitcoin machine ^^

Bitcoin transactions could be sent in the clear and unencrypted over open networks without fear of compromise, which allowed the infrastructure to be open to any participant or software application without vetting, authorization or identification.

“The ability to innovate without permission at the edge of the bitcoin network is the same fundamental force that has driven internet innovation for 20 years at a frenetic pace, creating enormous value for consumers, economic growth, opportunities and jobs.”

This would in turn drive innovation by providing the opportunity to invent whole new decentralized security mechanisms “based on innovations like smart contracts, multi-signature escrow, decentralized audits, hardware wallets, and algorithmic proof of reserves”.

Andreas has a way with his words.

http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-guru-andreas-antonopoulos-appears-canadian-senate/

[username18333]

Pseudo-anonymity doesn't withhold one's identity from sufficiently capable (and determined) adversaries.

Unless your a true one address at a time user with a proxy using a mixer then you just win lol.
Can't think of a trace for that.

Physical money is also "good enough for most purposes."

But its just one App in the Bitcoin machine ^^

Bitcoin transactions could be sent in the clear and unencrypted over open networks without fear of compromise, which allowed the infrastructure to be open to any participant or software application without vetting, authorization or identification.

“The ability to innovate without permission at the edge of the bitcoin network is the same fundamental force that has driven internet innovation for 20 years at a frenetic pace, creating enormous value for consumers, economic growth, opportunities and jobs.”

This would in turn drive innovation by providing the opportunity to invent whole new decentralized security mechanisms “based on innovations like smart contracts, multi-signature escrow, decentralized audits, hardware wallets, and algorithmic proof of reserves”.

Andreas has a way with his words.

http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-guru-andreas-antonopoulos-appears-canadian-senate/

Necessity is the mother of invention.

You're putting the cart before the horse.

[EternalWingsofGod]

You're putting the cart before the horse.

Not if there was no precedent ^^
There has never been a large-scale, decentralized, secure network before.

The cart would be a centralized bank where the money is issued from with a single central point of failure.

[username18333]

You're putting the cart before the horse.

Not if there was no precedent ^^
There has never been a large-scale, decentralized, secure network before.

The cart would be a centralized bank where the money is issued from with a single central point of failure.

It's not secure, its cryptographic algorithms rely upon multiplication of "large" primes (something quantum computers can reverse relatively trivially).

[EternalWingsofGod]

You're putting the cart before the horse.

Not if there was no precedent ^^
There has never been a large-scale, decentralized, secure network before.

The cart would be a centralized bank where the money is issued from with a single central point of failure.

It's not secure, its cryptographic algorithms rely upon multiplication of "large" primes (something quantum computers can reverse relatively trivially).

Sure it is just means a fork is in the way if the protocol needs a base change
Dogecoin did it when they became a merge mine coin when they moved to AuxPow
http://www.coindesk.com/dogecoin-celebrates-litecoin-merge-mining/

“One of the harsh realities of proof-of-work based cryptocurrencies is that their security is reliant on mining being profitable for those dedicating their hashing power to the network. By enabling AuxPoW, we’re no longer competing for people’s hashrates with other scrypt-based coins.”

[username18333]

You're putting the cart before the horse.

Not if there was no precedent ^^
There has never been a large-scale, decentralized, secure network before.

The cart would be a centralized bank where the money is issued from with a single central point of failure.

It's not secure, its cryptographic algorithms rely upon multiplication of "large" primes (something quantum computers can reverse relatively trivially).

Sure it is just means a fork is in the way if the protocol needs a base change
Dogecoin did it when they became a merge mine coin when they moved to AuxPow
http://www.coindesk.com/dogecoin-celebrates-litecoin-merge-mining/

“One of the harsh realities of proof-of-work based cryptocurrencies is that their security is reliant on mining being profitable for those dedicating their hashing power to the network. By enabling AuxPoW, we’re no longer competing for people’s hashrates with other scrypt-based coins.”

Physical monies do not require their underlying mechanics to prove so “forked.”

[resya]

I think new people will only come when a clear bottom has been found, too many price speculations are going on. The long term chart doesn't look particulalry attractive for people to jump in

[MF Doom]

I think new people will only come when a clear bottom has been found, too many price speculations are going on. The long term chart doesn't look particulalry attractive for people to jump in

It seems like long term, as more companies take bitcoins, its going to bring price down.  No one wants to go through the hassle of buying more bitcoins once they spend them, or buy some and risk waiting 4 days (with coinbase) just to see them worth less by the time they can use them. 

[My Name Was Taken]

I think new people will only come when a clear bottom has been found, too many price speculations are going on. The long term chart doesn't look particulalry attractive for people to jump in

It seems like long term, as more companies take bitcoins, its going to bring price down.  No one wants to go through the hassle of buying more bitcoins once they spend them, or buy some and risk waiting 4 days (with coinbase) just to see them worth less by the time they can use them. 

It only only be easier to get coins in the future. I don't think that will be much of an issue. Look how much easier it is to buy coins now than it was 18 months ago, where there were no companies doing this. Now there are several large companies converting fiat to btc. As btc continues to be adopted, it will be easier to obtain, and the price will probably be more stable too.

As to whether this long term downward trend we've been on will continue, I couldn't say. And I actually don't know if more merchant adoption helps or hurts price. On the one hand, more merchants in theory should equate to more people using the coin, thus more demand. On the other hand, no merchant holds bitcoins, they immediately convert to fiat, so this is a huge negative on the supply side, as merchants are constantly selling.

[Professor Plums]

I think new people will only come when a clear bottom has been found, too many price speculations are going on. The long term chart doesn't look particulalry attractive for people to jump in

The price is entirely speculative, and how will we ever know when a 'clear bottom has been found'?

[My Name Was Taken]

I think new people will only come when a clear bottom has been found, too many price speculations are going on. The long term chart doesn't look particulalry attractive for people to jump in

The price is entirely speculative, and how will we ever know when a 'clear bottom has been found'?

Exactly, and how many "bottoms" have been found already?

[username18333]

I think new people will only come when a clear bottom has been found, too many price speculations are going on. The long term chart doesn't look particulalry attractive for people to jump in

The price is entirely speculative, and how will we ever know when a 'clear bottom has been found'?

There should be a term for a debt that big. How come US accumulated that big of a debt?

Because they meddle with everything and meddling with everything uses money. Thats why.

You're getting there.

The 50 years of war left England in financial ruin. The government officials went begging for loans from guess who, and the deal proposed resulted in a government sanctioned, privately owned bank which could produce money from nothing, essentially legally counterfeiting a national currency for private gain.

Now the politicians had a source from which to borrow all the money they wanted to borrow, and the debt created was secured against public taxes.

You would think someone would have seen through this, and realised they could produce their own money and owe no interest, but instead the Bank of England has been used as a model and now nearly every nation has a Central Bank with fractional reserve banking at its core.

These central banks have the power to take over a nations economy and become that nations real governing force. What we have here is a scam of mammoth proportions covering what is actually a hidden tax, being collected by private concerns.

The country sells bonds to the bank in return for money it cannot raise in taxes. The bonds are paid for by money produced from thin air. The government pays interest on the money it borrowed by borrowing more money in the same way. There is no way this debt can ever be paid, it has and will continue to increase.

If the government did find a way to pay off the debt, the result would be that there would be no bonds to back the currency, so to pay the debt would be to kill the currency.

(Emphasis mine.)

When bitcoins are loaned by their miners with interest to be paid in bitcoins, they will find their bottom—both ethically and monetarily.

[My Name Was Taken]

When bitcoins are loaned by their miners with interest to be paid in bitcoins, they will find their bottom—both ethically and monetarily.

What's wrong with loaning bitcoins? Loans have been around for as long as there was money. No reason to think the rise of bitcoin would end the demand for loans.

[username18333]

When bitcoins are loaned by their miners with interest to be paid in bitcoins, they will find their bottom—both ethically and monetarily.

What's wrong with loaning bitcoins? Loans have been around for as long as there was money. No reason to think the rise of bitcoin would end the demand for loans.

In a world where the things we need and use go bad, sharing comes naturally. The hoarder ends up sitting alone atop a pile of stale bread, rusty tools, and spoiled fruit, and no one wants to help him, for he has helped no one. Money today, however, is not like bread, fruit, or indeed any natural object. It is the lone exception to nature’s law of return, the law of life, death, and rebirth, which says that all things ultimately return to their source. Money does not decay over time, but in its abstraction from physicality, it remains changeless or even grows with time, exponentially, thanks to the power of interest.

Monetary gain, within the context of “loaning,” is, traditionally, realized via positive interest—which is an artificial scarcity. Artificial scarcity reserves, for itself, resources that, without its imposition, could be allocated to greater machinations.

[My Name Was Taken]

When bitcoins are loaned by their miners with interest to be paid in bitcoins, they will find their bottom—both ethically and monetarily.

What's wrong with loaning bitcoins? Loans have been around for as long as there was money. No reason to think the rise of bitcoin would end the demand for loans.

In a world where the things we need and use go bad, sharing comes naturally. The hoarder ends up sitting alone atop a pile of stale bread, rusty tools, and spoiled fruit, and no one wants to help him, for he has helped no one. Money today, however, is not like bread, fruit, or indeed any natural object. It is the lone exception to nature’s law of return, the law of life, death, and rebirth, which says that all things ultimately return to their source. Money does not decay over time, but in its abstraction from physicality, it remains changeless or even grows with time, exponentially, thanks to the power of interest.

Monetary gain, within the context of “loaning,” is, traditionally, realized via positive interest—which is an artificial scarcity. Artificial scarcity reserves, for itself, resources that, without its imposition, could be allocated to greater machinations.

Obviously if I'm taking a loan, I know I have to pay it back with interest, which means I will have less money later. That means I've made the decision that having the money now is more important than having more money later. Again, why is that bad?

[username18333]

When bitcoins are loaned by their miners with interest to be paid in bitcoins, they will find their bottom—both ethically and monetarily.

What's wrong with loaning bitcoins? Loans have been around for as long as there was money. No reason to think the rise of bitcoin would end the demand for loans.

In a world where the things we need and use go bad, sharing comes naturally. The hoarder ends up sitting alone atop a pile of stale bread, rusty tools, and spoiled fruit, and no one wants to help him, for he has helped no one. Money today, however, is not like bread, fruit, or indeed any natural object. It is the lone exception to nature’s law of return, the law of life, death, and rebirth, which says that all things ultimately return to their source. Money does not decay over time, but in its abstraction from physicality, it remains changeless or even grows with time, exponentially, thanks to the power of interest.

Monetary gain, within the context of “loaning,” is, traditionally, realized via positive interest—which is an artificial scarcity. Artificial scarcity reserves, for itself, resources that, without its imposition, could be allocated to greater machinations.

Obviously if I'm taking a loan, I know I have to pay it back with interest, which means I will have less money later. That means I've made the decision that having the money now is more important than having more money later. Again, why is that bad?

My reply has the following two versions: (a) "Interest constrains the pursuit of ends for the pursuit of means," and (b) "Because, though you are not, you are restrained as if you were." (See my emboldened text above.)

[My Name Was Taken]

When bitcoins are loaned by their miners with interest to be paid in bitcoins, they will find their bottom—both ethically and monetarily.

What's wrong with loaning bitcoins? Loans have been around for as long as there was money. No reason to think the rise of bitcoin would end the demand for loans.

In a world where the things we need and use go bad, sharing comes naturally. The hoarder ends up sitting alone atop a pile of stale bread, rusty tools, and spoiled fruit, and no one wants to help him, for he has helped no one. Money today, however, is not like bread, fruit, or indeed any natural object. It is the lone exception to nature’s law of return, the law of life, death, and rebirth, which says that all things ultimately return to their source. Money does not decay over time, but in its abstraction from physicality, it remains changeless or even grows with time, exponentially, thanks to the power of interest.

Monetary gain, within the context of “loaning,” is, traditionally, realized via positive interest—which is an artificial scarcity. Artificial scarcity reserves, for itself, resources that, without its imposition, could be allocated to greater machinations.

Obviously if I'm taking a loan, I know I have to pay it back with interest, which means I will have less money later. That means I've made the decision that having the money now is more important than having more money later. Again, why is that bad?

My reply has the following two versions: (a) "Interest constrains the pursuit of ends for the pursuit of means," and (b) "Because, though you are not, you are restrained as if you were." (See my emboldened text above.)

Sorry, I just can't follow whatever point you're trying to get across.   

[username18333]

When bitcoins are loaned by their miners with interest to be paid in bitcoins, they will find their bottom—both ethically and monetarily.

What's wrong with loaning bitcoins? Loans have been around for as long as there was money. No reason to think the rise of bitcoin would end the demand for loans.

In a world where the things we need and use go bad, sharing comes naturally. The hoarder ends up sitting alone atop a pile of stale bread, rusty tools, and spoiled fruit, and no one wants to help him, for he has helped no one. Money today, however, is not like bread, fruit, or indeed any natural object. It is the lone exception to nature’s law of return, the law of life, death, and rebirth, which says that all things ultimately return to their source. Money does not decay over time, but in its abstraction from physicality, it remains changeless or even grows with time, exponentially, thanks to the power of interest.

Monetary gain, within the context of “loaning,” is, traditionally, realized via positive interest—which is an artificial scarcity. Artificial scarcity reserves, for itself, resources that, without its imposition, could be allocated to greater machinations.

Obviously if I'm taking a loan, I know I have to pay it back with interest, which means I will have less money later. That means I've made the decision that having the money now is more important than having more money later. Again, why is that bad?

My reply has the following two versions: (a) "Interest constrains the pursuit of ends for the pursuit of means," and (b) "Because, though you are not, you are restrained as if you were." (See my emboldened text above.)

Sorry, I just can't follow whatever point you're trying to get across.   

Interest permits one more value than (s)he creates, and, thus, reduces the perceived necessity of its production.

(Note, that "perceived reduction" does not, necessarily, correspond to more extrinsic ones.)