is the "internet industry" opposed to bitcoin?

[paulie_w]

it's really strange to me that a lot of internet industry folks, a lot of otherwise really smart people, seem to be taking a very defensive stance against bitcoin.

i am trying to understand the reason for that: bitcoin remains one of the most innovative ideas ever to be developed, and the people who are rejecting it the most "coldly" seem to be people who work in an industry that allegedly is all about disruption and embracing the new. is bitcoin _too_ innovative?

has someone that a lot of these folks respect spoken authoritatively against bitcoin, and I've simply missed it? i often read people from the internet industry citing krugman and the first quora post in which some guy named Adam (who apparently works for an online sports ticketing company) tears it to pieces, but there are just as many good counter-arguments in that post.

does bitcoin contradict an "expert class" of some sort, perhaps? the opposition often says "you know nothing about economics", when bitcoin is brought up.

perhaps the upset and opposition mostly stem from the fact that "internet industry" players cannot control it?

i ask all of this, simply because i haven't been convinced of its faults by any of the arguments i've seen, and i am continually confused by the fact that these productive people aren't all going crazy with excitement about this project.

thoughts?

[mystery2048]

Alot of people seem to be opposed to bitcoin... 

[julz]

I think you're close to the mark.. but perhaps it's more that most venture capitalists (and people who are already wealthy in general) are skeptical of it and the "internet industry" is echoing that.
I suspect also that much negative bitcoin sentiment is driven by how journalists report on it, and most journalists are much more geared towards looking at the past than looking forward.  

[AmazonStuff]

People tend to be afraid of the things they don't know, they are afraid of competition. Just look at industrial revolution, workers attacked factories and destroyed machinery, but after certain period of time they accepted those changes. Currently, internet companies have some kind of monopoly, if something (bitcoin) enable more players (around the world) with better offer (lower price for the same item) to appear on the market, it's clear that many of "current internet people" will be upset.

[Boussac]

Most economic "experts" in the media are computer illiterate and do not even know precisely how a payment system works (let alone the internet or bitcoin).

As a result they are mesmerized by bitcoin as a new "libertarian" currency and fail to see that it is most and foremost "money over ip".

Let's build bitcoin as a new payment processing network and will see how things unfold for bitcoin as a currency 

[anu]

Alot of people seem to be opposed to bitcoin... 

A lot of people in IT opposed the Internet in 1993. Took 6 years. In 1999 they said it all along how great the Internet is.

[waspoza]

Alot of people seem to be opposed to bitcoin... 

A lot of people in IT opposed the Internet in 1993. Took 6 years. In 1999 they said it all along how great the Internet is.

Exactly.

[kiba]

A venture capitalist already made a bet on bitcoin and his name is PG. The rest will follow.


Why? They don't wanna miss the next Google.

[DannyHamilton]

While I have no solid proof of it, I suspect that a significant portion of the "internet industry" that has any understanding of economics and how currency works, has their roots firmly planted in Keynesian macroeconomic theories.  Bitcoin as in experiment that runs counter to these theories, and as such counter to their understanding of what can work in the long run.  Some of them find it to be an interesting as a small scale model, but still have doubts that it can survive its shortcomings relative to the theories they've grown to accept.  In the end, either Keynesain theories will be upended and a new macroeconomic theory will take hold, or bitcoin will never grow beyond being a curious experiment in how an economy reacts to controlled forced deflation.

[markm]

Uh, wait a sec there... I thought the theory about Keynsianism is that it does not represent an understanding of economics and how currency works. You seem to be trying to have it both ways...

-MarkM-

[Vladimir]

Indeed it seems Bitcoin somehow very often intuitively disturbs many people. It often inspires modern day Luddism.

At the same time, most loud criticism of Bitcoin apparently is derived mostly from ignorance.

[uuidman]

Yes one would argue that the internet industry would be more open-minded and aware of disruptive technology than general. I think it boils down to time, you must really take your time and really grasp all the concepts to see how innovative it really is.

[ColdHardMetal]

Indeed it seems Bitcoin somehow very often intuitively disturbs many people. It often inspires modern day Luddism.

It's true. There's some kind of visceral response to the concept that I just don't really understand.

[tatsuchan]

If it sounds too good to be true it ISN'T.

....who the hell would have guessed that for once it is true!  When you say the word money and internet in the same sentence people roll their eyes.  It's going to take a lot of advertising that isn't on the net to make bitcoin work.  We need commercials, willing vendors, and reliable/safe systems to give/receive bitcoin.  There are lots of things underway, so maybe we'll see this soon.

[DeathAndTaxes]

There is a lot of potential in next generation payment platforms.  Mobile, international, eCommerce.  VISA/MC just don't cut it.  We continue to them like a round peg in a square hole because credit cards are nearly universal but it is obvious to EVERYONE (even the largest Bitcoin detractors) that SOMETHING new is needed.  Many "internet industry" companies are planning, launching, or funding "the next gen payment platform".   If Bitcoin succeeds it destroys all those platforms.  

The profit potential of being the next VISA is likely measured in trillions of USD over the next century or so.  Sure companies could profit from Bitcoin but it is open and that means lower barriers to entry, siff competitions, and smaller margins.  There also isn't the nearly guaranteed profit stream that being "the next VISA" would produces.  They will continue to attack it until its rise is all but assured and then start pretending they have backed it all along.

The good news is the utility of Bitcoin is real.

[kiba]

There is a lot of potential in next generation payment platforms.  Mobile, international, eCommerce.  VISA/MC just do cut it.  We continue to use a round peg in a square hole because it is nearly universal but it is obvious to EVERYONE (even the largest Bitcoin detractors) that SOMETHING new is needed.  Many "internet industry" companies are planning, launching, or funding "the next gen payment platform".   Bitcoin ruins all that. 

The profit potential of being the next VISA is likely measured in trillions of USD over the next century or so.  Sure companies could profit from Bitcoin but it is open and that means margins are likely smaller and there is never a guaranteed profit stream.  They will continue to attack it until its rise is all but assured and then start pretending they have backed it all along.

The good news is the utility of Bitcoin is real.

If you can get in early, you can just sit on your butt doing nothing while bitcoin become a trillion dollars success story, but that's dependent on bitcoin succeeding.

Everyone wants to own their own platform, but sometime there's just more slices of a bigger pie to be have in joining the Bitcoin army. The sooner companies realize this, everyone else is a goner(unless they also join the army).

[hazek]

Indeed it seems Bitcoin somehow very often intuitively disturbs many people. It often inspires modern day Luddism.

It's true. There's some kind of visceral response to the concept that I just don't really understand.

It all boils down to people and their ability to think. Thinking correctly is not something we are born with but is taught by parents, family, friends, teachers, gurus, ect. And unfortunately most people "learned" the most about thinking in public school where a lot of mere opinions disguised as facts were shoved down their throats and demanded to be regurgitated instead of actually shown how and more specifically with which correct thought processes they were derived by. Few people learned to think correctly is what I'm trying to say and it shows when they encounter complex problems of which economics is arguably the most complex of all sciences if it can be even called that.

Plus, never forget the human nature of looking to authority for correct answers and we all know what and how they think..


But this isn't really a problem. Just like teaching people that the Earth is not the center of the universe and being scorned for it couldn't stop the truth from being eventually learned by everyone so too the truth about what makes money a good money will eventually be learned by everyone. If not for theoretical reasons it will certainly happen for practical reasons.

Count yourselves lucky you learned to think properly so you wont need to learn the hard way why we are right.

[kiba]

Plus, never forget the human nature of looking to authority for correct answers and we all know what and how they think..

If you have to think for yourself, it would take forever. Plus, there's limited memory space in your brain, so you can't know everything. What you do is rely on rule of thumbs, black boxes, and source of authorative knowledge(such as your parents). This have vast implication for humanity that people like to ignore when they build governments, corporations, and any kind of organizations.

[markm]

Plus, never forget the human nature of looking to authority for correct answers and we all know what and how they think..

If you have to think for yourself, it would take forever. Plus, there's limited memory space in your brain, so you can't know everything. What you do is rely on rule of thumbs, black boxes, and source of authorative knowledge(such as your parents). This have vast implication for humanity that people like to ignoreexploit when they build governments, corporations, and any kind of organizations.

FTFY.

-MarkM-

[majamalu]

Remember: people used to fear the email.