I was gonna complain that I hadn’t had hot chicken in a while, but then I remembered I had it on Tuesday.
i think you have the completely wrong idea about this. It’s not some libertarian ideal thing. Think of it as a computer science project instead. it’s a currency based on mathematics and checksums.
In terms of bitcoin being an experiment in using imaginary currency I’m 100% behind it. Especially for people I don’t have to bail out when they get snookered trying to speculate on it. So 99% behind it.
friedlinguini replied to your post “friedlinguini replied to your post “Serious question for the…”
And what does that full faith and credit get you? We’re not on the gold or silver standard, so it’s still just ephemera represented by bits of paper, maybe. I think the major question is what sort of legal status we want to give to digital goods, which encompasses a lot more…
That’s a serious question that deserves consideration, especially in a world where actual government-backed currency is largely digital, but I fail to see where trading imaginary currency for even more imaginary (and in practice, ridiculously unstable) currency is anything but a very long con.
It’s interesting that you mark a gold or silver standard—a gold standard is effectively benchmarking a currency against a finite supply of a material that has very little intrinsic value, outside of its shininess. As such, if functions as an impediment to economic growth—there’s only a finite amount of wealth that can be created before you hit the upper limit. The finite availability of bitcoin makes it a comparable theory even if it were a secure currency, so a bitcoin-based economy would have an upper threshold of GDP, putting a fixed ceiling on capital investment (and probably collapsing infrastructure investment, although I suppose the libertarian view is that governments have no business investing in infrastructure in the first place).
I think I understand the libertarian infatuation with bitcoin and other cryptocurrency: it theoretically removes a primary engine of economy from the hands of the big evil government and places it in the hands of the good and noble corporations, free from regulation and interference.
tl;dr: I’m not buying it. Still seems like exchanging your money for a very long number that someone says is valuable is a recipe for disaster.
You’ve basically just defined “money”. Unlike stock (or money for that matter) the total supply of Bitcoin is finite.
Yes, but “money” has “the full faith and credit” of a government backing it up, and “stock” has a company’s assets and income to back it up. Bitcoin has…a gentlemen’s agreement? An army of speculators? Neal Stephenson’s science fiction stories?
I understand the theory, but all I can see is a whole bunch of tech folks staring longingly at an emperor’s engorged penis and saying “that is ONE NICE pair of trousers.”
I can hear the Winklevoss twins going, “Shhhhhh, shut up, man.”
How is using a cryptocurrency any different from, say, using common shares of a company stock as a barter for goods and services? I can’t see any evidence that makes Bitcoin anything other than a well-publicized* pyramid scheme relying on late adopters to bolster the value of the currency of early adopters.
* Editing to add a footnote: Not particularly well-publicized outside of internet circles. Once some clever bitcoin afficionado starts advertising on Fox News** about bitcoin being a safe place to put your money when Obama comes for your guns, all bets are off.
** When this happens, a lot of 30-50 year old folks will suddenly be wondering how they’re gonna afford Grandma’s nursing home.