I don’t want to read novels that way, but I’d LOVE to get through academic journals with it. See also: catching up on blogs and email.
Francis Bacon is noted as saying “Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.” The man’s name was Bacon, so he knew from tasting and devouring.
Which is to say I’ll read whatever books I want any damn way I want.*
* Usually while looking like an idiot on an elliptical machine, unless the internet signal is good, in which case I’m probably checking Twitter instead.
Look up Andreas Antonopoulos, his articles and interviews (such as the one he did with Joe Rogan on the Joe Rogan Experience recently), will fill you in on everything you need to know about bitcoin, and hopefully any questions you may have.
I was actually hoping to have an answer to my question that didn’t involve wasting a whole bunch of time digging through crap on the internet. I DID notice this on the official Bitcoin FAQ page, which seems to confirm my suspicions:
Early adopters profit from the rise in value. Late adopters, and indeed, society as a whole, benefit from the usefulness of a stable, fast, inexpensive, and widely accepted p2p currency.
Which seems to indicate that yes, early adopters are hoping to get rich off of everyone else—the only difference is that they’re being up front about it, so it’s not “really” a Ponzi scheme, because they’re not saying the late adopters will get rich, too.
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.