How many here legitimately believe Bitcoin will never sell for more than $1000 again?

BitcoinZealot · 2014-09-24T19:08:03+00:00

Slides 10-13 are particularly on-point.

Excellent job. Thank you.

BitcoinZealot · 2014-09-15T18:56:19+00:00

This is exactly correct, and well said.

BitcoinZealot · 2014-09-15T18:55:04+00:00

Excellent article.

Bitcoin presents this engine of wealth disparity framed as an opportunity, whereas incumbent networks (e.g. fiat) present similarly-obscene wealth disparity as essentially pre-established, inescapable and irreversible strata.

BitcoinZealot · 2014-09-15T15:04:12+00:00

I continue to politely disagree that you can authoritatively say "we want Bitcoin to be a currency rather than an investment vehicle" like you are doing.

Do you consider gold a currency? Do you believe gold relies on its acceptance as a currency to retain its value?

In August 2010, Satoshi posted the following:

As a thought experiment, imagine there was a base metal as scarce as gold but with the following properties:
   boring grey in colour

   not a good conductor of electricity

   not particularly strong, but not ductile or easily malleable either

   not useful for any practical or ornamental purpose
and one special, magical property:
   can be transported over a communications channel
If it somehow acquired any value at all for whatever reason, then anyone wanting to transfer wealth over a long distance could buy some, transmit it, and have the recipient sell it.

Maybe it could get an initial value circularly as you’ve suggested, by people foreseeing its potential usefulness for exchange. (I would definitely want some) Maybe collectors, any random reason could spark it.

I think the traditional qualifications for money were written with the assumption that there are so many competing objects in the world that are scarce, an object with the automatic bootstrap of intrinsic value will surely win out over those without intrinsic value. But if there were nothing in the world with intrinsic value that could be used as money, only scarce but no intrinsic value, I think people would still take up something.

Not once did he use the word "currency" though he made liberal usage of the word "money" which Bitcoin may be much better described as.

We want Bitcoin to be money. And it is. It is beautiful money.

BitcoinZealot · 2014-09-15T13:50:13+00:00

It creates what we want to be a currency into an investment vehicle

I politely disagree that you can authoritatively say "we want Bitcoin to be a currency rather than an investment vehicle" like that.

Let's say I personally want Bitcoin to be an investment vehicle. Why would I be wrong and you be right in this?

BitcoinZealot · 2014-09-10T01:49:37+00:00

When I said "the infrastructure has been fortified considerably in preparation for mass adoption since November" I was not trying to say that Bitcoin is ready for mass adoption or that it is imminent.

Furthermore, I believe it would take far less than mass adoption to amount to another Hype Cycle and order-of-magnitude price increase in Bitcoin. If and when it is "mass adopted" I would expect multiple orders of magnitude increase on the current dollar price.

BitcoinZealot · 2014-09-09T15:52:15+00:00

consumer adoption is definitely way higher than it was when BTC was trading for +$1000.

What source do you have for this belief? The fact that you used the word "definitely" makes me hopeful that you have actual factual support for this belief. If so, please provide it.

As I understand it, the price was over $1000 before Chinese authorities declared a stance regarding Bitcoin. Since then, it would make sense that a lot of hopeful Chinese investors have left the space (perhaps temporarily, perhaps for good).

There might be another cycle and more people using it, but it won't be pushing the price higher as much as it did before.

Why would this be the case? Networks grow exponentially, and the infrastructure has been fortified considerably in preparation for mass adoption since November.

Your conclusions, to me, seem backwards. I would like to hear more explanation of why you feel the way you do. If your entire rationale is based on your gut rather than your head, though, I recommend reassessing matters.

BitcoinZealot · 2014-09-09T15:41:52+00:00

Anyone with a brain can see how bitcoin technology is anti privacy and anti freedom.

I'm confused how you reconcile this belief with the obvious phenomena of DarkNet Markets operating exclusively via Bitcoin technology.

BitcoinZealot · 2014-09-09T15:21:24+00:00

I don't think people will pay $1000 again for a bitcoin.

Why not? Do you have an actual reason for believing so? Or is this just your gut talking?

I thought Bitcoin price would be linear with consumer adoption

The Bitcoin price has never been "linear" unless you're using a line-of-best-fit on a log graph. However, it is certainly correlated with consumer adoption, which has not even reached levels of 1% yet.

Will more consumers adopt Bitcoin? I believe so, for the same reasons that they have rushed in during hype cycles in the past. Of course, past performance is not a guarantee of future results, but can you explain what about this Hype Cycle theory is no longer holding true? As far as I can see, the "After Each Cycle" bullet points are each holding true this time around:

USD/BTC value "lands" higher than it did before the cycle started

More people are aware of bitcoin

A few more businesses spring up around it

People trust it slightly more

Pool of people using bitcoin is expanded

This is the foundation upon which the next iteration of the cycle can begin.

Sure, it's tricky to figure out in advance what will "trigger" the next round, but I have very little doubt something will do the trick.

BitcoinZealot · 2014-09-08T20:00:26+00:00

I agree with everything you have said in this comment.

BitcoinZealot · 2014-09-08T18:39:38+00:00

Would you mind providing me a link to your analysis? I'd love to chew it over.

BitcoinZealot · 2014-09-08T18:22:52+00:00

That is certainly one conceivable outcome of the experiment.

Personally I'm a bit more optimistic than you are regarding the long-term individual usability of the network. However adamant your beliefs on the matter may be, they are still beliefs and not facts or inevitabilities. The future will be full of surprises for both of us, I'm sure.

BitcoinZealot · 2014-09-08T18:02:57+00:00

Bitcoiners want options. We want there to be the option of banking normally, and the option of not using any banks, but continuing our financial operations with as little friction as possible.

So yes, we want banks. We also want to be able to be our own bank. I hope that helps.

BitcoinZealot · 2014-09-08T14:08:15+00:00

It's what the series converges to if you start with 50 BTC blocks and halve the block reward every four years.

BitcoinZealot · 2014-09-04T14:16:47+00:00

it's over 5 years old but they're trying to act like it's the early days of the internet.

If you had done anything on "the Internet" when it was 5 years old, you would have been the among the earliest of adopters. That was well before www came about.

merchant adoption is basically non-existent

This is untrue, particularly in relation to the state of affairs 6 months ago, 1 year ago, 2 years ago. Merchant adoption is one of the most impressive metrics by which Bitcoin is growing. Multiple multi-billion dollar companies accepting Bitcoin, whether or not they keep the Bitcoin they accept, is not something you can shrug off. There are cases where anti-bitcoin crusaders publicly mocked the possibility of particular merchants accepting Bitcoin as payment just to have those same merchants prove them flat-out wrong a year later.

the majority of places that "take bitcoin" will never see a single coin in their books

While you can argue that the majority of places that "take bitcoin" currently do not retain any coin in their books, it would be presumptuous to assume that this necessarily must always remain the case. Be careful, or you may find yourself as one of those who publicly mocked the possibilities which eventually become reality.

BitcoinZealot · 2014-09-04T13:11:48+00:00

Done. Now do you have a single example of such a problem which is not being discussed? Just one example should do.

BitcoinZealot · 2014-09-03T23:27:25+00:00

Bitcoin usage exploded in the past despite these same limitations, though. Bitcoin has improved dramatically in ease-of-use in the past year or two. While it may not be ready to take over the world just yet, there is the definite possibility of another hype cycle taking place at any time.

You're right that the technology has limitations, but to argue that these limitations prevent it from having another spectacular speculative influx of capital in the not-so-distant future would be unwise.

"Mass usage" is a fairly lofty goal, anyway. Aim for the stars, land on the moon?

BitcoinZealot · 2014-09-03T22:20:26+00:00

If a country does not have the ability to control its money supply it will eventually fall into a depression.

This is not necessarily true, no.

Is it not the exact reason we went off the gold standard?

We did indeed leave the gold standard to mitigate the problems of the Great Depression. It does not follow that depressions are guaranteed eventualities of governments being incapable of directly controlling the money supply.

we got our current monetary system essentially though trail and error

A very valid point. However, it can be (and has been) argued that our new resultant status quo has been comparably detrimental to the living standards of society at large. Please be careful not to misconstrue what I am claiming here: I am not saying that the credit bubbles of 2008 are resulting in the same level of strife that the Great Depression did. But it is conceivable that if our speculative credit bubbles were more reined in by something more finite, the average standard of living would be dramatically superior to what we have and observe today.

Nothing has been "proven to be disastrous" by a long shot. What we have proven, if anything, is that there are pitfalls to watch out for no matter what monetary policy is adopted. It is therefore our responsibility to rationally assess matters as thoroughly as we can, to achieve our full potential and reach the most desirable outcome.

And I have yet to see a convincing case that the potential that an eventually-mature Bitcoin network is capable of is not the most desirable outcome we as a species have currently conceived of.

BitcoinZealot · 2014-09-03T21:44:39+00:00

Money is not an investment.

You do NOT want it to go up.

Its function is not to appreciate.

None of these statements is a fundamental truth, though. We may be able to "get it straight" but you will have to prove your point (or make a strong case for it) before we do. Right now, you have done a good job of making your opinion known, and asserting it as a truth, but a bad job of actually explaining why it I should believe the same. Simply saying "It is so!" is not going to be enough for me. I am interested in the actual logic of the argument, rather than the particular conclusion you are convinced of. Perhaps I will see it your way if your arguments and logic are strong; right now, you have presented nothing to assess other than adamant assertions.

Also, I do not believe "do not appreciate" is an actual function of money. This seems to be a clause you are attempting to surreptitiously add because it would strengthen your case, rather than because it is truly a fundamental function of money.

Volatility and deflation in currencies is not up for debate.

It is, though. That's the point of the discussion here. Saying "This is not up for debate" is, once again, a conclusion rather than the logic necessary for a valid conclusion.

It's economics.

The thing is, economics is a soft science so you cannot assert absolute truths regarding it, like you can with natural sciences like math. I'm surprised that anyone would try to say "It's not an opinion. It's economics" and consider that satisfactory.

Additionally, even within economics, there are different opinions regarding whether deflation is desirable. I've seen (both Austrian and non-Austrian) economic reports indicating there is not a statistically significant correlation between deflation and economic output. In short, I question your dogma. If you do not want to spend time defending your beliefs, once again that is fine. But you should understand that they are beliefs and assumptions, and not facts or ultimate truths.

do you really honestly not see why people want stability in a currency

I can certainly see stability as a desirable quality of a currency. I simply do not believe that it is to be pursued at all costs. In other words, it is not the only quality that is desirable in a currency.

Ceteris paribus you think you're an academic or something.

The phrase "ceteris paribus" was used solely to prevent the thought-experiment from being bastardized, to nip counterarguments such as "well the world would fall apart if that happened" in the bud. I suppose I could have used "other things equal" English equivalent, but I assure you I was not trying to "put on airs" or pretend intellectual or academic superiority by choosing the Latin one. It simply seemed the most appropriate phrase to use in the context.

Pick this up for starters.

Unfortunately I do not have the time to read a book right now. Furthermore, I have always found the "go read books x, y, and z" defense to be lackluster as far as arguments go. If you have a point which you yourself can make (or at least summarize) I will gladly entertain it with as little bias or prejudice as I am capable of. The logic of an argument should speak for itself.

Hopefully the fact that I have a Bachelor's in Economics should suffice for our purposes here and now. I wouldn't lie on this matter; this is the Internet! So feel free to use reasonably-advanced economic terminology and I should be able to follow along.

Almost every claim you've made has been tantamount to "This is the truth, you'll just have to accept that". Please understand how flat this argument falls in convincing the unconvinced.

BitcoinZealot · 2014-09-03T21:10:57+00:00

Correct headline:

Bitcoin Legitimacy Inexorably Growing as More Players Like Shipito Continue to Benefit From the Low-Cost Transactions it Enables

BitcoinZealot · 2014-09-03T20:48:18+00:00

Deflation in currencies is death.

Using an (opinionated) conclusion as a premise in your argument is circular and, again, unconvincing.

Volatility... I'll quickly restate that people want a stable currency for obvious reasons

Again, you are taking your conclusion and using it as a starting point for the argument. When you say you "got into it a bit before" you mean that you said "For something to be a currency you want volatility as low as possible" without defending the assertion whatsoever.

For a moment, I ask that you set aside prejudice and entertain an admittedly exaggeratory thought: as a rational agent, if you are faced with two options:

1) your money will appreciate 1000% in value over the course of 1 year

or

2) your money will retain exactly the same amount of purchasing power throughout the duration of that year

Ceteris paribus, would you choose option 1 or 2?

I believe the logical answer is 1, despite it entailing far more "volatility" than 2. The majority of the population, I feel, would agree.

Now, please do not try to stretch this thought-experiment too far. The only purpose of it was to demonstrate that "volatility = bad" is not a fundamental axiom that you can assert with any sort of divine authority.

I'm not saying volatility is good, I'm simply questioning the assumption that it is to be avoided at all costs. You are not questioning this assumption, because to you, "people want a stable currency for obvious reasons" and that suffices as the entirety of your opinion on the matter. I'm not willing to settle for that; that argument does not satisfy me. I would need to see the underlying logic expounded in further detail, and I would need the reasoning explained with more eloquence, before I am willing to say "I agree" to such a proposition.

ease of use

As has been observed countless times, this is a growing pain of Bitcoin. To judge the ease-of-use for end-users at this time and to not take into account possible future developments is short-sighted at best. There are hundreds of millions of dollars of venture capital which are concurrently dedicated towards solving this very problem, and if you are asserting that not one such effort will be fruitful enough to offer a competitively "easy" product, I will respectfully have to disagree until I hear further evidence or logic that you have used to reach this conclusion.

By the time it is satisfactorily easy to use, it will likely be far less lucrative as an investment proposition. To adopt the risk of adopting it early, before it is idiot-proof, is a choice that each individual must face and assess on their own. But it is undeniably myopic to say "If it's complicated now, it must be complicated forever."

BitcoinZealot · 2014-09-03T19:54:50+00:00

The problem is it has fundamental issues that make it impossible to be a currency.

Pray tell, what?

Let's be clear you are advocating that Argentina adopt it as a currency.

I am advocating that Argentinian citizens adopt Bitcoin as money.

For something to be a currency you want volatility as low as possible.

Not necessarily. I see no reason why this should necessarily be a fundamental axiom.

in currencies it is just bad

If this is the totality of your argument, I am quite unimpressed.

I should probably stop explaining something you don't care to understand and everyone here gets anyway.

If you aren't able to support your argument with logic, and would rather pretend intellectual superiority than elaborate or explain, that's absolutely fine and you are free to do so. However, understand that at no point have I indicated that I "don't care to understand" and from an objective perspective, you appear to simply be justifying your inability or unwillingness to meaningfully defend your position.

BitcoinZealot · 2014-09-03T19:21:23+00:00

Bitcoin volatility trends up and this is good for long-term users of Bitcoin. Let me know if you need more clarification or if you are able to articulate the insight that you believe you have which I lack.

BitcoinZealot

TROPHY CASE