Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Gary North Destroys Bitcoin

This is North's best column on Bitcoin yet. It is a must read.

The only thing I would add is that some Bitcoin proponents argue that Bitcoin is better for retailers because there is no fee involved with transactions. This ignores the fact that if Bitcoin ever becomes a serious competitor to Visa, Master Card and America Express, the the credit card lobbyists will be meeting with legislators faster than you can say Satoshi Nakamoto to promote legislation that will eliminate any Bitcoin edge.

Bottom line: This Bitcoin edge will never become available at a broad scale retail level in the US. It has no chance zero. And since Bitcoin is far from the anonymous instrument that many Bitcion holders believe, there really is no benefit to holding bitcoins---and much price decline vulnerability.

61 comments:

  1. It's a good column by North. I think someone in the comment section here on an earlier post a few days pissed him off by suggesting that he didn't "understand Bitcoin" partially due to his age.

    lmao!

    I wish a had a nickel(really!) every time a Bitcoin champion declared in a debate that the person opposite "didn't understand" Bitcoin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Age has nothing to do with his lack of understanding. His lack of knowledge about practical cryptography and the design of this particular peer to peer network are.

      I'm not "pro" or "anti" bitcoin, btw. But I have noticed that the "antis" tend to be on the side of using conflation, strawman arguments, or proffer arguments based on a lack of understanding of the protocol. Then there's the categorical error of arguing about what the future state will be when, as Mises described, the future is unknown and that such prognostications aren't scientific, they're just based on one's individual understanding and opinion.

      Delete
    2. Rather wish you had a btc for everytime.

      Delete
  2. Is there any historical precedent of the US Govt enacting statutes to force an industry to charge a transaction fee? Of course they can try to do whatever they want, but that doesn't mean they always get to.

    I suspect Gary doesn't have a strong understanding of the the Bitcoin protocol or what "peer to peer" means. That's what bitcoin is, a network protocol for decentralized transaction processing. Since Bitcoin is peer to peer and decentralized, who would be collecting the fee, exactly? And what for? Bitcoin works nothing like existing payment networks.

    This is the best article describing how the Bitcoin protocol works I've encountered, yet, covering the design of Bitcoin and the reasons for the architectural decisions that were made.

    http://www.michaelnielsen.org/ddi/how-the-bitcoin-protocol-actually-works/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I suspect Gary doesn't have a strong understanding of the the Bitcoin protocol or what "peer to peer" means. "

      Ding! Ding! Ding! Another nickel for my "you don't understand Bitcoin" jar!

      Btw, it was RW, NOT NORTH, suggesting that the CC companies will be doing "something" about Bitcoin via lobby, he didn't specify enforcement of a transaction fee-only that if Bitcoin became a serious threat to their fee they would sick the pols on Bitcoin(like simply making it illegal-but who knows what they would do with the force of gov't behind them-pick one of a million options).

      It was you that came up with all of that other stuff about "fee enforcement". Rest assured that if they decide to hammer Bitcoin, it won't be ineffectual.

      Maybe you don't understand the counter arguments to Bitcoins. :)

      Delete
    2. "Of course they can try to do whatever they want, but that doesn't mean they always get to."

      I have yet to read a comment from a bitcoin proselytizer and acolyte that suggests that they have the slightest understanding of the importance of central banking to the elite - the truly elite, not the puppets they parade on stage in government and banking.

      Central banking makes the entire system of control possible. We talk too much about how central banking is the tool for them to get rich. This is secondary - a result.

      The purpose is control. Full stop.

      The bitcoin priesthood demonstrates its naiveté by ignoring the tremendous lengths that the elite will go to in order to maintain control. This means, first and always, to protect the franchise over money and credit.

      Delete
    3. the USG doesn't have to mandate that "transaction fees" but can put in taxes or exceptionally onerous regulations that require a lot of money and time to comply with that will have the same net effect

      Delete
    4. bionic mosquito December 11, 2013 at 11:58 AM

      You wrote:

      "I have yet to read a comment from a bitcoin proselytizer and acolyte that suggests that they have the slightest understanding of the importance of central banking to the elite - the truly elite, not the puppets they parade on stage in government and banking."

      Oh, we know full well. That is why we created Bitcoin in the first place. That is why it was designed to be "censorship resistant". That is why they've been unable to crush it thus far. The fight isn't over yet - and "the honey badger of money" is bound to get its nose bloodied - but I think it will come out just fine as a free-market alternative for those who want sound money.

      Delete
    5. Socialism and the state are nothing but failures. It's funny to see alleged anarcho-capitalists pretend that it's all powerful, that the calculation problem doesn't apply to hypothesized regulation of crypto-currency, and ignore that the state has exhibited no prowess at banning much of anything.

      Anonymous, you're right, that was RW's statement, since he said "TThe only thing I would add..." I should have continued that RW also seems to misunderstand some aspects of the protocol and its design.

      "Ding! Ding! Ding! Another nickel for my "you don't understand Bitcoin" jar!" is a strawman. The arguments are much more specific than this. Bitcoin as it's used is an implementation of a complex set of network and cryptographic protocols. One may have expertise in the field of Economics, as RW does, but this doesn't also imply expertise in cryptography or network protocols or the meaning and reasoning of the design decisions just because they implement a protocol for financial transactions.

      Delete
    6. You don't think government's are powerful? Then why do we spend so much time talking about them? A gnat is not powerful. Do you see any blogs out there about fighting off gnats?

      As for your cryptography babble. All the government has to do is tell Bitcoin retail middlemen processors, such as BitPay, that they have to accept chargebacks the way Mastercard, Visa and American Express are required to and BitPay loses its low transaction fee edge, regardless if Bitcoin is written by an algorithm or on a stone tablet.

      Delete
    7. "As for your cryptography babble", EXACTLY, I was waiting for "laws of themodynamics" to pop up again.

      Jesus, the whole affair is becoming cultish, like only Bitcoiners "understand" or "know", etc.

      Delete
    8. Robert Wenzel December 11, 2013 at 12:47 PM

      If this were to happen, the merchants would simply stop using third-party payment processors and begin accepting bitcoin payments directly. They don't need the processors.

      Delete
    9. Nobody is arguing they aren't powerful, Robert. The argument here is that their power has limits and the state, due to its nature, is unable to understand the limits of their power. Your own blog presents daily poignant examples of their failures in the "War on" (Whatever).

      Robert you're stretching yourself a little here. There was no "Cryptography babble," though I could see how any discussion of the subject could sound like babble to people who aren't educated in this rather esoteric subject. If you believe there was, please quote the specific statement you believe to be "babble."

      I have taught the practical application of cryptography to software developers for over ten years and have, in a professional context, evaluated the implementation of cryptosystems as a component of testing and analyzing the security of the systems utilizing them, so it's a subject I have some expertise in. I'm not using the words as magic pixie dust, I'm painfully aware of the limitations of public key cryptosystems. But I'm also aware of their properties and what they mean from a practical standpoint. I try be very specific when talking about this kind of subject often the point of being pedantic, so I welcome the specific quote so that I may address it.

      Regarding Bitcoin and other middlemen, they are unnecessary for transactions to occur in Bitcoin, given it's nature as a distributed peer to peer protocol that requires no middlemen. In terms of chargebacks, they're currently legislated by the EFT Act. For Bitcoin to fall under this act, it has to be recognized as "funds." Not all payment cards are covered by the EFT act, specifically prepaid gift cards.

      The properties I describe are real, while the state attacks you describe are theoretical and may or may not be effective given that the state is, as we both agree, powerful, though blind and dumb.

      I look forward to your response.

      Delete
    10. Adam: “It's funny to see alleged anarcho-capitalists pretend that it's all powerful, that the calculation problem doesn't apply to hypothesized regulation of crypto-currency, and ignore that the state has exhibited no prowess at banning much of anything.”

      Three strawmen in one sentence. A trifecta. Good for you, young Adam.

      They don’t have to be omnipotent to do unfathomable evil. They don’t have to be perfect at banning something, they only have to be demonstrative with the examples they choose to make.

      HB: "The fight isn't over yet - and "the honey badger of money" is bound to get its nose bloodied..."

      In the past, they have done far more than bloodied a few noses. They do far more today in order to maintain control.

      But they have also demonstrated far more sanitary methods. They have many very well paid white-collared lieutenants to help them in this.

      Delete
    11. Bionic Mosquito, your ad hominem is a facile argument. Namecalling isn't very mature.

      I said, "It's funny to see alleged anarcho-capitalists pretend that it's all powerful"

      Welzel argues frequently that government regulation will destroy crypt-currencies. It's not entirely clear that this is possible, so my charge isn't a strawman.

      "that the calculation problem doesn't apply to hypothesized regulation of crypto-currency"

      The central-planning state is brutish and often late to the game. It doesn't understand what it tries to regulate, and it doesn't do an effective job at banning much of anything. Often, facts on the ground run much faster than their central planning can accommodate for. Peer to peer networks without a central point of attack are a real challenge to its abilities. If I made a strawman argument here, you're stuck arguing the side of the efficiency and prowess of the state. Good luck.

      I continued, "and ignore that the state has exhibited no prowess at banning much of anything.”

      Which "War on" (whatever) has been particularly effective, specifically?

      The War on (some) drugs has bloodied plenty of noses, but drugs are still widely available, for example. The war on guns has too, but it hasn't stopped statute-defined criminals from acquiring them.

      You aren't forming a logical argument, you're engaging in prognostication and speculation.

      Delete
    12. @AdamDecember 11, 2013 at 2:03 PM Your very use in calling on cryptography is babble. And you went 2x in your latest post:" I have taught the practical application of cryptography to software developers for over ten years and have, in a professional context, evaluated the implementation of cryptosystems as a component of testing and analyzing the security of the systems utilizing them, so it's a subject I have some expertise in." You are a total idiot if you think anyone using Bitcoin cares about this. Does anyone go around justifying gold as an alternative money by saying, "I have taught metallurgy for 10 years"?

      Delete
    13. Adam, I will keep this simple and short: if the state wants to crush it, it will crush it. It has done this to private banking; it can do it to bitcoin. It has done it to private banking not by being 100% perfect or omnipotent, but by being loud, lumbering, and overbearing. By making examples of a handful of individuals and institutions, the state has brought an entire industry under its heel.

      A herd of charging elephants doesn’t have to kill every single living thing in its path for those who are nearby to decide to run the other way.

      The only reason the state will not use all of its resources to crush bitcoin is if the state wants to co-opt it.

      The day might come when the state cannot crush private alternatives to money and credit. I want to hope it happens in my lifetime...however, there is still too much faith in the system by too many people for me to believe it will happen soon.

      As to engaging in prognostication and speculation...come on Adam, isn't that what we are all doing? Mine is based on logic – I see the power of the state, the power of those who benefit from the state, and the faith of too many people in the state. Yours is based on logic – the power of the algorithm.

      To paraphrase Stalin: How many divisions does the algorithm have? (Maybe I will write a post with this title! Thanks, Adam)

      As to the facile ad hominem, I apologize for referring to you as young.

      Delete
    14. Jack,

      Bitcoin is a crypto-currency that is implemented as a peer to peer network. Calling on cryptography isn't babble, it's the very basis of how Bitcoin is implemented.

      "You are a total idiot if you think anyone using Bitcoin cares about this. Does anyone go around justifying gold as an alternative money by saying, "I have taught metallurgy for 10 years"?"

      First, do you think that personal insults such as "you are an idiot" constitute an argument? I really expect better from this forum.

      Professionally, I do research and analysis of security flaws in software, networks, transaction processing systems, and such. Based on my experience at analyzing these kinds of multi-tiered systems, I teach developers how to architect and build systems which are resistant to the kinds of flaws that I identify in these kinds of systems.

      Given that Bitcoin is an implementation of a public key cryptography system conducted over a network connection and that the properties of this system that make it interesting are "security" features, where "security" means "confidentiality, integrity, availability," then yes, anyone who cares about Bitcoin *and* has even the tiniest inkling of what it is would be interested. Based on your comment, a Venn Diagram of "People who have even the vaguest understanding of Bitcoin" and "You" would never intersect.

      Delete
    15. bionic mosquito...your argument is exactly the same as one arguing for the continued eternal power of the Catholic church in the 16th century. The church will never fall, people don't want to read the Bible on their own, etc. Yet it happened. Bitcoin is the Guttenberg Press of the 21st century.

      Delete
    16. Mr. Mosquito,

      You are assuming that it can be co-opted or crushed by the US government, as they wish.

      Based on it's specific properties, neither of those are as simple as you make them out to be.

      I'm not saying what I am based on "the power of the algorithm." Based on your thinking this, either I'm not expressing what I'm saying clearly enough or you're not capable of understanding that I'm saying based on your level of knowledge of what are admittedly esoteric subjects that don't yield to a quick study. I'm not appealing to the "power" of an algorithm at all since algorithms in and of themselves possess no power. They do however have properties, as do protocols. My opinion is based on my technical expertise in understanding those properties.

      Delete
    17. Adam: “You are assuming that it can be co-opted or crushed by the US government, as they wish. Based on it's specific properties, neither of those are as simple as you make them out to be.”

      The state doesn’t need to crush bitcoin nor does the state give a hoot about the properties of the code. The weak link in the system is the humans, don’t you get it? The state will crush the humans.

      Throw a few in jail, and if that doesn’t work throw a bunch in jail. And if the state can’t find any real bitcoin outlaws, they will frame a few. How can the poor saps fight it – bitcoin is anonymous!

      Make a few very loud and public examples, and watch all but the true criminal uses for bitcoin disappear. How many are lined up for the next Adam Kokesh armed march on Washington? How many presidents have taken on the spooks since Kennedy?

      Anonymous December 11, 2013 at 5:52 PM: “…your argument is exactly the same as one arguing for the continued eternal power of the Catholic church in the 16th century.”

      I pray that one day my descendants will live in a world without a centralized, coercive state. How many generations of mosquitos from now will that be? I have no idea. Until that day comes, I expect a continuing decentralization. While we will see continuing decentralization, the very last thing the elite will give up is the control over money and credit.

      I don’t know when that day will be, but I will bet bitcoin crashes and burns long before that day comes.

      Delete
  3. "This Bitcoin edge will never become available at a broad scale retail level in the US. It has no chance zero"

    You can buy ANY product that is sold over the internet with Bitcoin RIGHT NOW. Maybe that doesn't fit your definition of "Broad Scale Retail" but it is certainly close.

    You are just howling at the moon Robert.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Destroyed" huh? Last I checked my bitcoins are trading in the $900 - $1,000 range. Maybe the rest of the market didn't get the memo?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. yeah...let me know tomorrow. My gold is trading higher than that and will never trade at zero. You can't say the same about shitcoins.

      Delete
    2. Bitcoin has reached parity with an ounce of gold twice now and we still have a lot more network effect to go and there are billions on the planet that still have to learn the benefits of bitcoin. I bet you can't send 5g of gold over the Internet to pay for goods or services. I can sure do that with bitcoin, and never have to worry about counter party risk for transport.

      Delete
    3. Really? You got into gold at $20 an ounce? Oh no wait - you didn't. I got my shit coins at $20 a piece.

      Delete
    4. so you know when I got my gold? and I use my gold as a hedge against inflation. and I can go to any pawn shop within walking distance and trade it. i can use paypal for my internet transactions. there is no benefit to shitcoins that could lose there value overnight. gold never will...but you skipped that part because you know your shitcoins might be worthless as I write this. come see me in a year...we can compare the price of gold and shitcoins...if there still are any shitcoins in a year. yawn

      Delete
  5. LOL, Gary North thinks Silk Road and Sheep Marketplace were exchanges. FAIL.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Answers to Gary North's Lame Arguments

    Lame Argument #1: First, the primary benefit that libertarian promoters of Bitcoins offer in justification of their theory that Bitcoins will become an alternative currency is this one: Bitcoins offer privacy. Paper money today offers a much greater degree of privacy that Bitcoins do, plus a whole series of other major advantages that Bitcoins do not offer.

    ANSWER: Bitcoin privacy is easy for those that know how. Google CoinJoin, CoinSwap, CryptoCurrency Exchanges, ShareSend, Off Chain Transactions, ZeroCoin, Open Transactions. We're working on making these tools better every day.

    Lame Argument #2: Second, money is the most marketable asset. Paper money is vastly more marketable than Bitcoins.

    ANSWER: Of course [paper] money is CURRENTLY the most marketable asset. The transition phase takes time.

    Lame Argument #3: Third, gold-based and silver-based digital currencies are more likely to become future world digital currency than Bitcoins.

    ANSWER: This does not work since it creates a "single point of failure". All an enemy (powerful government) has to do to destroy the bullion-backed currency is raid the facility storing the bullion. With Bitcoin, the digital currency itself becomes the commodity - with no need for backing - just like gold and silver need no "backing".

    GOOD Argument #4: Fourth, most Americans do not want privacy in their exchanges. This is manifested by the fact that they do not use the form of currency in which privacy is easily available and totally legal: greenbacks.

    ANSWER: True, most people don't want privacy. I also suspect that, given an educated choice, they will choose a currency that preserves value over one that doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bitcoin is not private. Listen to my interview this weekend on the Robert Wenzel Show, where I talk to a mathematician who is an expert on Bitcoins.

      Delete
    2. Robert, its not a mathematician you need to explain Bitcoin's workings to you, its an expert software developer. You dont even know what sort of expert to ask to set you straight about what Bitcoin is, its features and what it can do. You don't even know where to start.

      Are you accepting Bitcoin for your books like Gary North does? He does so without any problems at Mises.org but never mentions this in any of his articles; the question is why is he hiding this fact from the public, whilst attacking Bitcoin.

      Delete
    3. I'm very aware of this. That is why bitcoin tools like CoinJoin, CoinSwap, CryptoCurrency Exchanges, ShareSend, Off Chain Transactions, ZeroCoin, Open Transactions are being developed. Yes, large sums are hard to fully privatize at the moment but that will become easier as the pool of funds expands over time.

      Note the fact that most of the perpetrators of the major bitcoin heists have not been caught and then tell me that bitcoins cannot be anonymous.

      Delete
    4. Also from Sarah Mieklejohn:

      CoinDesk: As far as anonymity, you came to the conclusion that it’s not that easy to stay anonymous with bitcoin?

      SM: Actually, I’m not sure that that’s the right conclusion. I think that if you are motivated and if you understand how the Bitcoin protocol works, you can stay anonymous.

      Source:
      http://www.coindesk.com/researcher-tracks-bitcoin-movements-anonymity/

      Delete
    5. @AnonymousDecember 11, 2013 at 12:59 PM You evil lying bastard. You twist the truth. North doesn't accept Bitcoin, the Mises Institute accepts Bitcoin, which sells his books, just like Amazon, which doesn't accept Bitcoin.

      Delete
    6. Ha ha, Honeybadger's argument for shitcoins is that the thieves that have stolen it can't be caught! do you even read what you write? I'll keep my cash, gold, and silver. come see me in a year about your shitcoins.

      Delete
    7. @ Chris B December 11, 2013 at 8:16 PM

      You wrote: "come see me in a year about your shitcoins. "

      That's what people told me a year ago...and a year before that...and a year before that. The beauty of bitcoins is that their use is completely voluntary. So don't use them.

      Delete
    8. Actually what I'll do instead is this - I'll sell 10% of my shitcoins now for fiat. It comes in handy for tipping waiters and stuff.

      Then I'll sell 20% of my shitcoins to buy more gold and silver then you will ever see as a hedge (gold and silver are undervalued ATM).

      Then I'll donate another 10% of my shitcoins to Dark Wallet (look it up).

      The rest of my shitcoins I'll keep thanks - I already have more money than I will ever need, thanks to shitcoins.

      Delete
    9. that's all your shitcoins are good for...trading them for something tangible that won't lose its value overnight. that was the most intelligent thing you have written in all these posts...trading your shitcoins in now.

      Delete
    10. I noticed you didn't address the fact that the thieves can't be caught. i'll stick with cash, gold, and silver. shitcoins = pump and dump. now I don't even feel bad for those that are going to lose their shirts because of shitcoins

      Delete
  7. Gary North has in no way "destroyed" Bitcoin. All he has done is display his profound ignorance on the matter. Furthermore, Gary has de facto conceded that Bitcoin is entirely sound by trumpeting the fact that J. P. Morgan is coming out with its own Bitcoin clone that is feature identical, but which he claims will succeed simply, "because it is J. P. Morgan behind it".

    Both you and Gary North are bolstering each other in your denial of the facts of Bitcoin. You do not understand computers and software, and do not even know who to ask to explain it to you. You are both classic cases of people in a small circle without any contact with experts from other fields. Neither one of you have used Bitcoin personally, and both of you seem to dislike it for petty personal reasons, rather than for any reason that is sound or grounded in fact.

    Gary has jumped from one pretext to another in his denial of Bitcoin; and the paucity of his reasoning is now transparent. He now thinks J. P, Morgan's Bitcoin is going to succeed technically without saying why, after claiming that Bitcoin was a Ponzi Scheme, that it could be hacked, that it was too complicated for the public to understand, that it was not money, that the public doesn't want or need it, but now, by magic, because J. P. Morgan is launching its own Bitcoin, Bitcoin "will succeed". It beggars belief that a man of his prowess has failed so spectacularly to tackle this new technology.

    This intellectual dishonesty on Bitcoin is beneath both you and Gary. You should both have a cooling off period where you take time to use and understand Bitcoin yourselves, so you can give an informed opinion of what it is and what its potential is from first hand experience. If you do not do this, you are simply acting as ignorant cheerleaders without anything of substance to say on this matter.

    Despite your willful ignorance, software developers can be helped by your expertise. You are both experts on economics, and your experience and knowledge are valuable. What is not needed, and what has zero utility, is your irrational blind spot nonsense masquerading as intellectual discourse.

    As Bitcoin and the idea of Bitcoin continues to spread, you are being made more and more ridiculous. Bitcoin and the revolutionary breakthrough behind it are not going away and are growing exponentially. You need to understand the nature of this breakthrough so that you can both apply your prodigious experience and thinking power to its possible uses.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, you're wrong, he destroyed the purpose of owning shitcoins. if you do own them then you should cash out now and turn them into something that will hold value (yeah, yeah, value is subjective...I know, but you know what I mean) because the shitcoin crash is inevitable.

      Delete
    2. Chris B December 11, 2013 at 8:18 PM

      I'm so glad we have prophets like you who can tell us what the future will bring.

      Delete
    3. I'm glad we have suckers like you that lose their money buying into obvious pump and dump schemes. thanks for taking the hit for all the other gullible people out there. shitcoins: here today gone later today.

      Delete
    4. Why the aggression Chris B and others. Why do you call other people's stuff sh1tcoins? Nobody's calling your stuff names. Why does it bother you. NO-ONE is forcing you to buy btc - you're happy with your fiat currency and your bank. I worry about such an aggressive stance, as if you've been done in personally, which you haven't - definitely not by btc.

      Delete
  8. "Bitcoin proponents argue that Bitcoin is better for retailers because there is no fee involved with transactions."

    Not true. Or well, maybe it's true that Bitcoin proponents argue this, but the argument is technically incorrect. Bitcoin is designed to allow the transactor to include a transaction fee, to be collected by the first miner who includes the transaction in a valid block. While the transaction fee is optional, the pressure to keep the block size small and the declining block reward will incentivize miners to include only those transactions with a sizeable fee. It's true that *now* miners generally don't mind if the transaction has no fee, but in the future they will.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "This ignores the fact that if Bitcoin ever becomes a serious competitor to Visa, Master Card and America Express, the the credit card lobbyists will be meeting with legislators faster than you can say Satoshi Nakamoto to promote legislation that will eliminate any Bitcoin edge."

    With all due respect, what's the difference between this argument and "we can't have a free market in currency because government won't let central banks lose their monopoly"? That state agents and their cronies would make something more difficult is not eo ipso an argument against that something.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Duh, we don't have a free market in currency!

      Delete
  10. If you are a person that wants Bitcoin to become an alternative currency then your course of action seems obvious:

    Go out and use it like a currency; stop using it as an investment asset.

    Hold a small amount as cash balance and use it as often as you can to buy consumer goods. The more exchanges occur of substantive economic value in obtaining consumer goods, the faster it will be adopted to fill that roll.

    Holding a large number of Bitcoins and sitting on them will impede the adoption as an alternative currency due to speculative price fluctuations and reduced exchange.

    What is really needed for Bitcoin to get anywhere near currency is a large and growing 'middle class' of people who use a large fraction of their Bitcoin cash balance for meaningful economic transactions (i.e. to obtain consumer goods) on a frequent basis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Every Bitcoin vendor I've checked against paying for a good/service with USD's is charging a significant premium above and beyond the market rate. Usually around 30%. (I'm not talking "transaction fees" either)

      The early adopters don't care because they are sitting on multiplied value(for now), but that very fact would make attempting to use Bitcoin as a sole medium of exchange very difficult for later adopters, let alone the fact there simply isn't anywhere close to the number of vendors(all charging a premium) to live life via solely Bitcoin. It would take a "true believer", willing to get stiffed around 30% over USD cost to do such a thing...and one already sitting on a big pile of cash(not for long) and willing to be stiffed over and over again.

      Delete
    2. @ Anonymous December 11, 2013 at 3:52 PM

      You must be a very poor shopper. I often buy through Gyft which gives me regular prices with a 3% discount in the form of a rebate.

      Delete
    3. Seriously, I appreciate that. It's the first time I've seen the ability to get decent pricing. Yes, it's a pain in the ass to buy gift cards but you are correct, you can get reasonable pricing in such a way, unlike most vendors I've seen taking Bitcoin directly.

      Delete
  11. Gary North destroyed Bitcoin? Someone better let Bitcoin know, because in the time it took Gary to write his article, Bitcoin moved millions of dollars around the world without fees, without banks, and without governments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ...and then the value dropped by nearly half. why the hell would I ever trade cash (which everyone accepts) for something no one has heard of, and could lose its value overnight? answer: I wouldn't.

      Delete
    2. @Chris B December 11, 2013 at 8:22 PM

      Yes, it dropped by half...(for about 5 minutes)...after appreciating 10 times.

      Delete
    3. It's not that you wouldn't, it's that you didn't. Which is why you are very, very angry.

      You can still buy in now dude - even looking at a conservative long term value of say $1200 a coin you could make a few bucks. Join us. Bitcoin loves you.

      Delete
    4. i just bought another ounce of gold instead. like I've been saying...come see me in a year or even a few months...let's compare shitcoins to gold. gold has loved you for centuries and centuries. gold = true love. shitcoins is the miley cyrus of "money"

      Delete
  12. Can the purchase of Bitcoin be written off as a business expense?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I buy gold/silver as inventory even though I'm not a seller. I treat it akin to holding cash...I could take losses/profits on it if I want to...but I have other plans for it so I don't for long term reasons.

      I would think expensing Bitcoins would be problematic from a legal/IRS standpoint. Also, if the IRS decided to pay me a visit I have bullion to show them by their 3 year record guidelines.

      Delete
  13. Bitcoins are an asset, and they're not for the faint of heart!

    ReplyDelete
  14. As a newcomer to this blog, I'm a bit shocked at the level of animosity against Bitcoin that the author and commenters such as Chris B. seem to relish in unleashing. The comment wars on this thread and others is troubling as it devolves the conversation into verbal poop-throwing.

    The creator of Bitcoin himself has said that Bitcoin was an ongoing experiment; clearly however, the author and the rabidly passionate anti-bitcoin commenters present here have their own agendas, as they have yet to present clear arguments for their opinions (because that's all I see so far) against Bitcoin, decentralized crypto-currency, or the decentralization of trusted parties.

    Maybe there are some salient points here, but it's hard to read on when commenters resort to ad-hominim renamings - ("shitcoin") - to make a point...

    Those against Bitcoin can simply short it - by not buying it or participating in any economy that Bitcoin might enable - and leave it at that, no?

    Any money that's hollering loudly - either for or against something - should be immediately suspect to any clear-thinking person.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So am I - it's downright rude. I've known hatred against ppl but against an aninate object - that takes some kind of bad blood. Why don't they just wish the ppl with btc well in their endeavours. That's what humanbeings do, don't they?

      Delete