Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  Bitcoin
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 13   Go Down

Author Topic: Bitcoin  (Read 80353 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

alaric89

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1842
    • View Profile
Re: Bitcoin
« Reply #90 on: June 12, 2011, 02:19:32 PM »

I invested in some malt syrup, so I never take more than 5 minutes. Taking me months to read the last issue of Easy Riders I bought.

dalebert

  • Blasphemor
  • FTL Creative Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6622
    • View Profile
    • Flaming Freedom
Re: Bitcoin
« Reply #91 on: June 12, 2011, 09:15:27 PM »

Shaw, the best answer I have for most of those questions about whether various services will be offered is "I don't see why not.  If there is a demand for it, there is the likelihood someone will try to fill that demand and make money off of it."  This is akin to statists asking how is the free market going to solve problem X?  Problem Y?  Anyone can buy and sell Bitcoins in exchange for FRNs, precious metals, or archive them for people, etc.  This is already happening.  I believe I linked a list of lots of people doing it.

As for the Bitcoin boogeyman scenarios, better programmers than you and I have already tried to anticipate fraud attempts of all sorts in the design of Bitcoins.  The problems that you, basically a non-programmer, just rattled off the top of your head have probably crossed their minds and been discussed over late night pizza over many nights.  That doesn't make them fraud-proof, but I bet they're better than FRNs in that dept.  Like I said, I haven't read up on the technical details.  Like a lot of people, I'm trusting that a lot of smart people believe in them who understand encryption and the source code a lot better than I.  Even though I have a Master's degree in Software Engineering, I'm just not entertained by tinkering or by perusing long pages of source code.

John Shaw

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17244
    • View Profile
    • Think Twice Productions
Re: Bitcoin
« Reply #92 on: June 13, 2011, 12:08:16 AM »

Shaw, the best answer I have for most of those questions about whether various services will be offered is "I don't see why not.  If there is a demand for it, there is the likelihood someone will try to fill that demand and make money off of it."  This is akin to statists asking how is the free market going to solve problem X?  Problem Y?  Anyone can buy and sell Bitcoins in exchange for FRNs, precious metals, or archive them for people, etc.  This is already happening.  I believe I linked a list of lots of people doing it.

Oh my god, dude, please reread the question.

CAN YOU GET YOUR MONEY OUT IN THE SAME QUANTITIES AND AT THE SAME SPEED AS YOU PUT IT IN?

That is the question. If there is a run on bitcoins, can I get my shit? Don't tell me there will never be a run, please.

ARE THERE MAXIMUM WITHDRAW LIMITS?

If what you are saying is that you do not know the answer, that is fine. Stop putting words into my mouth about statist arguments about who is going to fix the roads when you are trying to sell me on the idea of a fiat currency, please.

It's fiat currency. Is this or is this not correct? It is a simple answer, yes or no.

If it is a fiat currency, it will not work. If it is not a fiat currency, describe for me the functional difference, please.

Also, full disclosure time - Are you:

A: Receiving goods, services, Bitcoins, or any other trade good to promote Bitcoin?

B: Heavily invested in Bitcoins?

I think that these are valid questions and handwaves in general are just gonna make me ask more questions.

Also, for the record, I don't trust anyone based on their being "Smarter and better coders than X." That is not a valid supporting claim. I am interested in economic realities, not faith in a programmer. The economic reality is that Bitcoins have nothing material backing them and that it does, indeed, matter that this is so. CPU cycles can make them. CPU cycles can be stolen and abused. Someone is or will be getting fucked in the ass.

You haven't addressed source code spamming and botnets and virus's and screensavers and so on that mine as well. I was told today by a programmer who has looked at the code (He loves bitcoins and was just talking shop) that botnets are both easily possible and don't violate the GPL. He said that the math limits a particular account at this point in time to generate up to $300 USD (At current values etc.) an hour based on the voodoo that powers the network. There is a mechanism to slow the growth in value but if some IT dude slathers his entire network with Bitcoin clients or whatever he can generate fake money until the cows come home, all on the dime of the people who own those computers.

Seems to me that as long as people are getting more people to use bitcoins the value increases. That's a pyramid scheme.

Dale, don't get fucked, man. S'all I'm saying.

Individual transfers yes, storage no.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2011, 12:13:39 AM by John Shaw »
Logged
"btw its not a claim. Its documented fact."

Wayne

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 377
    • View Profile
Re: Bitcoin
« Reply #93 on: June 13, 2011, 03:14:17 AM »

Extremely complex number-crunching.

...  

But where do they come from? I am asking a very specific question here, and it leads to more questions.

There is vague talk of "Generating" bitcoins "Using unspent processor cycles."

What does this mean? Are we talking about the client processing data in exchange for currency created by the cloud?

The clients create new bitcoins.

Specifically, there are two kinds of clients: regular clients, and miners. The "official" releases of the bitcoin client allowed you to click a button to start mining, but nowadays most systems aren't setup with enough power to get any bitcoins doing that, so release 0.3.22 got rid of that button.

Miners process the transactions for the bitcoin network, and use encryption and hashing to secure each "block" of transactions. This requires a brute-force approach, so all the miners race to secure each block, and the first one (random, but influenced by number of hashes-per-second) is rewarded by being allowed to add in a transaction that gives itself 50 brand-new bitcoins.

The required level of security rises as more miners join the network, such that the number of new bitcoins created stays pretty much on-schedule, and all the miners wind up splitting them. The schedule, enforced by each client and each other miner, has the rate of bitcoin production slow to a crawl, pretty much petering out in 20 years. And just in case, there's an actual hard cap of 21 million bitcoins.

Quote
If so, why wouldn't I use the source code to make a virus that performs the same task but only for my bitcoin account? Or for that matter, why wouldn't I release a game, an app, a screensaver, whatever to do the same thing using the source code?

Or if we go "Legit", what about the IT guy who puts a client on every PC in an org?

Funny you should mention this. There's actually code out now so websites can "embed" mining... instead of showing ads, you visit the page, and your spare CPU cycles are used to crunch the bitcoin transaction blocks, trickling in bitcoin income for the webpage owner. It's expected that this is used responsibly, but it can always be turned off in the browser (and people can do this anyway for any purpose... it's not like bitcoin is responsible if someone DOES hijack your browser or even your system. A guy who starts mining for bitcoins on, say, company property without permission, is IMHO stealing, considering the amount of electricity usually required to crunch out bitcoins.)

Quote
It's open source, right? The source is there and if you aren't altering the primary mechanism what can anyone do about it? What is to stop a dude from setting up 500 accounts that do nothing but transfer bitcoins back and forth, creating the illusion of more transactions than there actually are? I mean, a motivated coder could probably design a single client that runs 1000 accounts at once, right?

That's call spamming in bitcoin terminology. This is dealt with by restricting the spending of small amounts, or of newly-received bitcoins. The "official" client requires a transaction fee for these cases. Other clients may not require a fee, but then you're pretty much going to be waiting a while for a miner to choose to process such transactions (miners get the transaction fees, so they're incentivized to process the transactions that pay fees first.)

Quote
You're not suggesting that open source developers can enforce some sort of control against abuse of the license, right? I mean you made very clear that no one can do anything about bitcoin and that it's pretty much unassailable from the networking standpoint.  

I forsee fifty billion altered but fully functional bitcoin accounts sitting someplace in China being a problem.

Not really. If they're too altered, they're just running their own, incompatible version of bitcoin. Chinacoin, if you will. If they're compatible enough that all other clients accept their transactions, then there's nothing they can do to harm the network.

Quote
As long as people want them and have FRNs or Silver or Gold to trade for them, then yes.

Lemme reiterate what I was trying to say -

If there is a run on Bitcoins, can I get them out before it devalues? Can I move it quickly. I don't care about the medium of exchange.

Not unless you have someone in your area who readily exchanges bitcoins for cash. That's a service I'm trying to provide in my area.

Quote
There are several services that facilitate such things and there can be many more.  It will depend on the market.  It appears to be growing and getting better every day which is why Bitcoins are shooting up in value.  Confidence in them is growing.  More services are being provided.  For instance there is service that let's you use Bitcoins to buy from anywhere online that accepts VISA.  There's an elaborate gambling site that uses Bitcoins.  There's no one entity that controls them.  Whomever out there wants to become a part of the trading "cloud" by starting to accept them will broaden the possibilities and impact the market.

I'm predicting them becoming more of a tool for black and gray markets because they are nigh impossible to control.  It would place them into something of a niche market (people distrustful of and willing to defy gubments) but I see that as a rapidly growing niche market.

Again, that wasn't the answer to my question.

I specifically want to know can I withdraw as quickly as I can put in? Are there withdraw limits?

Withdrawal limits? Not in the mechanics of the system, no. You can send as many bitcoins as you want to someone.

As far as who is exchanging cash for your bitcoins, I'm sure there will be a limit of some sort, unless you stumble across someone with a lot of disposable income who's wanting to get into the market, pronto. I personally wouldn't be able to handle more than several hundred dollars of trade at one time. Mt. Gox, probably the biggest exchange of USD, has withdrawal limits, though I'm not sure what those limits are; and, I'm thinking those limits apply to withdrawing their "Mt. Gox Dollars" out of their system into USD, not so much the cashing out of bitcoins into their MGD.


Quote
I'm not busting your balls here, but I just don't see how it's a good move to keep any money sitting there for more than minutes at a time, and if the services that provide for the edge of the network don't offer quick access and unlimited access to funds there's a major problem.

I suppose, depending on how many bitcoins you have, there might be a problem. Personally, except for people investing or speculating, or for businesses who don't mind accepting and holding onto bitcoins, I wouldn't recommend anyone keeping more than a couple hundred $$$ in bitcoins at any one time. SOME people, those who probably can't handle their own bitcoins (older folks, luddites, etc.) should probably only cash in as needed, to send money, and should cash out as soon as they receive a transfer.

Quote
Not to mention all of the software issues I see.

I was dubious at first, but now I am fairly certain that using Bitcoin would not be good for me as a medium of exchange and I won't be using it. If I, as a non programmer layperson (Sure, I'm a sharp cat, but I haven't written code since maybe 1990 or earlier) can see dozens of problems with this model then a real programmer would tear this thing apart and abuse the shit out of it.

And mind you, I haven't even gotten close to talking about the actual economics of it all.

This thing stinks of a ponzi scheme and I really really hope you don't end up getting fucked in the bad way.

I personally don't think it's even close to a ponzi. It's just someone's attempt at an anonymous, decentralized, unit-capped (i.e., inflation-proof) currency. If it takes off, it makes sense that early adopters are going to profit more than latecomers.

Just out of curiosity, how would you have recommended that the 21 million bitcoins have been initially distributed so that the system WOULDN'T be ponzi-like?
Logged


"Buy low, sell high." Are YOU stocking up on silver yet?

dalebert

  • Blasphemor
  • FTL Creative Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6622
    • View Profile
    • Flaming Freedom
Re: Bitcoin
« Reply #94 on: June 13, 2011, 11:38:32 AM »

If what you are saying is that you do not know the answer, that is fine. Stop putting words into my mouth about statist arguments about who is going to fix the roads when you are trying to sell me on the idea of a fiat currency, please.

I don't know the answer.  I sent you a very long list of services that accept and/or sell them.  I haven't looked at EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM FOR YOU  and made a chart of their various buy and sell limits, etc.  I'm glad Wayne responded because he clearly knows more details than I do.

Quote
It's fiat currency. Is this or is this not correct? It is a simple answer, yes or no.

If it is a fiat currency, it will not work. If it is not a fiat currency, describe for me the functional difference, please.

Based on the this definition of fiat money, they are not.  There is no issuing authority because they are peer-to-peer, i.e. market controlled and backed by the Bitcoin market.

What does "backed by the Bitcoin market" mean?  Think of it like this.  You saw that long list of services I sent, right?  And it's growing rapidly.  Those are all people who have enough faith in them to cause the market value to rise as it has.  EVERY SINGLE BITCOIN SERVICE would have to end for them to drop to zero value.  But yes, it could happen.

Quote
Also, full disclosure time - Are you:

A: Receiving goods, services, Bitcoins, or any other trade good to promote Bitcoin?

No.  I started accepting them from people who want to contribute to comic releases.  Someone paid me $40 worth of them to sponsor a comic which comes with an ad on the site but my only obligation is to leave that ad up until someone else sponsors a comic which are the terms I set up when I created that ad space.  I'm not getting anything out of promoting them other than hopefully seeing them work for facilitating trade and creating all kinds of new agorist opportunities that I can benefit from.

Quote
B: Heavily invested in Bitcoins?

I have 12.  I haven't spent a penny on them.  I've merely accepted them and provided the same service that I would have for FRNs or silver or whatever.  I WISH I had bought some a short while back when I could have gotten them for 88 cents a piece.  *sigh*

Quote
I think that these are valid questions and handwaves in general are just gonna make me ask more questions.

The reason they're frustrating the Hell out of me (hand-waving?) is because it feels like you're failing to grasp some crucial facts about them, like that there is NO CENTRAL AUTHORITY controlling their value.  Like anything else, their value is controlled by the market.  You can't buy silver and be promised to get your money back out of it.  That will depend on the market for silver.  If you turn right around and sell it immediately, you will almost certainly lose value due to the margin.

Quote
Also, for the record, I don't trust anyone based on their being "Smarter and better coders than X." That is not a valid supporting claim. I am interested in economic realities, not faith in a programmer.

But faith in the programmers who made and vetted them DIRECTLY AFFECT the economic realities.  If they are not sufficiently fraud-proof then their utility as a means of facilitating trade is compromised, thereby making them less valuable.  If I tell you I designed a gun for self defense, then its value is tied to how well it shoots.  Does it shoot straight?  Does it jam a lot?  Failing to fulfill it's purpose well would make it a less valuable gun and as word got out that it jams a lot, people who had bought them when they first hit the market would likely find they can't sell them for as much and feel jipped.  Lots of people don't understand guns and will read various consumer reports on guns to decide if a gun fulfills its purpose well.  That's me right now regarding Bitcoins!

I am admitting that right now I don't know any more than what I've heard from various people and I'm basing my sense of their value largely on who seems the most knowledgeable, lease biased, etc. and I'm also considering that some seem negatively biased because they don't seem to really understand them.  Wayne knows more than me, clearly.

Quote
The economic reality is that Bitcoins have nothing material backing them and that it does, indeed, matter that this is so. CPU cycles can make them. CPU cycles can be stolen and abused. Someone is or will be getting fucked in the ass.

Wayne addressed why that will become increasingly difficult.  One problem I can foresee is as they decrease in production (supply slows down dramatically and eventually STOPS) and demand goes up because more people want to use them, then I can see people treating them as an investment instead of as a means of facilitating trade (the reason they're valuable in the first place), but that's like any market bubble.  I think it must eventually pop and normalize-- people will stop offering more and more for them because it's just getting ridiculously high and people will stop sitting on them for fear of getting greedy and missing the pop.  It should sort itself out.

Quote
Seems to me that as long as people are getting more people to use bitcoins the value increases. That's a pyramid scheme.

That's what you call it when market demand for something raises it's value?  Srsly?

John Shaw

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17244
    • View Profile
    • Think Twice Productions
Re: Bitcoin
« Reply #95 on: June 13, 2011, 12:51:57 PM »

For Wayne:

Just out of curiosity, how would you have recommended that the 21 million bitcoins have been initially distributed so that the system WOULDN'T be ponzi-like?

First, thanks for your answers. You have verified my primary concerns to be true.

1. Odds are high that if there is a run on bitcoins, no one is gonna be buying them and you'll probably be fucked. A point I was repeatedly trying to get at.

2. The system can be abused but it is "expected" not to be. Mass abuse of the system will drive (Yes, with diminishing returns, I get it) the value of bitcoins up.

3. Botnets are possible. Transactions are a measurable factor in the system that is used to determine operation of the network. Transactions can be artificially inflated.

The number and value of bitcoins can be gamed. It is highly risky to buy bitcoins as an investment.

So we're right back to what I've been saying from point one.

Transactions yes, investment no. You seem to agree:

Quote
I wouldn't recommend anyone keeping more than a couple hundred $$$ in bitcoins at any one time. SOME people, those who probably can't handle their own bitcoins (older folks, luddites, etc.) should probably only cash in as needed, to send money, and should cash out as soon as they receive a transfer.

Now, back to your original question - "Just out of curiosity, how would you have recommended that the 21 million bitcoins have been initially distributed so that the system WOULDN'T be ponzi-like?"

I think the better question is "What happens when 21 million is reached?" and I think we both know that the answer, if bitcoin is still running, will be "The cap will be increased, just like any other fiat money." Setting an arbitrary number is just setting an arbitrary number. Artificial scarcity doesn't work.





For Dale: You mentioned that you didn't think that bitcoins were fiat money. Imma answer that one here as well.

"Currency that a government has declared to be legal tender, despite the fact that it has no intrinsic value and is not backed by reserves. Historically, most currencies were based on physical commodities such as gold or silver, but fiat money is based solely on faith. " http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fiatmoney.asp

Technically you're sorta right. Sorta. Doesn't fit the exact definition. But only because of who or what the issuing agent is.

Let me make a tiny change to that definition and see if it still fits.

"Currency that Bitcoin Algorithm has declared to be legal tender, despite the fact that it has no intrinsic value and is not backed by reserves. Historically, most currencies were based on physical commodities such as gold or silver, but fiat money is based solely on faith. "

There is no functional difference between those two sentences. I just changed the name of the issuing party.

If you think that the only problem with fiat money is that government runs it, I would seriously beg to differ.

On my repeated questioning about withdraw limits and so on - The answer to the question wasn't my point there. Maybe I should have asked you a more personal version of the question so you can see what I'm getting at -

"If there were a run on Bitcoins and the bottom was falling out, would you be buying them up? Wouldn't you have a general policy regarding this up front?"

Odds are high that your answers will be "No" and "Yes" respectively.

Do you see my point now? If there is a run on people cashing out of Bitcoins, the rational thing to do would be to stop buying that shit. A whole lot of something (Calling bitcoins a thing is debatable, but whatever) worth nothing is nothing.

It doesn't matter what services are out there and what their individual policies are. I can guarantee you that if I go to Bob's Bitcoins today, and buy X dollars in bitcoins from him, and I go back to him tomorrow and the value of Bitcoins hasn't changed relative to what we are trading in and I try to sell my Bitcoins back to him, there will be a mechanism in place by which he will win and I will lose. It will probably not be the same exchange.



My conclusions -

Bitcoin is a high risk investment.

The price mechanism of Bitcoin can and probably is being manipulated.

Early users of Bitcoin (Particularly people who have invested a decent chunk of change) have an incentive to promote the use of Bitcoins to others.

Businesses that are acting as an edge to the Bitcoin network (Large dealers) have an large incentive to sell rather than buy, especially in the case of a destabilization.

Bitcoin as an investment fits the definition of fiat money in all but name, on the technicality of the Bitcoin algorithm not being a government. It is otherwise functionally identical.

Transactions yes, investment no.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2011, 12:59:20 PM by John Shaw »
Logged
"btw its not a claim. Its documented fact."

dalebert

  • Blasphemor
  • FTL Creative Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6622
    • View Profile
    • Flaming Freedom
Re: Bitcoin
« Reply #96 on: June 13, 2011, 01:53:24 PM »

For Dale: You mentioned that you didn't think that bitcoins were fiat money. Imma answer that one here as well.

Okay, it's not all caps, but using giant blue lettering?  Really?  You're shouting now as if that's going to make your point better.  I used caps selectively to put emphasis on certain words but your bolding and coloring entire definitions as if I can't read and interpret normal-sized lettering.  I prolly should have used italics for emphasis to seem less hypocritcal, but anways...

It's hardly a technicality that no central authority releases or controls them and that they are monitored essentially by the entire cloud of the Bitcoin network of users.  That's about as free market as you can get.  As for your concerns about them not being liquid enough or there being a profit margin on large sellers, these are valid concerns, but that's almost certainly just as true for precious metals as I just explained.  If you buy silver and then turn around and sell it right back, you will almost certainly get hit with the dealers profit margin between his buy and sell rate.  The only way to avoid this is perhaps dealing with a lot of individuals in a piecemeal fashion who are eager for cash and will sell at a loss because silver and gold aren't very liquid.  It's not like they can just go online and find buyers and sellers and do an exchange right there... like they can with Bitcoins.

dalebert

  • Blasphemor
  • FTL Creative Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6622
    • View Profile
    • Flaming Freedom
Re: Bitcoin
« Reply #97 on: June 13, 2011, 01:55:49 PM »

And BTW, I agree with Wayne.  Bitcoins are a tool for trade, not an investment.  The closest I am going to "investing" is that I'm kinda sitting on the ones that have landed in my lap for the moment.  As I already said, I haven't spent a penny and I don't plan to buy any in the immediate future unless I have a use for them, i.e. want to make use of one of the services out there.  I'm inclined to wait for them to stabilize out some.  They are very new.

John Shaw

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17244
    • View Profile
    • Think Twice Productions
Re: Bitcoin
« Reply #98 on: June 13, 2011, 02:00:25 PM »

Okay, it's not all caps, but using giant blue lettering?  Really?  You're shouting now as if that's going to make your point better.

What?!?! No dude. I was just highlighting my most important point. For the names I was answering two people with one post and wasn't assumiont you'd want to read a giant block of text.

<Was trying to be helpful.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2011, 02:04:22 PM by John Shaw »
Logged
"btw its not a claim. Its documented fact."

John Shaw

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17244
    • View Profile
    • Think Twice Productions
Re: Bitcoin
« Reply #99 on: June 13, 2011, 02:03:25 PM »

And BTW, I agree with Wayne.  Bitcoins are a tool for trade, not an investment.  The closest I am going to "investing" is that I'm kinda sitting on the ones that have landed in my lap for the moment.  As I already said, I haven't spent a penny and I don't plan to buy any in the immediate future unless I have a use for them, i.e. want to make use of one of the services out there.  I'm inclined to wait for them to stabilize out some.  They are very new.

*Facepalm*

Then why are we having this conversation, Dale?!?!?

The first frigging post I made on this thread said that I saw no problem with using Bitcoins as a transaction tool. In almost every subsequent post I have said "Transactions yes, investment, no."

Also, you keep saying "No central authority" - There is a central authority, Dale. There is the codebase. It has complete control. It is one thing distributed widely. It is a top down economy.

Being voluntary <> Being in any way functionally different than the economic mechanisms of fiat currency.

Bitcoins aren't backed by anything. They aren't. If you have silver, you have silver. It's there. You can add value to it through art or add value to it by using it as a conductor or add it to paper and print photographs to it or etc.

You can't do anything with Bitcoins. It is represented by nothing and has no intrinsic value. It has the same practical problems as fiat money and is worth exactly as much. The fact that it isn't run by a government does not change this.

« Last Edit: June 13, 2011, 02:10:47 PM by John Shaw »
Logged
"btw its not a claim. Its documented fact."

John Shaw

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17244
    • View Profile
    • Think Twice Productions
Re: Bitcoin
« Reply #100 on: June 13, 2011, 02:54:10 PM »

The last sentence for my first post in this thread, for the record.

I wouldn't be against using it for incoming transactions, say for selling digital stuff, especially micro type payments, but it'd go right into meatspace as fast as possible. If it's not possible to do fast, I'd be hesitant.
Logged
"btw its not a claim. Its documented fact."

dalebert

  • Blasphemor
  • FTL Creative Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6622
    • View Profile
    • Flaming Freedom
Re: Bitcoin
« Reply #101 on: June 13, 2011, 04:40:48 PM »

*Facepalm*

Then why are we having this conversation, Dale?!?!?

Go back and it's obvious that I am responding to/ debunking statements and/or questions from you and others such as "they are just numbers and so have no value".  It's not like I set out with some goal to get people to go out and invest in large numbers of Bitcoins.   That is a straw man.  From the beginning, I've been pointing out their apparent utility (in the context of the network of applications) as a tool for engaging in trade.    You chimed in.  Don't get pissy that I responded.

I also made myself fairly clear early on, I believe in several occasions, such as...

But let's get something clear here.  I own about 12.  Srsly.  All I did was start accepting them as contributions to the comic.  Yes, I've been sitting on them but I don't know how long I would.  I didn't expect them to shoot up this fast and anything like that always appears to be a bubble.  If I had a LOT of Bitcons right now like the dood above, I'd cash a good chunk out for that reason...

Wayne's right.  They're value is in their utility for facilitating trades.

So please don't try to act as if I'm being disingenuous.  You actually asked me, in an accusatory manner *, how many I had and whether I had an incentive to be deceptive about their real value when I had already said how many I have and that I was not planning to invest a lot in them!  Do you not know me well enough at this point to believe that I engage in discussions honestly and to take what I say at face value?

*
Also, full disclosure time - Are you:

A: Receiving goods, services, Bitcoins, or any other trade good to promote Bitcoin?

B: Heavily invested in Bitcoins?

I think that these are valid questions and handwaves in general are just gonna make me ask more questions.

John Shaw

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17244
    • View Profile
    • Think Twice Productions
Re: Bitcoin
« Reply #102 on: June 13, 2011, 05:26:07 PM »

Go back and it's obvious that I am responding to/ debunking statements and/or questions from you and others such as "they are just numbers and so have no value".  

I never said any such thing. I said that they are backed by nothing.

It's not like I set out with some goal to get people to go out and invest in large numbers of Bitcoins.   That is a straw man.  

I never said you did. Ever. But you did say this:


Quote
Someone did.  If he sells them now, he will make a ton.

http://tinyurl.com/65po2gx


From the beginning, I've been pointing out their apparent utility (in the context of the network of applications) as a tool for engaging in trade.    You chimed in.  Don't get pissy that I responded.

But I haven't! Jesus man! How is me asking valid questions and then making a decision and then expressing my concern for your money getting pissy?


So please don't try to act as if I'm being disingenuous.  You actually asked me, in an accusatory manner *, how many I had and whether I had an incentive to be deceptive about their real value when I had already said how many I have and that I was not planning to invest a lot in them!  Do you not know me well enough at this point to believe that I engage in discussions honestly and to take what I say at face value?

*
Also, full disclosure time - Are you:

A: Receiving goods, services, Bitcoins, or any other trade good to promote Bitcoin?

B: Heavily invested in Bitcoins?

I think that these are valid questions and handwaves in general are just gonna make me ask more questions.

*Grows two new arms for a quadruple facepalm*

Dale, I was asking if you'd invested in Bitcoins or done business with Bitcoin because I was wondering if you had some emotional investment in the debate. It wasn't an accusation.

Every time someone tries to sell me on some idea, I'm gonna ask that question. It is not accusatory nor was it implying dishonesty. If Bob comes to my house and mentions that he's really digging Amway or Travelers Group or Tupperware or whatever I'm gonna ask the questions: "How much have you put into it?" and "Are they paying you to say this?"

The fact that Bitcoin comes off like Amway and Travelers Group and Tupperware (And fuck, Liberty Dollar for that matter) is not your fault.*

You kept responding to me when in every single post I made had the summation "Transactions yes, investment no."

I raised valid concerns about how Bitcoins are generated. I showed that Bitcoins are for all practical purposes fiat money. I raised valid concerns about the ability to pull money out of Bitcoins quickly in an emergency.

All under the pretense of "Transactions yes, investments, no."

Bitcoin is not money. It is paypal without fees and with some anonymity. (Two benefits that are not long for this world, if you ask the creators of Bitcoin) That's all I've been saying and I've given my reasons why.

So again, why are we even having this discussion? Is it that you are really attached to the idea that Bitcoins aren't fiat money?

Once again I should have just called you up because you can't write tone. *Sigh*

In summation: (This is not directed at you.)

BITCOINS: TRANSACTIONS YES, INVESTMENT NO.


*Every time I hear about Bitcoins, those are the companies that I am immediately reminded of. *Shrug*
« Last Edit: June 13, 2011, 05:43:08 PM by John Shaw »
Logged
"btw its not a claim. Its documented fact."

John Shaw

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17244
    • View Profile
    • Think Twice Productions
Re: Bitcoin
« Reply #103 on: June 13, 2011, 05:37:59 PM »

One more thing -

I understand the difference between a voluntary fiat currency and a government enforced fiat currency, from a moral standpoint. I totally get it.

Now, which would you prefer, jumping off of a bridge or getting pushed? It's the same net result.

<<<Will cross the bridge.


You aren't throwing away money by putting tons of it into Bitcoin, so I won't warn you about it again. I will stick with this topic, though, because I know several people who have planned to put upwards of 30% of their assets into Bitcoins, and they can't friggin' afford such a risky investment.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2011, 05:43:51 PM by John Shaw »
Logged
"btw its not a claim. Its documented fact."

Turd Ferguson

  • Opportunist Extraordinaire
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4085
    • View Profile
    • https://twitter.com/#!/realmikequick
Re: Bitcoin
« Reply #104 on: June 13, 2011, 05:42:33 PM »

Anyone can answer this....

If I offered you the equivalent of $10,000.00 in either bitcoins or gold bullion, which one would you take?
Logged
Some peoples idea of hell is having to mind their own business.
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 13   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  Bitcoin

// ]]>

Page created in 0.026 seconds with 34 queries.