3 ms·
Yeah I'm pretty disappointing in the quality of this article, especially considering its coming from the Economist. The summary is a coin flip in essence. It
by nxsynonym 9y ago
Yeah I'm pretty disappointing in the quality of this article, especially considering its coming from the Economist.
The summary is a coin flip in essence.
It did, however, get me to think about this question:
Is there a point where enough "fools" get involved that Bitcoin becomes "too big to fail"?
- gedrap 9y ago> Yeah I'm pretty disappointing in the quality of this article, especially considering its coming from the Economist. The Economist is not really written having crypto enthusiasts or HN crowd in mind. The article is a decent summary of the current state of affairs to someone who's just curious about what the hell is bitcoin.
- marcosdumay 9y agoWell, people with no idea about how computers operate have been stopping me to ask my opinions on BTC recently. If there's a point where enough "fools" get involved for anything to happen that's a symptom this point is near. But the way more usual outcome is that a bubble pops, not that it is lifted into infrastructural status. (But yeah, both happen, just with widely different rates.)
- simias 9y agoIt's the other way around really. This "greater fool" system works as long as fresh money comes it to keep pumping the value. At some point you'll run out of "fools" to come in and invest money, at which point the bubble stops expanding. At this point the most anxious investors will start selling their coins, fearing a crash. This in turns causes the value to start dropping and then you have a runaway effect as more and more people want to dump their coin, crashing its value more and more.