3 ms·
I believe you are probably correct, and it is a tendency I really do not understand. People seem to be so profoundly invested emotionally in the specific succes
by qubex 9y ago
I believe you are probably correct, and it is a tendency I really do not understand. People seem to be so profoundly invested emotionally in the specific success of bitcoin (as opposed to the broader technology of blockchain cryptocurrency) that they're out on the prowl to shout down anybody who threatens to pop their perceptive bubble. It's as if they're making a concerted effort to exclude any dissident opinion in the implicit belief that removing the dissenters will somehow ensure the success of the whole enterprise. I myself am hoping (as a macroeconomist and as somebody that preserves his objectivity by having no long or short position whatsoever in any cryptocurrency) that bitcoin will soon fail not because I have anything against those who designed it or who adopted it early but because as a fixed-quantity asset it is inherently noxious as a currency (which is why the world moved off the gold standard and bimetallism and representative currency progressively to begin with) and that it will be revealed to be what it is: an effective implementation of a new idea (blockchain) that solves a major computer science problem (the Byzantine Generals Problem) but was macroeconomically naive. Successors will be more pliant for the criteria of modern money.
- cgmg 9y ago> as a fixed-quantity asset it is inherently noxious as a currency Why?
- ufo 9y agoIt leads to deflation, which Bitcoin supporters seem to view as a good thing, for some reason.
- qubex 9y agoNot to blow my own horn excessively, but I get asked this a lot, so here’s my standard response (written about ten days ago, YMMV): https://medium.com/@jamesjunghanns/my-0-00000173120-btc-a-practicing-orthodox-macroeconomists-unsolicited-views-on-bitcoin-543da352fc49 https://medium.com/@jamesjunghanns/my-0-00000173120-btc-a-pr...
- tCfD 9y agoIt 'solves' the computer science BGP only by reframing it as a decision science problem and iteravely testing a particular hypothesis about the supremacy of personal enrichment over all other incentives in a giant, uncontrolled public gambling experiment.