3 ms·

To call Bitcoins a scam outright is the sign of a person who may not have tried putting money into the system to see how it actually works. lol. (I don't usual

by hugh3 15y ago

To call Bitcoins a scam outright is the sign of a person who may not have tried putting money into the system to see how it actually works. lol. (I don't usually say "lol" but it seems appropriat here.) So the only people worth listening to on the subject of bitcoin are people who own bitcoin and hence have an incentive to further talk it up? Is it really a "scam"? Yes and no. It's not an outright scam in that the inventors really hope it will work (and that making themselves short-term rich off other people's money is just a side effect). Smart psychics are a scam -- they know they're lying to people and they're taking their money by selling 'em something worthless. Bitcoin is more like a dumb psychic, one that doesn't know she's peddling bullshit. On the other hand, from the point of the view of the person who has given up real money for the insight that they will meet a tall dark stranger, the intentions of the originator don't matter.

rglover 15y ago
So the only people worth listening to on the subject of bitcoin are people who own bitcoin and hence have an incentive to further talk it up? Not at all. I personally agree with the author that the whole idea is flawed. With any new system, there needs to exist some sort of vetting process, though. What I'm referring to here is whether or not the author of the post vetted the system. In other words, went through the process of using bitcoins to match their conclusions. A good analogy might be the sample table at the grocery store. If you're skeptical about how something might taste, you try it and give your opinion. Here, it's almost like looking at the food, deciding not to eat it all and then telling people it's complete shit without having ever tasted it. In regard to using the system first, I'm not suggesting that the user put in a large sum of money, but enough to see how it works and what the outcome of that experiment was. I'm not dismissing the points here, but I've always respected the opinion of those who try what their reviewing/opining about first. I don't think that's unreasonable at all.

by hugh3 15y ago

rglover 15y ago

So the only people worth listening to on the subject of bitcoin are people who own bitcoin and hence have an incentive to further talk it up? Not at all. I personally agree with the author that the whole idea is flawed. With any new system, there needs to exist some sort of vetting process, though. What I'm referring to here is whether or not the author of the post vetted the system. In other words, went through the process of using bitcoins to match their conclusions. A good analogy might be the sample table at the grocery store. If you're skeptical about how something might taste, you try it and give your opinion. Here, it's almost like looking at the food, deciding not to eat it all and then telling people it's complete shit without having ever tasted it. In regard to using the system first, I'm not suggesting that the user put in a large sum of money, but enough to see how it works and what the outcome of that experiment was. I'm not dismissing the points here, but I've always respected the opinion of those who try what their reviewing/opining about first. I don't think that's unreasonable at all.