9 ms·

Yes, if I have any schadenfreude here it's not for him. It's for all of the people who smugly told us for years that Bitcoin is superior to our "legacy" fiat ma

Yes, if I have any schadenfreude here it's not for him. It's for all of the people who smugly told us for years that Bitcoin is superior to our "legacy" fiat managed and regulated monetary system system in every way, and anyone who can't see that is an idiot.

panarky 13y ago
Don't equate Bitcoin the protocol with dodgy websites. Unlike cash, radical transparency is entirely possible with Bitcoin. Bitcoin the protocol is as strong as ever, but customers of other sites should demand proof that their exchanges and online wallets actually control 100% of the BTC they claim to have in their custody.
- haberman 13y ago
  Yes, I think my schadenfreude is for you.
  - panarky 13y ago
    Were you that guy in 1989? "My schadenfreude is for all of the people who smugly told us for years that ARPANET is superior to our 'legacy' post office and ham radio in every way"
    - ceol 13y ago
      That would be a good analogy if we couldn't transfer money online. But, you know, we can. The whole point of Bitcoin that's been touted in pretty much every thread, hoisted up by Libertarians like a giant flag, is that it's unregulated. And now, they're all discovering why we regulated in the first place.
      - foxhill 13y ago
        yes, and regulated banks/exchanges have never been the centre of financial disasters.
        saalweachter 13y ago
        Not that there haven't been failures, but in the US, bank customers -- as opposed to bank shareholders or investors -- are a fairly protected class. In 2008(?), Lehman investors were fucked, WaMu shareholders were fucked, but as a WaMu customer I was not inconvenienced in the slightest. My money was safe and I was able to freely access it every day during the transition to Chase ownership. Now, I don't think that it is fair to compare MtGox to a bank. It was really an exchange for investors to speculate on fluctuations in exchange rates, so in the regulated financial industry you'd probably be just as fucked. I think the take-home message from the failure of MtGox is that your risks don't just come from the volatility of the market you are investing in. You could lose your money through a crash in the market, yes, but you could also lose your money through the incompetence or malfeasance of your investment partners, through having your password stolen and your account hacked, through losing your private keys, ... If you only consider one type of risk, you will understate your total risk, and not hedge against it effectively.
        kdragon 13y ago
        It's this kind of thinking that really irks me. "Well, my $100 still adds up to $100, so it's all there." Yeah, you money is there. Maybe it holds the same value as yesterday, or tomorrow. But over time, your taxes will go up, prices of things you buy will go up, inflation will rise, and the spending power of your $100 will become less and less. Every bank failure, financial meltdown, and economic downturn robs your money of value. When a meltdown happens, and the FED has to prints more money to cover it up, your dollar loses value. When the price of merchandise goes up, because fees go up, because bank insurance premiums rise, because they keep losing your money, your dollar loses value. It may happen slowly and indirectly, but make no mistake, you are losing you money. The best way to cook a frog is to do it slowly, so the frog doesn't jump out of the pot.
        mindstab 13y ago
        actually the latest banking disaster was largely due to a decade prior of deregulation, and the economies of other counties who came through it best had retained a lot of their regulation (Canada).
    - haberman 13y ago
      People in 1989 didn't exhibit a nearly religious devotion to ARPANET as perfect in every way, going so far as to say things like "Bitcoin cannot fail, it can only be failed" (do people realize how absurd this sounds?) When every one of Bitcoin's characteristics (deflationary money supply, irreversibility of transactions, completely public record) is touted as an unmitigated advantage, it is irritating to those of us who see it as an interesting idea and cool technology with both plusses and minuses. ARPANET isn't superior to post offices in every way; for example you can't send a package through ARPANET. And in fact one of the Internet's biggest winners Amazon.com built its success largely on being really good at shipping.
      - BlackDeath3 13y ago
        I understand a certain irritation with a lot of "Bitcoiners", but don't let contempt of Bitcoin extremists make you an anti-Bitcoin extremist.
        mpyne 13y ago
        Where did you get "anti-Bitcoin extremist" from any of what they wrote?
        BlackDeath3 13y ago
        I didn't necessarily, it's just a precaution. I see a lot of vitriol directed at Bitcoin, and this sort of extremist overcompensation is really nothing new anyway. It's just a reminder to stay rational.
      - PhasmaFelis 13y ago
        > People in 1989 didn't exhibit a nearly religious devotion to ARPANET as perfect in every way, going so far as to say things like "Bitcoin cannot fail, it can only be failed" (do people realize how absurd this sounds?) I actually agree with you, but if you're talking about me, I was being wildly sarcastic and riffing off of an old Communist slogan. I'm not aware of anyone who's ever said that sincerely, but if someone did it would be hilarious.
  - VMG 13y ago
    Generally not a good trait to have, particularly not with something that has a tendency to bounce back. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/10/bitcoin-implodes-down-more-than-90-percent-from-june-peak/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/10/bitcoin-implodes-...
- bunderbunder 13y ago
  Cash isn't really a reasonable analogy in this case, since it can't be transferred digitally and needs to remain in the custody of the owner. BTC held in exchanges is much more comparable to money in demand deposit or savings accounts.
- PhasmaFelis 13y ago
  "Bitcoin cannot fail, it can only be failed."
- chriswarbo 13y ago
  Exactly how does this differ from the regular banking sector? I can demand 'proof' (whatever that might mean in this case) from Barclays that their books are balanced, but it doesn't mean they'll give it to me.
  - mcv 13y ago
    But they will give it to the regulators.
    - techdragon 13y ago
      And that is the point. Bitcoin as an open system means we are ALL the regulators. Issue is we cant see their FIAT.
      - mcv 13y ago
        How are we regulators? How can we demand anything from any enxchange? How can we punish them if they violate the rules, or our trust?
        number_six 13y ago
        I think that is the whole issue with this. They are beholden to no one and there is no way to punish them if they violate the rules. (rules in the BTC world?! blasphemy!)
        rtpg 13y ago
        If Mt Gox has a single deposit wallet for example, we could easily audit how many coins it has. We couldn't enforce rules, but if some people decided to set up a sort of "best practices" website saying it's "SAFE compliant or something (Sure Against Forged Equalities), in which case beginners guide would be "ALWAYS GO FOR SAFE COMPLIANT EXCHANGES!" We couldn't punish them but it would allow some sort of feeling of safety(if minimal).
      - mpyne 13y ago
        If we can regulate them, so can the government. AFAIU Bitcoin is designed to prevent exactly that, at least in general. Fully resolving their books would require knowing identities of those entitled to receive Bitcoin from an exchange, as only one example, as otherwise an exchange could simply transfer the right amount to an account under their control and use those Silk Road-style money laundering schemes to transfer it to some wallet they actually care about. To make sure the outlays went to the customers it's required to know which Bitcoin wallets belong to said customers. Are you going to sign up for an exchange that maps wallet IDs to customer identities for public transparency purposes?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
drcode 13y ago
Yes, trusting a third party with your money, whether MtGox or the US Fed, is a bad idea.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- djur 13y ago
  There is no such thing as money without trust of third parties. Transacting under the auspices of a neutral, trusted third party is what money means. The Fed has the backing of a sovereign power with its own currency and is central to the largest national economy in the world, as well as a great deal of the international economy. If MtGox's earned trust was an apple, you could see the Fed's from space.
  - tlrobinson 13y ago
    "Transacting under the auspices of a neutral, trusted third party is what money means." Can you explain this a little more? How do I need to trust a 3rd party when I use, say, gold as money?
    - pjc50 13y ago
      If you do that, you need to store it on your own premises and hand-deliver it. You can't do internet transactions that way. Crucially you can't do credit, which is a practical requirement of most business.
      - tlrobinson 13y ago
        My question wasn't suggesting gold was a good form of money, I was trying to understand why people believe all money requires a "trusted 3rd party". Anyway, Bitcoin does not require a trusted 3rd party any more so than gold does.
    - cowls 13y ago
      Gold is not money... you should say "when I use dollars as money"
baddox 13y ago
Lots of people in the Bitcoin community have been saying for years to not touch MtGox with a ten foot pole.
- dfc 13y ago
  {{weasel words}}{{whom}}
  - baddox 13y ago
    It's my genuine impression of the Bitcoin community, nothing more.
    - nyrina 13y ago
      So "lots of people" suddenly became "My impression"
      - baddox 13y ago
        Well, yes. All I have to go on is my own observations. I have observed a large number of people in the Bitcoin community disparage MtGox for a long time. Not sure what else you want me to say.
      - rms 13y ago
        In this case, his impression of lots of people is correct. People that have been around bitcoin for long enough have seen ridiculous things happen at Mt Gox repeatedly.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    Plenty of threads on HN.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - riffraff 13y ago
Noxchi 13y ago
MtGox had to code custom software to interact with the bitcoin network because of their size. They coded it wrong and allowed a bug that could (and did) wipe them of their money. How is it the bitcoin network's fault?
- johnchristopher 13y ago
  Could bitcoin function as a viable replacement for today's money/monetary system without entities like MtGox ? Not functioning technically but functioning pragmatically. (honest question, I am an economic newbie)
- the_mitsuhiko 13y ago
  > How is it the bitcoin network's fault? Because the protocol is broken with regards to tracking transactions and that has been acknowledged. Even the official implementation got it wrong. It needs to be fixed because the workaround just does not scale.
  - foxhill 13y ago
    it's not broken at all. tx hashes are essential for looking up txs in the block chain, and can be used as addresses because they immutable once they are in the block chain. before they are included in the blockchain, malleability aside, they aren't even necessarily valid (they could be double spend attempts, etc)
  - moe 13y ago
    the workaround just does not scale. That is nonsense.
- Keyframe 13y ago
  Wait, so where are people's bitcoins and cash then? Lost in void?
  - saalweachter 13y ago
    Taken by other people. That's the more interesting note, IMO. My understanding of the problem is that some people went to withdraw money and due to transaction malleability MtGox thought the transaction failed and resent repeatedly. But the first transaction didn't actually fail and they received their money multiple times. Whether this happened to a lot of people a little or a few people a lot, and whether they were accidental beneficiaries or intentional instigators will probably never be known. But some number of people received a share of that missing 750k BTC, and I don't recall a one of them posting a "Hey, MtGox just sent me more BTC than it should have" blogpost that ended up here, so that's pretty interesting. So the BTC aren't missing so much as illicitly redistributed.
ye 13y ago
Regulation hasn't stopped massive thefts of fiat, the amounts that bitcoin thieves can only dream of. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/06/19/missing-iraq-money-may-be-as-much-as-18-billion/ http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/06/19/missing-iraq-money-may... http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/30/government-cant-account-for-3-1b-allocated-to-public-safety-and-anti-terrorism-auditor-generals-reports-says/ http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/30/government-cant-acco... http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1 http://jonathanturley.org/2011/08/19/auditors-conclude-that-6-6-billion-simply-disappeared-from-planes-filled-with-cash-to-iraq/ http://jonathanturley.org/2011/08/19/auditors-conclude-that-...
lectrick 13y ago
Equating MtGox with Bitcoin is like equating NASDAQ with the US Dollar.
- exDM69 13y ago
  ... an apt comparison in many ways. If the former fails, the latter is going to be in trouble. The value of bitcoin is in many ways dependent on the irrational response of people who invest their money in it. Mt.Gox fails and many people are going to lose faith (at least temporarily) and consequently, the value has dropped significantly. We're talking about an entity which at some point has held more than 5% of the BTC out there.
BlackDeath3 13y ago
It's a good thing that nobody has ever been massively fucked over by a regulated fiat system.
- crististm 13y ago
  Currency devaluation (not inflation) amounts practically to the same thing: money lose their value overnight. You go to sleep a millionaire and the next day you pay a million for half a bread.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Funny thing about this argument is that we don't apply it to the rest of the world, and for good reason. "God look at all the people killed by that airplane attack... let's get rid of skyscrapers and/or airplanes!" "Man, alcohol sure does fuck over a lot of families, let's prohibit it!" "That computer-based system led to millions of dollars being lost, we should stop using computers!" Face it, now the same argument that you would use in support of still using Bitcoin exchanges (presumably run by more competent individuals?) would also work in support of regulated fiat systems (especially those run by more competent individuals!).
  - BlackDeath3 13y ago
    Getting rid of something is not necessarily the same thing as proposing an alternative that may provide new benefits.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      Unregulated currency is only new to those who refused to stay awake in their history and humanities classes though. Unregulated currency by cryptography is novel, but doesn't create an inherently new concept any more than digital cryptography did not innovate encipherment or authenticity checking.
SilasX 13y ago
I got mugged. Obviously the US Dollar is a failure.
- The_Sponge 13y ago
  Wouldn't a better analogy be "my bank got robbed, and now I'm broke"?
  - SilasX 13y ago
    For the effect on a person, yes. For the implications for the platform, no.
    - The_Sponge 13y ago
      Well you said "I" so that's what I assumed you meant. For the effect on you.
      - SilasX 13y ago
        I lost my bitcoins by trusting MtGox. Therefore, Bitcoin is a failure. I lost my USDs from a mugging. Therefore, the USD is a failure.

panarky 13y ago

Don't equate Bitcoin the protocol with dodgy websites. Unlike cash, radical transparency is entirely possible with Bitcoin. Bitcoin the protocol is as strong as ever, but customers of other sites should demand proof that their exchanges and online wallets actually control 100% of the BTC they claim to have in their custody.

haberman 13y ago
Yes, I think my schadenfreude is for you.
- panarky 13y ago
  Were you that guy in 1989? "My schadenfreude is for all of the people who smugly told us for years that ARPANET is superior to our 'legacy' post office and ham radio in every way"
  - ceol 13y ago
    That would be a good analogy if we couldn't transfer money online. But, you know, we can. The whole point of Bitcoin that's been touted in pretty much every thread, hoisted up by Libertarians like a giant flag, is that it's unregulated. And now, they're all discovering why we regulated in the first place.
    - foxhill 13y ago
      yes, and regulated banks/exchanges have never been the centre of financial disasters.
      - saalweachter 13y ago
        Not that there haven't been failures, but in the US, bank customers -- as opposed to bank shareholders or investors -- are a fairly protected class. In 2008(?), Lehman investors were fucked, WaMu shareholders were fucked, but as a WaMu customer I was not inconvenienced in the slightest. My money was safe and I was able to freely access it every day during the transition to Chase ownership. Now, I don't think that it is fair to compare MtGox to a bank. It was really an exchange for investors to speculate on fluctuations in exchange rates, so in the regulated financial industry you'd probably be just as fucked. I think the take-home message from the failure of MtGox is that your risks don't just come from the volatility of the market you are investing in. You could lose your money through a crash in the market, yes, but you could also lose your money through the incompetence or malfeasance of your investment partners, through having your password stolen and your account hacked, through losing your private keys, ... If you only consider one type of risk, you will understate your total risk, and not hedge against it effectively.
        kdragon 13y ago
        It's this kind of thinking that really irks me. "Well, my $100 still adds up to $100, so it's all there." Yeah, you money is there. Maybe it holds the same value as yesterday, or tomorrow. But over time, your taxes will go up, prices of things you buy will go up, inflation will rise, and the spending power of your $100 will become less and less. Every bank failure, financial meltdown, and economic downturn robs your money of value. When a meltdown happens, and the FED has to prints more money to cover it up, your dollar loses value. When the price of merchandise goes up, because fees go up, because bank insurance premiums rise, because they keep losing your money, your dollar loses value. It may happen slowly and indirectly, but make no mistake, you are losing you money. The best way to cook a frog is to do it slowly, so the frog doesn't jump out of the pot.
      - mindstab 13y ago
        actually the latest banking disaster was largely due to a decade prior of deregulation, and the economies of other counties who came through it best had retained a lot of their regulation (Canada).
  - haberman 13y ago
    People in 1989 didn't exhibit a nearly religious devotion to ARPANET as perfect in every way, going so far as to say things like "Bitcoin cannot fail, it can only be failed" (do people realize how absurd this sounds?) When every one of Bitcoin's characteristics (deflationary money supply, irreversibility of transactions, completely public record) is touted as an unmitigated advantage, it is irritating to those of us who see it as an interesting idea and cool technology with both plusses and minuses. ARPANET isn't superior to post offices in every way; for example you can't send a package through ARPANET. And in fact one of the Internet's biggest winners Amazon.com built its success largely on being really good at shipping.
    - BlackDeath3 13y ago
      I understand a certain irritation with a lot of "Bitcoiners", but don't let contempt of Bitcoin extremists make you an anti-Bitcoin extremist.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        Where did you get "anti-Bitcoin extremist" from any of what they wrote?
        BlackDeath3 13y ago
        I didn't necessarily, it's just a precaution. I see a lot of vitriol directed at Bitcoin, and this sort of extremist overcompensation is really nothing new anyway. It's just a reminder to stay rational.
    - PhasmaFelis 13y ago
      > People in 1989 didn't exhibit a nearly religious devotion to ARPANET as perfect in every way, going so far as to say things like "Bitcoin cannot fail, it can only be failed" (do people realize how absurd this sounds?) I actually agree with you, but if you're talking about me, I was being wildly sarcastic and riffing off of an old Communist slogan. I'm not aware of anyone who's ever said that sincerely, but if someone did it would be hilarious.
- VMG 13y ago
  Generally not a good trait to have, particularly not with something that has a tendency to bounce back. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/10/bitcoin-implodes-down-more-than-90-percent-from-june-peak/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/10/bitcoin-implodes-...
bunderbunder 13y ago
Cash isn't really a reasonable analogy in this case, since it can't be transferred digitally and needs to remain in the custody of the owner. BTC held in exchanges is much more comparable to money in demand deposit or savings accounts.
PhasmaFelis 13y ago
"Bitcoin cannot fail, it can only be failed."
chriswarbo 13y ago
Exactly how does this differ from the regular banking sector? I can demand 'proof' (whatever that might mean in this case) from Barclays that their books are balanced, but it doesn't mean they'll give it to me.
- mcv 13y ago
  But they will give it to the regulators.
  - techdragon 13y ago
    And that is the point. Bitcoin as an open system means we are ALL the regulators. Issue is we cant see their FIAT.
    - mcv 13y ago
      How are we regulators? How can we demand anything from any enxchange? How can we punish them if they violate the rules, or our trust?
      - number_six 13y ago
        I think that is the whole issue with this. They are beholden to no one and there is no way to punish them if they violate the rules. (rules in the BTC world?! blasphemy!)
      - rtpg 13y ago
        If Mt Gox has a single deposit wallet for example, we could easily audit how many coins it has. We couldn't enforce rules, but if some people decided to set up a sort of "best practices" website saying it's "SAFE compliant or something (Sure Against Forged Equalities), in which case beginners guide would be "ALWAYS GO FOR SAFE COMPLIANT EXCHANGES!" We couldn't punish them but it would allow some sort of feeling of safety(if minimal).
    - mpyne 13y ago
      If we can regulate them, so can the government. AFAIU Bitcoin is designed to prevent exactly that, at least in general. Fully resolving their books would require knowing identities of those entitled to receive Bitcoin from an exchange, as only one example, as otherwise an exchange could simply transfer the right amount to an account under their control and use those Silk Road-style money laundering schemes to transfer it to some wallet they actually care about. To make sure the outlays went to the customers it's required to know which Bitcoin wallets belong to said customers. Are you going to sign up for an exchange that maps wallet IDs to customer identities for public transparency purposes?
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

drcode 13y ago

Yes, trusting a third party with your money, whether MtGox or the US Fed, is a bad idea.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
djur 13y ago
There is no such thing as money without trust of third parties. Transacting under the auspices of a neutral, trusted third party is what money means. The Fed has the backing of a sovereign power with its own currency and is central to the largest national economy in the world, as well as a great deal of the international economy. If MtGox's earned trust was an apple, you could see the Fed's from space.
- tlrobinson 13y ago
  "Transacting under the auspices of a neutral, trusted third party is what money means." Can you explain this a little more? How do I need to trust a 3rd party when I use, say, gold as money?
  - pjc50 13y ago
    If you do that, you need to store it on your own premises and hand-deliver it. You can't do internet transactions that way. Crucially you can't do credit, which is a practical requirement of most business.
    - tlrobinson 13y ago
      My question wasn't suggesting gold was a good form of money, I was trying to understand why people believe all money requires a "trusted 3rd party". Anyway, Bitcoin does not require a trusted 3rd party any more so than gold does.
  - cowls 13y ago
    Gold is not money... you should say "when I use dollars as money"

baddox 13y ago

Lots of people in the Bitcoin community have been saying for years to not touch MtGox with a ten foot pole.

dfc 13y ago
{{weasel words}}{{whom}}
- baddox 13y ago
  It's my genuine impression of the Bitcoin community, nothing more.
  - nyrina 13y ago
    So "lots of people" suddenly became "My impression"
    - baddox 13y ago
      Well, yes. All I have to go on is my own observations. I have observed a large number of people in the Bitcoin community disparage MtGox for a long time. Not sure what else you want me to say.
    - rms 13y ago
      In this case, his impression of lots of people is correct. People that have been around bitcoin for long enough have seen ridiculous things happen at Mt Gox repeatedly.
- DanBC 13y ago
  Plenty of threads on HN.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- riffraff 13y ago

Noxchi 13y ago

MtGox had to code custom software to interact with the bitcoin network because of their size. They coded it wrong and allowed a bug that could (and did) wipe them of their money. How is it the bitcoin network's fault?

johnchristopher 13y ago
Could bitcoin function as a viable replacement for today's money/monetary system without entities like MtGox ? Not functioning technically but functioning pragmatically. (honest question, I am an economic newbie)
the_mitsuhiko 13y ago
> How is it the bitcoin network's fault? Because the protocol is broken with regards to tracking transactions and that has been acknowledged. Even the official implementation got it wrong. It needs to be fixed because the workaround just does not scale.
- foxhill 13y ago
  it's not broken at all. tx hashes are essential for looking up txs in the block chain, and can be used as addresses because they immutable once they are in the block chain. before they are included in the blockchain, malleability aside, they aren't even necessarily valid (they could be double spend attempts, etc)
- moe 13y ago
  the workaround just does not scale. That is nonsense.
Keyframe 13y ago
Wait, so where are people's bitcoins and cash then? Lost in void?
- saalweachter 13y ago
  Taken by other people. That's the more interesting note, IMO. My understanding of the problem is that some people went to withdraw money and due to transaction malleability MtGox thought the transaction failed and resent repeatedly. But the first transaction didn't actually fail and they received their money multiple times. Whether this happened to a lot of people a little or a few people a lot, and whether they were accidental beneficiaries or intentional instigators will probably never be known. But some number of people received a share of that missing 750k BTC, and I don't recall a one of them posting a "Hey, MtGox just sent me more BTC than it should have" blogpost that ended up here, so that's pretty interesting. So the BTC aren't missing so much as illicitly redistributed.

ye 13y ago

Regulation hasn't stopped massive thefts of fiat, the amounts that bitcoin thieves can only dream of. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/06/19/missing-iraq-money-may-be-as-much-as-18-billion/ http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/06/19/missing-iraq-money-may... http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/30/government-cant-account-for-3-1b-allocated-to-public-safety-and-anti-terrorism-auditor-generals-reports-says/ http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/30/government-cant-acco... http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1 http://jonathanturley.org/2011/08/19/auditors-conclude-that-6-6-billion-simply-disappeared-from-planes-filled-with-cash-to-iraq/ http://jonathanturley.org/2011/08/19/auditors-conclude-that-...

lectrick 13y ago

Equating MtGox with Bitcoin is like equating NASDAQ with the US Dollar.

exDM69 13y ago
... an apt comparison in many ways. If the former fails, the latter is going to be in trouble. The value of bitcoin is in many ways dependent on the irrational response of people who invest their money in it. Mt.Gox fails and many people are going to lose faith (at least temporarily) and consequently, the value has dropped significantly. We're talking about an entity which at some point has held more than 5% of the BTC out there.

BlackDeath3 13y ago

It's a good thing that nobody has ever been massively fucked over by a regulated fiat system.

crististm 13y ago
Currency devaluation (not inflation) amounts practically to the same thing: money lose their value overnight. You go to sleep a millionaire and the next day you pay a million for half a bread.
mpyne 13y ago
Funny thing about this argument is that we don't apply it to the rest of the world, and for good reason. "God look at all the people killed by that airplane attack... let's get rid of skyscrapers and/or airplanes!" "Man, alcohol sure does fuck over a lot of families, let's prohibit it!" "That computer-based system led to millions of dollars being lost, we should stop using computers!" Face it, now the same argument that you would use in support of still using Bitcoin exchanges (presumably run by more competent individuals?) would also work in support of regulated fiat systems (especially those run by more competent individuals!).
- BlackDeath3 13y ago
  Getting rid of something is not necessarily the same thing as proposing an alternative that may provide new benefits.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Unregulated currency is only new to those who refused to stay awake in their history and humanities classes though. Unregulated currency by cryptography is novel, but doesn't create an inherently new concept any more than digital cryptography did not innovate encipherment or authenticity checking.

SilasX 13y ago

I got mugged. Obviously the US Dollar is a failure.

The_Sponge 13y ago
Wouldn't a better analogy be "my bank got robbed, and now I'm broke"?
- SilasX 13y ago
  For the effect on a person, yes. For the implications for the platform, no.
  - The_Sponge 13y ago
    Well you said "I" so that's what I assumed you meant. For the effect on you.
    - SilasX 13y ago
      I lost my bitcoins by trusting MtGox. Therefore, Bitcoin is a failure. I lost my USDs from a mugging. Therefore, the USD is a failure.