4 ms·

Well - I think it's important to address the tone. I was going to say more about the substantive argument - but didn't because I didn't want to write a wall of

Well - I think it's important to address the tone. I was going to say more about the substantive argument - but didn't because I didn't want to write a wall of text. Also, I just see the argument as a very uncritical regurgitation of the intrinsic value argument against bitcoin and I've personally grown weary trying to encourage a greater level of depth to that discussion. If you are interested - I've written at (great) length my thoughts about this argument here: http://reviewsindepth.com/2013/12/bitcoin-krugman-and-the-mere-agreement-of-value/ http://reviewsindepth.com/2013/12/bitcoin-krugman-and-the-me...

williamcotton 13y ago
> Bitcoin really is a currency of “mere agreement” then you can begin to see that its mainstream acceptance will genuinely herald the dawn of a new age of human civilisation. And don’t be too quick to take that last statement as hyperbolic praise – it might be a statement of supreme pessimism about its potential for success, depending on your point of view. Have you considered a career in science fiction or as a song writer? "I'm torn between the light and dark, Where others see their targets, Divine symmetry. Should I kiss the viper's fang, Or herald loud, the death of Man. I'm sinking in the quicksand, of my thought, And I ain't got the power anymore." I think David Bowie put it a little bit better and he did come up with a pretty great melody and chord progression for the tune, but don't let that get you down, you gotta start somewhere, right? I think he said it better because he had the ability to discern the difference between fantasy and reality. He then learned to channel his apocryphal visions in to art. You're wasting your talents here in reality, my friend!
- grovulent 13y ago
  Well - that's certainly the most charming jibe I've received about my writing. I tip my hat to you sir. I would be keen to know your opinion after reading the whole article. I assume you haven't - because I do at least make an argument for that claim, and you don't attempt to address it before calling me deluded. Given the large amount of effort I put into that article, don't you think I might deserve this much at least?
  - williamcotton 13y ago
    Another thing you could learn from Bowie is how to write succinctly. Listen dude, I don't think Bitcoin is valueless. It is an interesting solution to a number of technical challenges in distributed computing. It may even very well work as some sort of digital currency. What I don't think is that it is going to change the world. You and every other maniac out there is actually doing a disservice to the acceptance of the technology. What kind of loony expects someone to read a 10,000 word essay that starts off with some sweeping claim about how 'everything's different now!'? You don't know shit about the world. You couldn't possibly have enough experience or knowledge to piece together any sort of valid prediction, just like every other motherfucker out there. You've just got faith in some grand tale that honestly isn't that different from any other end-of-time story, like say, the Book of Revelations. You're right to point the finger at economists when they make grand sweeping claims. They're just storytellers. There's a reason it is considered a liberal art. Computer programmers and engineers aren't much more than storytellers either. There is even more danger of delusion in software because entire virtual worlds are created and then assumed to be real. Math is the language of nature. Truth is the language of man. Learn to tell the difference.
    - grovulent 13y ago
      Oh dear, you're a very vituperative fellow. I don't expect you to read it at all. I couldn't give a tinker's cuss if you do or don't. Generally though, if you don't want to look like a fool, it's best not to express an opinion about a piece you haven't read. The claim you are so hostile to is actually not even particularly controversial. It's a conditional statement for one thing (you don't even read an introduction carefully) and it's easily defended. It's a fact that no currency has ever been widely adopted without having some kind of intrinsic or government mandated value. Plain, historical fact. Bitcoin has no intrinsic or government mandated value. So if it gains widespread adoption, then I don't see how you could possibly deny the historical significance of this. A large amount of economic orthodoxy goes out the window. If you are willing to address this argument, I'm willing to listen. But if you're just here to beat your chest and get all alpha on me then I might point out you're better off hitting the gym and cruising the bars. It's more likely to get you laid than arguing with me.

williamcotton 13y ago

> Bitcoin really is a currency of “mere agreement” then you can begin to see that its mainstream acceptance will genuinely herald the dawn of a new age of human civilisation. And don’t be too quick to take that last statement as hyperbolic praise – it might be a statement of supreme pessimism about its potential for success, depending on your point of view. Have you considered a career in science fiction or as a song writer? "I'm torn between the light and dark, Where others see their targets, Divine symmetry. Should I kiss the viper's fang, Or herald loud, the death of Man. I'm sinking in the quicksand, of my thought, And I ain't got the power anymore." I think David Bowie put it a little bit better and he did come up with a pretty great melody and chord progression for the tune, but don't let that get you down, you gotta start somewhere, right? I think he said it better because he had the ability to discern the difference between fantasy and reality. He then learned to channel his apocryphal visions in to art. You're wasting your talents here in reality, my friend!

grovulent 13y ago
Well - that's certainly the most charming jibe I've received about my writing. I tip my hat to you sir. I would be keen to know your opinion after reading the whole article. I assume you haven't - because I do at least make an argument for that claim, and you don't attempt to address it before calling me deluded. Given the large amount of effort I put into that article, don't you think I might deserve this much at least?
- williamcotton 13y ago
  Another thing you could learn from Bowie is how to write succinctly. Listen dude, I don't think Bitcoin is valueless. It is an interesting solution to a number of technical challenges in distributed computing. It may even very well work as some sort of digital currency. What I don't think is that it is going to change the world. You and every other maniac out there is actually doing a disservice to the acceptance of the technology. What kind of loony expects someone to read a 10,000 word essay that starts off with some sweeping claim about how 'everything's different now!'? You don't know shit about the world. You couldn't possibly have enough experience or knowledge to piece together any sort of valid prediction, just like every other motherfucker out there. You've just got faith in some grand tale that honestly isn't that different from any other end-of-time story, like say, the Book of Revelations. You're right to point the finger at economists when they make grand sweeping claims. They're just storytellers. There's a reason it is considered a liberal art. Computer programmers and engineers aren't much more than storytellers either. There is even more danger of delusion in software because entire virtual worlds are created and then assumed to be real. Math is the language of nature. Truth is the language of man. Learn to tell the difference.
  - grovulent 13y ago
    Oh dear, you're a very vituperative fellow. I don't expect you to read it at all. I couldn't give a tinker's cuss if you do or don't. Generally though, if you don't want to look like a fool, it's best not to express an opinion about a piece you haven't read. The claim you are so hostile to is actually not even particularly controversial. It's a conditional statement for one thing (you don't even read an introduction carefully) and it's easily defended. It's a fact that no currency has ever been widely adopted without having some kind of intrinsic or government mandated value. Plain, historical fact. Bitcoin has no intrinsic or government mandated value. So if it gains widespread adoption, then I don't see how you could possibly deny the historical significance of this. A large amount of economic orthodoxy goes out the window. If you are willing to address this argument, I'm willing to listen. But if you're just here to beat your chest and get all alpha on me then I might point out you're better off hitting the gym and cruising the bars. It's more likely to get you laid than arguing with me.