5 ms·

I think it's fair to say that the vocal majority of BitCoiners have a very naive view of some basic economic concepts.

by mbesto 12y ago

WallWextra 12y ago
Also that they like ramming it down everyone's throats.
- techrat 12y ago
  Given the value of BitCoin relies on desire and the only way they can possibly convince people that they want BitCoin is to spam it until they believe it...
wyager 12y ago
>a very naive view of some basic economic concepts. Which concepts in particular are you referring to?
- shiven 12y ago
  The failure, nay the pigheaded refusal, to learn from history. BitCoin is faux money and will likely be recorded as the "Dutch Tulip Bubble" [0] of our times. Intentions and wishful thinking alone are not enough to create revolutions. Crises are invariably required to change such fundamental concepts as value of currency in the public's mind, and it has to happen on a massive scale in a tiny span of time. BitCoin will be no more than the butt of jokes in another decade unless it finds it's destiny in a crisis made for it to shine. [0] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania
  - wyager 12y ago
    You haven't actually mentioned any economic principles; you've just compared Bitcoin to a historical bubble (of which there were certainly many) without any evidence supporting this comparison. >BitCoin is faux money Could you expand on this? How do you define "faux" money?
  - ougawouga 12y ago
    OK, you're making 2 different claims. The first claim is that Bitoiners refuse to learn from history. But the second claim is that crises are required for revolutionary change (history says, I presume). So how are Bitcoiners refusing to learn from history? By trying in the first place? Or by failing to manufacture a crisis? And really, linking to the wikipedia page of tulip mania, as if we haven't heard that trope 10,000 times?
- mbesto 12y ago
  For one, there's a massive disconnect in distinguishing between the value of the currency and currency as a medium of exchange. For example, most sites and discussions focus on the value of BTC vs USD. Very few look at volatility and transaction volume.
  - wyager 12y ago
    >Very few look at volatility That is fair. Do you think this is an insurmountable disadvantage? >and transaction volume. I don't know about that. Bitcoiners have been very vocal about the regularly increasing transaction volume since its inception. See https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions-excluding-popular?timespan=all https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions-excluding-popu...
    - jevgeni 12y ago
      Using Bitcoin is basically, like using a foreign currency, with the only difference, that in case of a the conventional currency you might actually live in the country it is used. In other words, whenever you use Bitcoin you take on FX risk. This means, that Bitcoin is something you wouldn't want to store value in for the long-term. Hedging that risk will also prove a major headache, since there aren't that many Bitcoin contracts out there, and the ones that are, carry some major credit risk with them.
      - furbyhater 12y ago
        It's different than most other foreign currencies in the sense that it's variance in value is MUCH higher than your usual currency. I would consider storing my personal fortune in CHF, JPY, USD, or even EUR but never in BTC.
        jevgeni 12y ago
        Exactly, the volatility is why people wouldn't use it as a store of value. P. S. I like how you went "...or even EUR" ;)
      - 12y ago
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  Friction, lowest friction tends to win and bitcoin demands friction to run the blockchain. I don't think electronic exchange mechanisms are daft, but I do think the bitcoin model is.
  - wyager 12y ago
    >bitcoin demands friction to run the blockchain It requires (electrical) power. I don't think this could reasonably be called "friction". When I think "friction", I think of burdens imposed on users. Bitcoin has relatively few of those.
    - lotsofmangos 12y ago
      Cost per transaction of $19 is a fair amount of friction - https://blockchain.info/charts/cost-per-transaction https://blockchain.info/charts/cost-per-transaction
      - wyager 12y ago
        >Cost per transaction of $19 is a fair amount of friction Haha, I have no idea what that chart is talking about. It might be in cents. Even then, it seems expensive. My phone client uses a ~$0.05 fee, I think. All fees are optional. Your transaction might just take longer without one.
        lotsofmangos 12y ago
        Yeah, just thinking about that fee graph. I have no idea of the transaction size it is based on and without that it is pretty useless.
        backdraw_ 12y ago
        There are about 500 transactions per block; each block contains 25BTC + fees (the fees are negligible at the moment). At the current price of $350/BTC that means that the revenue per transaction is 25*350/500 = $17, which means that the cost per transaction should be around that area. This means that the low transaction fee is actually massively subsidized by the fixed block reward.
kordless 12y ago
I think it's fair to say that's a blaming statement. Comments by people who appreciate the value of the blockchain are not all naive. I'd say the vast majority of people don't quite understand the ramifications yet, and would rather talk about what we all focus on: money. That's not what I think the value of Bitcoin is, however.
yxhuvud 12y ago
Well, the vocal majority of EVERYONE has a very naive view of most basic economic concepts.
- geofft 12y ago
  Fully agreed -- but I'm not trying to do very much with economics other than save money and pay taxes. For the things where I'm trying to act towards specific social change (e.g., privacy and security, in my case) I make an effort to be well-informed about, technically, socially, and legally. I don't have any illusions that the status quo is good, but there are also things that you can't be naive about when changing. I think there are a lot of broken things about how currency works, but there are also quite a number of good things, and setting the whole thing on fire without understanding which parts are good and why is a recipe for hurting people and also failing to get your idea to succeed. http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html http://xkcd.com/592/ http://xkcd.com/592/

I think it's fair to say that the vocal majority of BitCoiners have a very naive view of some basic economic concepts.

by mbesto 12y ago

I think it's fair to say that the vocal majority of BitCoiners have a very naive view of some basic economic concepts.

WallWextra 12y ago

Also that they like ramming it down everyone's throats.

techrat 12y ago
Given the value of BitCoin relies on desire and the only way they can possibly convince people that they want BitCoin is to spam it until they believe it...

wyager 12y ago

>a very naive view of some basic economic concepts. Which concepts in particular are you referring to?

shiven 12y ago
The failure, nay the pigheaded refusal, to learn from history. BitCoin is faux money and will likely be recorded as the "Dutch Tulip Bubble" [0] of our times. Intentions and wishful thinking alone are not enough to create revolutions. Crises are invariably required to change such fundamental concepts as value of currency in the public's mind, and it has to happen on a massive scale in a tiny span of time. BitCoin will be no more than the butt of jokes in another decade unless it finds it's destiny in a crisis made for it to shine. [0] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania
- wyager 12y ago
  You haven't actually mentioned any economic principles; you've just compared Bitcoin to a historical bubble (of which there were certainly many) without any evidence supporting this comparison. >BitCoin is faux money Could you expand on this? How do you define "faux" money?
- ougawouga 12y ago
  OK, you're making 2 different claims. The first claim is that Bitoiners refuse to learn from history. But the second claim is that crises are required for revolutionary change (history says, I presume). So how are Bitcoiners refusing to learn from history? By trying in the first place? Or by failing to manufacture a crisis? And really, linking to the wikipedia page of tulip mania, as if we haven't heard that trope 10,000 times?
mbesto 12y ago
For one, there's a massive disconnect in distinguishing between the value of the currency and currency as a medium of exchange. For example, most sites and discussions focus on the value of BTC vs USD. Very few look at volatility and transaction volume.
- wyager 12y ago
  >Very few look at volatility That is fair. Do you think this is an insurmountable disadvantage? >and transaction volume. I don't know about that. Bitcoiners have been very vocal about the regularly increasing transaction volume since its inception. See https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions-excluding-popular?timespan=all https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions-excluding-popu...
  - jevgeni 12y ago
    Using Bitcoin is basically, like using a foreign currency, with the only difference, that in case of a the conventional currency you might actually live in the country it is used. In other words, whenever you use Bitcoin you take on FX risk. This means, that Bitcoin is something you wouldn't want to store value in for the long-term. Hedging that risk will also prove a major headache, since there aren't that many Bitcoin contracts out there, and the ones that are, carry some major credit risk with them.
    - furbyhater 12y ago
      It's different than most other foreign currencies in the sense that it's variance in value is MUCH higher than your usual currency. I would consider storing my personal fortune in CHF, JPY, USD, or even EUR but never in BTC.
      - jevgeni 12y ago
        Exactly, the volatility is why people wouldn't use it as a store of value. P. S. I like how you went "...or even EUR" ;)
    - 12y ago
lotsofmangos 12y ago
Friction, lowest friction tends to win and bitcoin demands friction to run the blockchain. I don't think electronic exchange mechanisms are daft, but I do think the bitcoin model is.
- wyager 12y ago
  >bitcoin demands friction to run the blockchain It requires (electrical) power. I don't think this could reasonably be called "friction". When I think "friction", I think of burdens imposed on users. Bitcoin has relatively few of those.
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    Cost per transaction of $19 is a fair amount of friction - https://blockchain.info/charts/cost-per-transaction https://blockchain.info/charts/cost-per-transaction
    - wyager 12y ago
      >Cost per transaction of $19 is a fair amount of friction Haha, I have no idea what that chart is talking about. It might be in cents. Even then, it seems expensive. My phone client uses a ~$0.05 fee, I think. All fees are optional. Your transaction might just take longer without one.
      - lotsofmangos 12y ago
        Yeah, just thinking about that fee graph. I have no idea of the transaction size it is based on and without that it is pretty useless.
      - backdraw_ 12y ago
        There are about 500 transactions per block; each block contains 25BTC + fees (the fees are negligible at the moment). At the current price of $350/BTC that means that the revenue per transaction is 25*350/500 = $17, which means that the cost per transaction should be around that area. This means that the low transaction fee is actually massively subsidized by the fixed block reward.

kordless 12y ago

I think it's fair to say that's a blaming statement. Comments by people who appreciate the value of the blockchain are not all naive. I'd say the vast majority of people don't quite understand the ramifications yet, and would rather talk about what we all focus on: money. That's not what I think the value of Bitcoin is, however.

yxhuvud 12y ago

Well, the vocal majority of EVERYONE has a very naive view of most basic economic concepts.

geofft 12y ago
Fully agreed -- but I'm not trying to do very much with economics other than save money and pay taxes. For the things where I'm trying to act towards specific social change (e.g., privacy and security, in my case) I make an effort to be well-informed about, technically, socially, and legally. I don't have any illusions that the status quo is good, but there are also things that you can't be naive about when changing. I think there are a lot of broken things about how currency works, but there are also quite a number of good things, and setting the whole thing on fire without understanding which parts are good and why is a recipe for hurting people and also failing to get your idea to succeed. http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html http://xkcd.com/592/ http://xkcd.com/592/