4 ms·

Perhaps given the source (Wall Street Journal), it is no surprise that they asked a couple of economics professors for their opinions on Bitcoin's future... but

Perhaps given the source (Wall Street Journal), it is no surprise that they asked a couple of economics professors for their opinions on Bitcoin's future... but, they could have thought a little more creatively about the possibilities. Dr. Harvey (on the "Yes" side), made the typical gesture, at least part right, that the technology is the interesting part. In fact, the subheading says it all: "Valuing Bitcoin as a Technology"---but an edit would improve the matter: "Valuing Technology"; or simply "Technology". Other than those who have skin in the Bitcoin game, there's no reason for your average person to care about Bitcoin in particular, but the idea and the technological pursuits that it embodies are worth paying attention to. In fact, I think this is the primary reason HN likes Bitcoin---nobody cares about its economic logic or valuation or whether a new block every ten minutes enables liquidity or not. The IDEA behind Bitcoin, and subsequent cryptocurrencies, is what matters. The TECHNOLOGY that permits novel arrangements of power, social interaction, and human-computer interfacing is exciting. Personally, I'm ambivalent on whether the technology is, on its own terms, good or bad. But, what I don't doubt, is whether the idea is going to stay---we won't call it "Bitcoin" in 10 years, but we may call it "Ethereum" or "Dogecoin" or something not yet invented. In fact, we'll likely just call it by some acronym only the geeks care about (but everyone uses): like HTTP or USB. The technology will recede from its specular, media-driven attention and just become how things are done. Banks will transfer funds on a blockchain (perhaps the government forces them for transparency and verifiability), ATMs will become decentralized, you'll establish a smart contract with your Uber driver... and so on.[1] [1] For anyone interested, I'll be giving a talk on cryptocurrencies at NYU this Wednesday (March 4, 5PM), along with Bill Maurer and Finn Brunton. Free registration here: http://events.nyu.edu/#event_id/30104/view/event http://events.nyu.edu/#event_id/30104/view/event

dontdownvote 12y ago
Ok, so everybody can make a currency, keep some for them (directly or indirectly), convince people to use it, making it scarce and making the value of it grow. Great idea! How couldn't we think about it before! Let's start with a small group (technical people, in case of cryptocurrencies) that are idealists and full of goodwill. Then we'll pack the idea as the world's salvation from stupid governments and fees. Don't be evil! Meanwhile my (fat) share of myCurrency is getting value exponentially.
- quinndupont 12y ago
  Far from being opposed to the article's articulation of cryptocurrencies, I see your (sarcastic) response as buying into the very logic of it. Thinking that the problem with Bitcoin and its ilk is its lack of economic stability, liquidity, or whatever economic factor floats your boat is tantamount to endorsing a future version that fixes the issue. You see, you've been trapped into the short-sighted vision that the RIGHT cryptocurrency is just a patch or version away. The issues with cryptocurrencies are much deeper than implementation errors. I may actually agree with your economic assessment of Bitcoin, but I think that's quite beside the point, and we should learn to speak about the deeper issues and debate these.

dontdownvote 12y ago

Ok, so everybody can make a currency, keep some for them (directly or indirectly), convince people to use it, making it scarce and making the value of it grow. Great idea! How couldn't we think about it before! Let's start with a small group (technical people, in case of cryptocurrencies) that are idealists and full of goodwill. Then we'll pack the idea as the world's salvation from stupid governments and fees. Don't be evil! Meanwhile my (fat) share of myCurrency is getting value exponentially.

quinndupont 12y ago
Far from being opposed to the article's articulation of cryptocurrencies, I see your (sarcastic) response as buying into the very logic of it. Thinking that the problem with Bitcoin and its ilk is its lack of economic stability, liquidity, or whatever economic factor floats your boat is tantamount to endorsing a future version that fixes the issue. You see, you've been trapped into the short-sighted vision that the RIGHT cryptocurrency is just a patch or version away. The issues with cryptocurrencies are much deeper than implementation errors. I may actually agree with your economic assessment of Bitcoin, but I think that's quite beside the point, and we should learn to speak about the deeper issues and debate these.