4 ms·

I think you're not quite seeing my point. I agree that something like what you wrote is likely descriptive (very roughly) of the conscious thoughts of the aver

I think you're not quite seeing my point. I agree that something like what you wrote is likely descriptive (very roughly) of the conscious thoughts of the average punter - but what we need here is an explanation of WHY this is going through the average punter's head. And such an explanation is not necessarily going to be something that is included on their conscious list of concerns (though it might). What you have reiterated here is just what the article has already said. We already know facts like: - Punter hears about silk road, associates Bitcoin with illegal drug markets. What we want to know is why hearing such a fact causes such an association. Now you might think that there is no explanation here that is needed beyond how reputations are assigned generally by human societies. You might just think that - well, it's natural to associate a low reputation score to a system when you hear headlines about Silk Road style marketplaces, and so there is nothing more to say here. I'm saying - no, there is something more going on here than just standard reputation assignment. Why? Well - as I said before - because for every negative headline that is supposed to prove Bitcoin's low reputation, we can produce a fact about the traditional system that completely trumps the negative bitcoin headline. As another example since you mentioned Silk Road. What is the financial instrument used overwhelmingly by the world's drug dealers to exchange value? It is the U.S. 100 dollar bill. But is the reputation of the U.S. dollar impacted by this? Not at all. The even greater irony is that while the Bitcoin ecosystem overall gets branded as the province of nutbar libertarians that love drug dealers - the U.S. government is renown the world over for fighting the war on drugs. Except the U.S. has done nothing to remove the hundred dollar bills that drug dealers love to use. There is no greater single act the U.S. government could do to fight the drug cartels. It doesn't do it. So the reputation assignments here are odd to say the least. They certainly aren't consistent. This is something that cries out for explanation.

Nursie 12y ago
>> I'm saying - no, there is something more going on here than just standard reputation assignment. Why? Well - as I said before - because for every negative headline that is supposed to prove Bitcoin's low reputation, we can produce a fact about the traditional system that completely trumps the negative bitcoin headline. I don't think this is as powerful as you do. Particularly when coupled with the fact that Joe Average uses American Dollars every single day, and has done for his whole life. Trust is conditioned in, it's implicit at that point. Why should he use a new thing? Especially with all the dodgy stuff he sees around it? >>So the reputation assignments here are odd to say the least. They certainly aren't consistent. I don't think humans are consistent or rational all that often, and I do think people are going to be very, very conservative when it comes to money. Don't underestimate the power of incumbency. The perception of risk is very important. I understand BTC in a way that very few non-technical people can, though probably only around an average level for a techie, and I'm afraid I wouldn't trust it. The protocol, sure, the community and businesses that have arisen from it, my legal protections when using it etc etc? No way in hell.
- grovulent 12y ago
  The point about U.S. dollars being the default is fair - though I personally don't think it can be the whole explanation. >> Why should he use a new thing? But this is not actually the same question as the reputation assignment. It's quite possible that the consumer could decide that there was NO positive reason to use Bitcoin without having made the negative reputation assignments that have become common now. I'm not trying to make the case that there are sufficient positive reasons to use it - just that the reasons to not use it aren't rationally assigned.
  - Nursie 12y ago
    >> just that the reasons to not use it aren't rationally assigned. I agree that many of the reasons people stay away aren't rational. However I don't think all are irrational - Someone might compromise my computer or my wallet provider and get all the money. This has happened repeatedly. There may be nothing I can do about that, technically or legally. While this is a bit like Madoff, I don't have to interact with Madoff to obtain or use dollars. To obtain and use BTC I pretty much have to take the risk of dealing with the BTC community.
  - daves346 12y ago
    >> just that the reasons to not use it aren't rationally assigned. What's irrational about not wanting to store your personal wealth in a currency where the value fluctuates constantly, many times by multiple percentages points in a single day? If you don't keep a wallet with some BTC in it, then what good is it? If you're just using it as a means to transfer dollars around, you're definitely in a niche market -- and it could be argued that the rational one is the guy staying the hell away from BTC.
CJefferson 12y ago
Speaking as someone who vaguely follows bitcoin, the major success story of bitcoin seems to be only Silk Road. I can see no personal advantage to using bitcoin for anything, except for illegal transactions. The problem is that while you can find negatives of the normal network, you can't find enough positives for bitcoin. Also, the failures seem much bigger -- when MtGox failed it was the biggest exchange, and everyone lost everything. Such a thing has (in modern times) never happened with the normal monetry system, and couldn't happen (because governments wouldn't let it). I trust my bank to look after my money more than I trust a bitcoin exchange, or myself not to misplace a vital private key / get my wallet stolen. The idea that bitcoins are largely untraceable and unrecoverable does not to me (I'm afraid) seem like an advantage. Further, from a technical viewpoint, it seems to me I'm just replacing one series of masters with another -- 2/3 of all bitcoins are already in circulation, so the "1%" (current users) of bitcoin are already extremely wealthy. The idea that bitcoin is uncentralised and uncontrollable seems false, when 2 or 3 (or 1?) large mining groups effectively control the bitcoin network, and can (and have) just "stopped" it for a while to sort out problems.
- arebop 12y ago
  Miniscule ATM fees, and wherever there's a network connection, there's an ATM. Maybe someday, smart contracts (but AFAIK today they are only used for toys).
  - Nursie 12y ago
    Who pays ATM fees ?? Is this a US thing? Transfers between people and withdrawing money from an ATM have been fast and free here (UK) for some time...
    - pjc50 12y ago
      Quite a lot of the proposed advantages of bitcoin are things that non-US banks have provided for a while. US banking is a badly functioning market with regulators who aren't interested in modernising the retail experience.
  - 12y ago

Nursie 12y ago

>> I'm saying - no, there is something more going on here than just standard reputation assignment. Why? Well - as I said before - because for every negative headline that is supposed to prove Bitcoin's low reputation, we can produce a fact about the traditional system that completely trumps the negative bitcoin headline. I don't think this is as powerful as you do. Particularly when coupled with the fact that Joe Average uses American Dollars every single day, and has done for his whole life. Trust is conditioned in, it's implicit at that point. Why should he use a new thing? Especially with all the dodgy stuff he sees around it? >>So the reputation assignments here are odd to say the least. They certainly aren't consistent. I don't think humans are consistent or rational all that often, and I do think people are going to be very, very conservative when it comes to money. Don't underestimate the power of incumbency. The perception of risk is very important. I understand BTC in a way that very few non-technical people can, though probably only around an average level for a techie, and I'm afraid I wouldn't trust it. The protocol, sure, the community and businesses that have arisen from it, my legal protections when using it etc etc? No way in hell.

grovulent 12y ago
The point about U.S. dollars being the default is fair - though I personally don't think it can be the whole explanation. >> Why should he use a new thing? But this is not actually the same question as the reputation assignment. It's quite possible that the consumer could decide that there was NO positive reason to use Bitcoin without having made the negative reputation assignments that have become common now. I'm not trying to make the case that there are sufficient positive reasons to use it - just that the reasons to not use it aren't rationally assigned.
- Nursie 12y ago
  >> just that the reasons to not use it aren't rationally assigned. I agree that many of the reasons people stay away aren't rational. However I don't think all are irrational - Someone might compromise my computer or my wallet provider and get all the money. This has happened repeatedly. There may be nothing I can do about that, technically or legally. While this is a bit like Madoff, I don't have to interact with Madoff to obtain or use dollars. To obtain and use BTC I pretty much have to take the risk of dealing with the BTC community.
- daves346 12y ago
  >> just that the reasons to not use it aren't rationally assigned. What's irrational about not wanting to store your personal wealth in a currency where the value fluctuates constantly, many times by multiple percentages points in a single day? If you don't keep a wallet with some BTC in it, then what good is it? If you're just using it as a means to transfer dollars around, you're definitely in a niche market -- and it could be argued that the rational one is the guy staying the hell away from BTC.

CJefferson 12y ago

Speaking as someone who vaguely follows bitcoin, the major success story of bitcoin seems to be only Silk Road. I can see no personal advantage to using bitcoin for anything, except for illegal transactions. The problem is that while you can find negatives of the normal network, you can't find enough positives for bitcoin. Also, the failures seem much bigger -- when MtGox failed it was the biggest exchange, and everyone lost everything. Such a thing has (in modern times) never happened with the normal monetry system, and couldn't happen (because governments wouldn't let it). I trust my bank to look after my money more than I trust a bitcoin exchange, or myself not to misplace a vital private key / get my wallet stolen. The idea that bitcoins are largely untraceable and unrecoverable does not to me (I'm afraid) seem like an advantage. Further, from a technical viewpoint, it seems to me I'm just replacing one series of masters with another -- 2/3 of all bitcoins are already in circulation, so the "1%" (current users) of bitcoin are already extremely wealthy. The idea that bitcoin is uncentralised and uncontrollable seems false, when 2 or 3 (or 1?) large mining groups effectively control the bitcoin network, and can (and have) just "stopped" it for a while to sort out problems.

arebop 12y ago
Miniscule ATM fees, and wherever there's a network connection, there's an ATM. Maybe someday, smart contracts (but AFAIK today they are only used for toys).
- Nursie 12y ago
  Who pays ATM fees ?? Is this a US thing? Transfers between people and withdrawing money from an ATM have been fast and free here (UK) for some time...
  - pjc50 12y ago
    Quite a lot of the proposed advantages of bitcoin are things that non-US banks have provided for a while. US banking is a badly functioning market with regulators who aren't interested in modernising the retail experience.
- 12y ago