4 ms·

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 bitcoi

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.
- CJefferson 12y ago
  I don't pay ATM fees (in the UK). Also, bitcoin has dropped (it looks like) about 4% day, so as long as my ATM fees are less than 4% of my account, I'm still in profit for the day compared to bitcoin.
grovulent 12y ago
>> Such a thing has (in modern times) never happened with the normal monetary system, and couldn't happen (because governments wouldn't let it). Easily trumped once again. Not only have governments let failures happen at a much greater scale - they've facilitated them. Bear Stearns - when it collapsed was actually relatively well capitalized - it just couldn't get access to the day to day liquidity that all large institutions need access to these days because the markets were spooked. The fed could have just provided them a loan to see them through, and the NY fed were poised to give them funding - but instead at the last moment changed their mind and ordered Bear Stearns to do a deal with JP Morgan to have them bought out. JP Morgan came to the table with an offer of 2 dollars per share. It eventually went up to 10 - but this was a stock that was trading at over a hundred dollars per share not a few months before. Shareholders were effectively wiped out. Despite this event being part of a catalyst that almost ended modern capitalism as we know it - you state that the failures of Bitcoin seem much bigger. I'm sorry - but this isn't just a matter of perception - this is just false. There were no systemic failures that happened on account of the failure of Mt Gox. People lost money. Trade moved onto the other exchanges. That was it. The fact that you can come to the conclusion that Bitcoin's failures seem bigger somehow proves everything that I've been saying about the absurdity of Bitcoin perception.
- pjc50 12y ago
  The finance system failing has nothing to do with failures of the monetary system, nor of retail banking. If I wanted to point to one of those, I'd say Cyprus. Gox failed in a remarkably traditional way: a bank run. They didn't have enough reserves to cover their liabilities. It turns out that this was due to fraud and/or insolvency. It's always possible to say "bitcoin cannot fail, it can only be failed", because the failures are those of its support institutions. However, the support institutions are critical to actually using it and it retaining its value. They're not part of the tech but they're part of the system.
  - grovulent 12y ago
    I can't tell if you agree with me or not. We're talking about the institutional systems built on top of the monetary system and our respective trust in each. You seem to say the same at the end of your comment. But I'm not claiming that the collapse of Bear Stearns was a failure of the traditional monetary system. The fact that the fed can print money at will is the reason why essentially they had it in their power to extend an emergency loan to Bear Stearns. That they chose instead to wipe out shareholders was an institutional failure. It was an institutional failure on a colossal scale - and yet clearly water off a duck's back.

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.
CJefferson 12y ago
I don't pay ATM fees (in the UK). Also, bitcoin has dropped (it looks like) about 4% day, so as long as my ATM fees are less than 4% of my account, I'm still in profit for the day compared to bitcoin.

grovulent 12y ago

>> Such a thing has (in modern times) never happened with the normal monetary system, and couldn't happen (because governments wouldn't let it). Easily trumped once again. Not only have governments let failures happen at a much greater scale - they've facilitated them. Bear Stearns - when it collapsed was actually relatively well capitalized - it just couldn't get access to the day to day liquidity that all large institutions need access to these days because the markets were spooked. The fed could have just provided them a loan to see them through, and the NY fed were poised to give them funding - but instead at the last moment changed their mind and ordered Bear Stearns to do a deal with JP Morgan to have them bought out. JP Morgan came to the table with an offer of 2 dollars per share. It eventually went up to 10 - but this was a stock that was trading at over a hundred dollars per share not a few months before. Shareholders were effectively wiped out. Despite this event being part of a catalyst that almost ended modern capitalism as we know it - you state that the failures of Bitcoin seem much bigger. I'm sorry - but this isn't just a matter of perception - this is just false. There were no systemic failures that happened on account of the failure of Mt Gox. People lost money. Trade moved onto the other exchanges. That was it. The fact that you can come to the conclusion that Bitcoin's failures seem bigger somehow proves everything that I've been saying about the absurdity of Bitcoin perception.

pjc50 12y ago
The finance system failing has nothing to do with failures of the monetary system, nor of retail banking. If I wanted to point to one of those, I'd say Cyprus. Gox failed in a remarkably traditional way: a bank run. They didn't have enough reserves to cover their liabilities. It turns out that this was due to fraud and/or insolvency. It's always possible to say "bitcoin cannot fail, it can only be failed", because the failures are those of its support institutions. However, the support institutions are critical to actually using it and it retaining its value. They're not part of the tech but they're part of the system.
- grovulent 12y ago
  I can't tell if you agree with me or not. We're talking about the institutional systems built on top of the monetary system and our respective trust in each. You seem to say the same at the end of your comment. But I'm not claiming that the collapse of Bear Stearns was a failure of the traditional monetary system. The fact that the fed can print money at will is the reason why essentially they had it in their power to extend an emergency loan to Bear Stearns. That they chose instead to wipe out shareholders was an institutional failure. It was an institutional failure on a colossal scale - and yet clearly water off a duck's back.