What are your thoughts on BitCoin?

[Leoreth]

Except that it sucks as a medium of exchange because of its volatility.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

You know, if any of you have bitcoins you don't want, I'd be more than happy to take them off your hands

 

[hobbsyoyo]

You’ve made a compelling argument about how dumb some bitcoin proponents are.
However, none of that speaks to the thing itself.

An argument for the community interested in a thing is not an argument regarding the thing itself.

I happen to appreciate the company of a number of people who enjoyed Jackson’s “The Return of the King” and “the Hobbit.” However, I do not enjoy those movies myself. It may be informative that I associate w/ people who like those two movies, as it may that I enjoyed the first two Jackson / Tolkien movies, but it is not dispositive.
--
Bitcoins are a system by which one can execute an online currency w/o dealing w/ issues of trust. That’s all it is. It may mean something more to other people, but that doesn’t change the thing itself.

I thought Dachs did a decent job of explaining why bitcoins themselves are useless and stupid on top of making fun of the bitcoiners. There was a lot of substance to that point but it seems all you got out of it is 'bitcoins are bad, bitcoiners are stupid'.

 

[TheLastOne36]

So it is my impression that there were some bitcoin related threads back in December of last year?

Anyone mind pointing me their direction? I want to skim through those threads. Forum's search is not helping.

 

[Leoreth]

I still like RON PAUL FUN BUX.

But when I make reference to the term Dunning-Kruger I can demonstrate my awareness of the phenomenon, thus making the impression that I'm not affected by it

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

So it is my impression that there were some bitcoin related threads back in December of last year?

Anyone mind pointing me their direction? I want to skim through those threads. Forum's search is not helping.

I didn't see them either.

 

[Crezth]

BitCoins are an unstable, unreliable currency used only by drug dealers, idealistic libertards, and con-men. It wouldn't be so bad if the history of BitCoins wasn't rife with cheats, thieves, and hackers. As of now, it's pretty much a failed currency. Unless you want to buy some drugs. Stuff is cryptographic.

internet nerds mock bitcoins (nws)

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I didn't see them either.

So it is my impression that there were some bitcoin related threads back in December of last year?

Anyone mind pointing me their direction? I want to skim through those threads. Forum's search is not helping.

IIRC, there was not a single bitcoin-specific thread in December or ever. Rather, bitcoins came up at one point and the words RON PAUL FUN BUX were uttered. Given that this was at the height of some serious Ron Paul spam (and I blame myself as much for that as anyone else), RON PAUL FUN BUX (aka bitcoins) became a label that was spam-posted across many, many threads. I myself was told off by none less than JoanK for overusing the words and I was far from the only one who did so.

It was a bad time to frequent CFC OT if you wanted to discuss anything seriously because every other post was RON PAUL FUN BOX or SLAVERY WASN'T THAT BAD or TAXES ARE THEFT, etc etc.

 

[Leoreth]

No, there definitely was a thread that discussed BitCoin as its main topic (I'm not sure if they were the original topic of the thread or if it just developed into that direction somehow). I remember Dachs posts of similar length and content, hence my reference to the Dunning-Krugerrand thing.

I think it was earlier than December, though.

 

[Zelig]

Except that it sucks as a medium of exchange because of its volatility.

I don't really see the problem with volatility.

 

[shadowplay]

So it is my impression that there were some bitcoin related threads back in December of last year?

Anyone mind pointing me their direction? I want to skim through those threads. Forum's search is not helping.

I believe the discussion being referred to takes place in this thread starting around reply #13:
group claims to have Romney's tax returns, holding them for ransom

 

[hobbsyoyo]

It came up in more than one thread for sure though, I know I spammed about funbux like every other thread.

 

[Crezth]

I don't really see the problem with volatility.

Nobody uses BitCoins seriously, the market for them is volatile, the principle exchange websites are hacked often, their only major usage is to exchange contraband, but guys, it's a great currency! It... it has to be! RAPTURE IS DELIVERANCE!

 

[Leoreth]

I don't really see the problem with volatility.

I'm sure to be a viable medium of exchange for such transactions you should be able to acquire some bitcoins on one day so they are available for later use?

If you have to convert your traditional currency into bitcoins every time you want to make such a transaction, it kind of defeats the purpose. And keeping bitcoins over an extended period of time can easily screw you over because of the volatility.

 

[History_Buff]

I must admit that calling them 'buttcoins' makes one sound rather immature.

I agree with this. The term Dachs originally used when we first talked about them - Dunning-Krugerrand - is much funnier, if harder to spell.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Nobody uses BitCoins seriously, the market for them is volatile, the principle exchange websites are hacked often, their only major usage is to exchange contraband, but guys, it's a great currency! It... it has to be! RAPTURE IS DELIVERANCE!

But obviously Zelig has no problems with any of that.

 

[warpus]

There was recently a guy in /r/personalfinance who "invested" $100k or so into bitcoins.

He was promptly laughed out of his own thread.. Not that the people there thought that bitcoins are an inherently horrible idea.. but.. you don't invest all your money something like that. That's just not "investing".

Anyway, that's all I know about bitcoins

 

[Zelig]

Nobody uses BitCoins seriously, the market for them is volatile, the principle exchange websites are hacked often, their only major usage is to exchange contraband, but guys, it's a great currency! It... it has to be! RAPTURE IS DELIVERANCE!

Strawman.

I'm sure to be a viable medium of exchange for such transactions you should be able to acquire some bitcoins on one day so they are available for later use?

If you have to convert your traditional currency into bitcoins every time you want to make such a transaction, it kind of defeats the purpose. And keeping bitcoins over an extended period of time can easily screw you over because of the volatility.

Volatility doesn't preclude coming out ahead as often as losing out - extreme volatility does nothing to affect the long run expectation.

There was recently a guy in /r/personalfinance who "invested" $100k or so into bitcoins.

He was promptly laughed out of his own thread.. Not that the people there thought that bitcoins are an inherently horrible idea.. but.. you don't invest all your money something like that. That's just not "investing".

Anyway, that's all I know about bitcoins

Investing $100k in any currency is stupid.

 

[caketastydelish]

It seems Zelig is the only one that has *actually* used the bit coins so maybe we should listen to what he has to say.

 

[Cutlass]

Can you elaborate or provide sources?

I don't have an economics background, and nothing you said sounds like a problem.

Talked about it a lot in HERE with Integral.

Short version: Money as a store of value. If money is in a fixed supply, then it can never be worth less than it is currently unless the size of the economy itself has shrunk. So if the size of the economy = 100, and $=100, then E grows to 110, while the quantity of $ remains the same, then $=110. $ can only equal less than 100 if E is less than 100. So the fixed supply of money is a fixed store of wealth. Except that the quantity of $ is still 100. So 110 worth of economy still has to have a $100 sale price. Which means the price of everything has to go down.

Money as a medium of transaction is different. The standard money equation is MV*PQ. The amount of money, the rate at which money moves through the economy, the price level, and the quantity of what is sold in the economy. All 4 variables are usually on the move. The only one that is under government control is M (and not even always that). In order to keep the price level more or less constant and allow the economy to grow, the amount of M in the system has to balance V*PQ. If it fails to do so, it forces V*PQ to change. And in doing so it disrupts the economy.

I don't really see the problem with volatility.

Volatility at that level means that your job, your savings, and your assets are wiped out every decade.