What are your thoughts on BitCoin?

[Zelig]

The system cannot scale much more due to how it's setup to handle transactions.

Not relevant to any of my arguments, they're all applicable to Bitcoin in its current state.

 

[Symphony D.]

Not relevant to any of my arguments, they're all applicable to Bitcoin in its current state.

Then maybe you should stop throwing a fit when someone calls the thing you're desperate to defend stupid for reasons you refuse to argue against? Just a thought.

(Hint: look at posts #395 and #396)

Hint: two people do not the opinions of everyone make; that some people here, in this thread, are reasonable doesn't mean anything.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

The system cannot scale much more due to how it's setup to handle transactions.

Why/How is that?

 

[dutchfire]

In case you still haven't noticed, Zelig and Mise hold essentially the same position.

 

[sophie]

Why/How is that?

Because you have to download the entire transaction history for all BitCoins (a 11 GB file) to make any kind of transaction, and that file will obviously grow with each subsequent transaction. The amount of people both a) capable and b) willing to do something like that just to use a currency necessarily will not be that large. There's also the whole permanent, unavoidable deflation thing.

 

[Symphony D.]

In case you still haven't noticed, Zelig and Mise hold essentially the same position.

In case you haven't noticed, Zelig throws a whiny fit everytime someone calls BitCoin stupid, argues "it is good for me, therefore it is good period," and when faced with arguments that it is demonstrably not good for everyone and therefore not good period, refuses to address the point and circles back to the original argument. He does this over and over again, acting confused as to why people accuse him of horrible, circular, specious logic.

Hint: it's because he's using horrible, circular, specious logic and should stop trying to defend in general a thing he only cares about actually defending for his own personal use. I reiterate my original point: "BitCoin being useful for you does not mean it isn't stupid in general."

 

[Zelig]

Then maybe you should stop throwing a fit when someone calls the thing you're desperate to defend stupid for reasons you refuse to argue against? Just a thought.

I'm not sure what you're referring to as "throwing a fit", but I've refuted every argument presented that's been contrary to my points.

In case you haven't noticed, Zelig throws a whiny fit everytime someone calls BitCoin stupid

I think you're mixing up "whiny fit" and "reasoned explanation".

when faced with arguments that it is demonstrably not good for everyone and therefore not good period,

This is demonstrably false, and again, applicable to any currency.

ie. USD isn't good for me, therefore not good period.

refuses to address the point and circles back to the original argument.

Well nevermind that I've addressed that point several times, but I've addressed again for you just above this quote.

He does this over and over again, acting confused as to why people accuse him of horrible, circular, specious logic.

Because people keep bringing up the same points, I'm confused as to why they do so after when they've been well accounted-for already.

Hint: it's because he's using horrible, circular, specious logic and should stop trying to defend in general a thing he only cares about actually defending for his own personal use. I reiterate my original point: "BitCoin being useful for you does not mean it isn't stupid in general."

As I've pointed out before, I don't use Bitcoins, any reference to personal use as simply been as a point of single example. In my summary post of my primary 3 points, not once did I mention use specific to me personally.

 

[dutchfire]

"it is good for me, therefore it is good period," and when faced with arguments that it is demonstrably not good for everyone and therefore not good period,

My frying pan is not useful for everyone therefore it is not good period.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Because you have to download the entire transaction history for all BitCoins (a 11 GB file) to make any kind of transaction, and that file will obviously grow with each subsequent transaction. The amount of people both a) capable and b) willing to do something like that just to use a currency necessarily will not be that large. There's also the whole permanent, unavoidable deflation thing.

Oh I didn't know that (though that was perhaps what took so long when I got my first factual coins, said something about synchronizing with some kind of "blocks"). Hm... perhaps in the future some sort of semi-official institutions can be established which take care of the transition history for people? But yes I realize that this would probably not be in alignment with the principle idea of bit coins as a currency which can not be controlled.... Though well, there could be a competition of such institutions while the individual could giving sufficient computer resources always do its own thing. Hm I am no IT guy let alone bit coin expert so don't know, maybe that is a nut which can't be cracked... but maybe not? There is always super mega-super-incredible-fast future Internet and quantum computation
Regarding deflation: Yes I wondered about that myself. I suppose one could handle it a bit by steadily increasing the usage of smaller and smaller fractions of bit coins. I.e. one bit coin would one day be the equivalent of a huge some of wealth and 1/1000000 coin or something would be the equivalent of a dollar. Still, a consistently deflating currency goes against any economic wisdom I've heard of, so yep, probably no replacement for fiat.

 

[Symphony D.]

I'm not sure what you're referring to as "throwing a fit", but I've refuted every argument presented that's been contrary to my points.

No, you've ignored every argument that's been contrary to your points, because you only care about your own perspective and use. That is a refutation only in your mind. It is not an endorsement of the system.

My frying pan is not useful for everyone therefore it is not good period.

What a wonderfully terrible analogy; your frying pan was not designed to service a large group of people, up to and possibly including everyone. Try again.

 

[dutchfire]

What a wonderfully terrible analogy; your frying pan was not designed to service a large group of people, up to and possibly including everyone. Try again.

What a wonderfully terrible reading, try again.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Guys, why not be nice to each other. I am sure your dicks are all comically huge.

 

[Symphony D.]

What a wonderfully terrible reading, try again.

Ah, the Zelig method. How delightful.

 

[Zelig]

No, you've ignored every argument that's been contrary to your points

Example required.

 

[Symphony D.]

Otherwise, you haven't really said anything to refute anything I've posted in this thread.

If this was the case, you should have no difficulty explaining to me why BitCoin isn't stupid in the general use despite the fact it is 1. designed to replace fiat, 2. hoped to replace fiat by most of its supporters, and 3. can't actually do that. Which is my argument that you're supposedly refuting.

You haven't, you apparently won't, and for that reason, I'm going to assume can't, because you're instead intensely focused on your own personal needs. Which begs the question of why you are defending BitCoin in general—a question you have also repeatedly sidestepped and ignored. We get it, BitCoin is good for you. Wonderful. No one cares because that has no impact on the general case.

 

[Antilogic]

Th only thing you know for sure about bitcoin threads is how quickly they devolve.

 

[Symphony D.]

I mean, hell, my initial remarks weren't even addressed to you, Zelig and there you were pouncing on them, and then turning around and refusing to countenance any discussion.

What exactly is your stake in defending this idea anyway? It's a quite zealous effort for seemingly little purpose. What's in it for you?

 

[Zelig]

it is 1. designed to replace fiat,

It's not.

2. hoped to replace fiat by most of its supporters

I don't really care about most of its supporters, they're mostly stupid and in no way relevant to me.

3. can't actually do that.

I've never argued about this point. I've never made any claim about the appropriateness of Bitcoins to replace fiat currency.

Which begs the question

You should at least try not to misuse logical fallacies while formulating an argument you presumably want to be sound.

of why you are defending BitCoin in general—a question you have also repeatedly sidestepped and ignored.

No, I've answered this:

I just like pointing out how most of the anti-bitcoin arguments are flawed.

We get it, BitCoin is good for you. Wonderful. No one cares because that has no impact on the general case.

Again, I don't use Bitcoins, none of my points have been contingent on my personal use:

1. For nearly any given individual, bitcoins are going to have more utility than almost any other currency on the planet.
2. On aggregate, more people will find bitcoins useful than almost any other currency on the planet.
3. Most of the arguments leveled against bitcoins are applicable to almost any other currency on the planet.

I mean, hell, my initial remarks weren't even addressed to you, Zelig and there you were pouncing on them, and then turning around and refusing to countenance any discussion.

What exactly is your stake in defending this idea anyway? It's a quite zealous effort for seemingly little purpose. What's in it for you?

I'm not defending bitcoins, I'm attacking bad arguments.

 

[Symphony D.]

It's not.

Actually, it is.

The WikiLeaks episode hints at the utopian promise built into bitcoin by its creator, a mysterious programmer called Satoshi Nakamoto, whose identity is a subject of dispute and intrigue. The ideas behind bitcoin can be traced to a 1988 tract called the Crypto Anarchist Manifesto, which loftily predicted a future where anonymity-protecting technology made state control of the market impossible. Everything would be for sale to anyone all the time, 100 percent tax-free. Many of bitcoin’s hard-core fans see the currency as a revolutionary step toward this anarchocapitalist wonderland.

I don't really care about most of its supporters, they're mostly stupid and in no way relevant to me.

That itself is irrelevant.

I've never argued about this point. I've never made any claim about the appropriateness of Bitcoins to replace fiat currency.

Then you responded to me because?

You should at least try not to misuse logical fallacies while formulating an argument you presumably want to be sound.

1. Those words, they do not mean what you think they mean.
2. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks.

No, I've answered this: "I just like pointing out how most of the anti-bitcoin arguments are flawed."

Yet you have done nothing of the sort.

Again, I don't use Bitcoins, none of my points have been contingent on my personal use:

I will take this as a return to "I'm arguing for giggles."

I'm not defending bitcoins, I'm attacking bad arguments.

You still have yet to address the scaling problem, and I am still waiting for an explanation as to why a currency that can never be used by more than a very few people isn't a bad currency. Really what you like to do is attack people, not arguments.

 

[Crezth]

Oh I didn't know that (though that was perhaps what took so long when I got my first factual coins, said something about synchronizing with some kind of "blocks"). Hm... perhaps in the future some sort of semi-official institutions can be established which take care of the transition history for people? But yes I realize that this would probably not be in alignment with the principle idea of bit coins as a currency which can not be controlled....

Much more than that, it undermines the supposed reason for using bitcoins for transfers in the first place. If you require institutions to handle your transfers for you - and presumably, they charge some kind of service fee, 'cuz stuff ain't free - then you are right back to square one.

The only way this works out for the better is if propagation of this kind of technology forces a change that makes money transferral cheaper overall. And I do think that'd be better, and therefore at least one good thing came out of bitcoins.

Other than, y'know, CosbyCoins.