- 1 About comparing with real or fiat currencies
- 2 All in a day's work
- 2.1 Fiat currencies have intrinsic value/backing because they're accepted as payment by governments?
- 2.2 At the same time, it also does not enjoy the security, protection and dispute resolution which those large bodies tend to provide, making it a volatile and often insecure asset.
- 2.3 Respected individuals that do like bitcoin
- 2.4 Chart
- 3 UH-OH, SPAGHETTIO'S!
- 4 Separating serious criticisms from economic/technological poor understanding and anti-libertarian rants
- 5 Cryptojacking
About comparing with real or fiat currencies
Aren't fiat or real currencies also succeptable to drastic flutuations caused by unstable government, rating agencies, banking systems and speculation from stock markets? So that isn't a advantage of fiat currencies over bitcoin.
- Cryptos vary at 5-10% a day - David Gerard (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Not nearly as much. A massive swing in the value of the dollar is losing a quarter of a cent to the Euro. It's currently the 12th and Bitcoin has fluctuated by $200. Back in July it was at $1940 and then 2 months later it was $4940, but it's going to come crashing down, then up, then down, then up, and down. That is NOT the kind of fluctuation you want when major companies take a week to sign a massive contract. Maybe for speculators who like to gamble, but not for someone who signs a contract to build a factory. You'd be better off using Berkshire Hathaway shares as currency; at least those are backed by something AND pay dividends, as well as being far more stable.CorruptUser (talk) 12:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
All in a day's work
Fiat currencies have intrinsic value/backing because they're accepted as payment by governments?
Can someone explain this to me. My euros are intrinsically valuable because I can use them to pay taxes with? Does that mean if I have a thousand dollars, they're intrinsically valuable because other people can pay taxes with them? When I think of a currency being backed, I think of something like the gold standard, or using Berkshire Hathaway shares as a currency. I just don't BUY this argument as a problem with Bitcoin. I don't see why a currency needs to have intrinsic value in the first place, and I don't get how being able to use it as payment for anything gives it intrinsic value. You might aswell say Bitcoin has intrinsic value cause you can use it to purchase cocaine. Dapperedavid (talk) 14:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
At the same time, it also does not enjoy the security, protection and dispute resolution which those large bodies tend to provide, making it a volatile and often insecure asset.
As far as I understand it "security" and "protection" are just platitudes in this sentence, and though I don't know what dispute resolution is, I'm sure many people can live without it. I mean for thousands of years people used sea shells (which by the way don't have intrinsic value^) as a currency in India and that probably didn't have dispute resolution eiter (whatever that is). You don't tell me the dollar is a stable currency because it enjoys dispute resolution, it's stable because millions of people use it and the federal bank doesn't print trillions of dollars every minute. How does not having these things make bitcoin an insecure asset? Dapperedavid (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Respected individuals that do like bitcoin
If we're gonna list respected individuals like Warrren Buffet, that don't like Bitcoin, it's only fair to also mention respected individuals that DO like bitcoin. I don't know any myself, but I'm sure there are some. I think Bill Gates said some positive things about it. Dapperedavid (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm trying to update the bitcoin chart but it doesn't let me. How the profanity do you even upload an image. Sorry for all the spam I just want to improve the page but don't know how and can't be profanitied to figure it out because it seems to be unnecessarily confusing. Dapperedavid (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- You can find the "Upload file" link on the left sidebar of every page, @Dapperedavid. Also, the link is here: Special:Upload. When you upload an image, don't forget to include the license information that you're claiming, typically either "fair use" or "public domain". Bongolian (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- Something tells me this is just the "first sell offs" stage in a gigantic crypto bubble, if Bitcoin will indeed ever be a bubble. Nothing has happened yet, a lot of Bitcoin owners swear by it and believe in it like people believe in God, they're not gonna sell anytime soon. It's not even under 10.000 USD yet and people have been saying it was a bubble when Bitcoin was below that. In fact this page has been saying bitcoin is worthless since its inception when bitcoin was somewhere in the hundreds of dollars. I think everyone's dad will want to look into Bitcoin now that the price is "low" and they've heard more about it from their son/brother/friend/son in law/cousin/nephew/aquintance/neighbour/etc. during christmas dinner/new year/or what have you. Some dads may even buy the dip, a lot of college students like me will, the price may get back over 16000 and once that has happened, the ball has started rolling. Am I a lunatic for thinking this? Dapperedavid (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
And this happened: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/10/south-korea-official-reportedly-readying-bill-to-ban-all-cryptocurrency-trading.html?__source=sharebar%7Ctwitter&par=sharebar — Unsigned, by: 18.104.22.168 / talk / contribs
Separating serious criticisms from economic/technological poor understanding and anti-libertarian rants
This page could be a really interesting discussion of cryptocurrencies, from economic and technological point of views, but instead any serious argument is contaminated by poor understanding of Economics and how criptocurrencies work and, most of all, a blind hate for anything which as anything to do which libertarianism.
- "While other distributed computing systems are investigating protein folding or sifting through radiotelescope data for signs of intelligent communication from the stars, Bitcoins are being generated by people running hashing algorithms to process transactions on a poorly-traded virtual currency."
So what? Can't people do what they what with their own computers? Must every computing power not used for Science be forbidden?
- "The many bizarre and frankly stupid cooling schemes are usually good for a laugh as well, including one Darwin Award applicant who poured a bucket of liquid nitrogen on the floor next to his rig to cool it."
How is this a criticism of Bitcoin?
- "The actual processing done by the miners could be done by a Raspberry Pi; the only reason to waste gigajoules a day is to keep it distributed without trust between actors. It turns out trust is vastly more efficient."
Of course, if everybody behaves then there would not be even necessity of doors, locks... and not even money!
- "Despite having a reputation for being used to pay for illegal goods and services anonymously, bitcoin is the most transparent currency in existence because it records everything in a blockchain."
But every Bitcoin-HowTo explains this thing very well...
- "As of 2017, it was estimated that 980,000 Bitcoins had been stolen (worth roughly US$15 billion as of December 6th 2017)."
Were they stolen because Bitcoin have flaws? Wallsmart lose $3 Billion per year because of theft, but nobody would say that as a criticism of hypermarkets.
- "Bitcoin has no intrinsic value or backing of any kind. It is based on "greater fool" theory, the idea of finding a sucker investor who will pay more than you did."
The same can be said for any currency.
- "In practice, the only thing Bitcoin does better than conventional currencies and existing payment systems is to let libertarians buy illicit goods without having to go to the bad part of town and talk to minorities."
And of course, to conclude, it must be said that libertarians hate minorities...
- Some of your suggestions sound reasonable, but I think there is a legitimate argument regarding electricity consumption because the amount is nontrivial and it is I think in some cases government subsidized (a libertarian no-no), e.g. in parts of China.
- There is a legitimate argument to be made about the value of trust and the concept of (fiat) money vs. the expense of Bitcoin's non-trust and the costs of slow transaction rates.
- With regard to Walmart, retail theft is a fact of business and some percentage loss is always assumed. For Walmart it about 1%, which is actually low: the industry average is 1.4%. For Bitcoin on the other hand, I believe that theft tends to wipe out entire accounts and in at least one case (MtGox), an entire Bitcoin exchange. This is significant especially because Bitcoin touts itself as being secure, when it is in fact quite risky.
- I think the greater fool argument is legitimate because Bitcoin is looking less and less likely to show its retail utility. This is due in part to the ruling in some jurisdictions that it is a commodity not a currency, but also the speed bottleneck caused by how the blockchain is managed. Bongolian (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
- "I think there is a legitimate argument regarding electricity consumption" I think so too, but the legitimate argument is about the environmental impact and it should made some precise comparison with other energy consumptions (I have to check some numbers...), it should not be like: "We could have spend that energy for Science!" Because, otherwise, we could say that of almost every human activity...
- "This is significant especially because Bitcoin touts itself as being secure, when it is in fact quite risky." The point is that all the stolen bitcoins have not been stolen because Bitcoin is insecure. But because people, for laziness and/or ignorance, delegate the security of their wallets to websites, which is incredibly stupid, since the whole point of Bitcoin is being decentralized. This should be explained.
- "I think the greater fool argument is legitimate because Bitcoin is looking less and less likely to show its retail utility. This is due in part to the ruling in some jurisdictions that it is a commodity not a currency, but also the speed bottleneck caused by how the blockchain is managed."
- What are you saying are some true problems of Bitcoin, but that is not the "greater fool" argument showed in the page. Regarding the blockchain, I agree that it is becoming unmanageable. However these things should be put in the perspective that Bitcoin is the first large scale cryptocurrency, so it should be not a surprise that it is not perfect. Otherwise, to anyone with a minimum of knowledge of the topic, they sound like criticizing the first airplane because it flew low and for short time. McLaghing (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
http://www.ibtimes.com/what-cryptojacking-trend-continues-grow-2612969 —♥チーズバーガー • めん ♥ (talk • stalk) 02:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)