kirk paolinelli Posted December 6, 2013 Posted December 6, 2013 I have been pretty surprised by how much negativity I have read about bitcoin. Even in libertarian circles. Like Peter Schiff, he talks about how bad the government and federal reserve is, but then when a non-state solution comes up he bashes it. Discussing bitcoins with people I would get a frustrated feeling, as I have in the past when talking about god or government. FDR help me understand I was having a logical argument about god or government but with that person's traumatized past. I think it may be the same thing when discussing bitcoins. Could it be possible that people are ready? I believe, I've heard Stefan talk before about the fact that even if the government ended today it would most likely be replaced by another or something to that effect. Because the people aren't mentally healthy enough, I would still want a government to recreate their parenting. Considering if bitcoin did become the dominant currency, it would effectively end governments as we know them. It would make sense that our fellow slaves would fight tooth and nail to not let this happen. I know Stefan has done podcasts about bitcoin and the blockchain, and all their uses. I starting to believe bitcoin will fail and it will have nothing to do with bitcoin itself. It might just be something that needs to stick around until after the philosophical parenting of a generation. Does anyone else see this as an issue?
Wesley Posted December 6, 2013 Posted December 6, 2013 I have been pretty surprised by how much negativity I have read about bitcoin. Even in libertarian circles. Like Peter Schiff, he talks about how bad the government and federal reserve is, but then when a non-state solution comes up he bashes it. Discussing bitcoins with people I would get a frustrated feeling, as I have in the past when talking about god or government. FDR help me understand I was having a logical argument about god or government but with that person's traumatized past. I think it may be the same thing when discussing bitcoins. Could it be possible that people are ready? I believe, I've heard Stefan talk before about the fact that even if the government ended today it would most likely be replaced by another or something to that effect. Because the people aren't mentally healthy enough, I would still want a government to recreate their parenting. Considering if bitcoin did become the dominant currency, it would effectively end governments as we know them. It would make sense that our fellow slaves would fight tooth and nail to not let this happen. I know Stefan has done podcasts about bitcoin and the blockchain, and all their uses. I starting to believe bitcoin will fail and it will have nothing to do with bitcoin itself. It might just be something that needs to stick around until after the philosophical parenting of a generation. Does anyone else see this as an issue? How would people shut it down or it go away? I do not think bitcoin is ready for mainstream yet and there will be a decent portion of time where cryptocurrencies exist with fiat next to it and the state figuring out how to regulate it in the frame of the old system. Bitcoin in itself will not end the state, however. What it does do is weaken the state and the arguments for the state as money, contracts and disputes can all be easily solved without any counter-party (including the state). Bitcoin, even if it doesn't work out, is an idea that cannot be put in the bag and will fundamentally and progressively change society. It is a small push that accelerates humanity to change like the Gutenberg press or the internet. Bitcoin is too stable now, and by the time that the average person or the state actually realize what bitcoin is, then I think it will be too late to do anything about it. Which viewing bitcoin as only a currency is (to quote Peter Joseph, but actually have facts to back it up) a very narrow and truncated view of what bitcoin actually is. Stefan began to touch on this idea in one of his recent bitcoin videos about how bitcoin fundamentally is not a currency, but a way to have a distributed, encrypted ledger. This idea will change the world no matter what happens to bitcoin the currency.
kirk paolinelli Posted December 6, 2013 Author Posted December 6, 2013 I wasn't meaning they would shut it down, just that it won't succeed. What do you mean by bitcoin is to stable now? The price isn't stable. Are you talking about the architecture of the program? People didn't get behind governments on regulating online piracy, but I think people would get behind it on bitcoin. Maybe I'm reading the tea leaves wrong.
Wesley Posted December 6, 2013 Posted December 6, 2013 How are they supposed to regulate it? They haven't even figured this out yet. Stable as in if they tried to regulate or they threw in more price fluctuations or something, bitcoin would still make it. In the past, it may have scared people off it for many years.
Josh F Posted December 6, 2013 Posted December 6, 2013 I don't think good people need to wait for fools and evil men to be ready. I do agree that the negativity about bitcoin is a reflection of a much larger negativity within this community, the sort of doom and gloom part of the community. I'm quite certain they're all not passionately angry about bitcoin, so what else is going on? Like they dont get this upset when libertarians play blackjack which has far more immoral implications.
Marcus Clarke Posted December 6, 2013 Posted December 6, 2013 I do not think that the majority of people would understand the link between using Bitcoin and weakening the state. That is to the benefit who can see the state's actions as violent, so I do not know if it is something that should be advertised. One of the major, valid complaints about Bitcoin is that you can not do your everyday purchases. To solve this, I think that Bitcoin needs to be marketed to businesses on a massive scale as a money saving tool (Coinbase does this). Transaction costs using credit cards are just ridiculous, and the reason why many businesses started using ACH payment processing (digital checks) was because a credit card charge fee could be 2-5% of the entire payment, but an ACH payment fee could be $0.25 to $0.50 per payment. However, because ACH is not an instant payment (it takes several business days to clear), it stands at a technical disadvantage to credit cards. Bitcoin really provides the best of both worlds (low fee and instant transaction). The more businesses that accept Bitcoin, the more people will use Bitcoin. It really does mean something if Walmart, CostCo, Target, and places that people physically go to start to accept Bitcoin. They could also give discounts for Bitcoin users like Target does for their ACH users (the Target “Red Card” processes your payment through ACH, which is why you get the 5% discount on all of your purchases.). The fact that Bitcoin can allow for businesses to save money and offer incentives to their buyers to use Bitcoin is an important message to spread when talking about Bitcoin. This is the “real-world” application that people are looking for.
Wesley Posted December 6, 2013 Posted December 6, 2013 Couple lives off Bitcoins for 100 days http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/2857244768001/couple-lives-off-bitcoins-for-100-days/ I think that it may take a little work, but people accept bitcoin as long as you ask, help them get set up, and occasionally sweeten the deal with a premium.
Marcus Clarke Posted December 6, 2013 Posted December 6, 2013 Couple lives off Bitcoins for 100 days http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/2857244768001/couple-lives-off-bitcoins-for-100-days/ I think that it may take a little work, but people accept bitcoin as long as you ask, help them get set up, and occasionally sweeten the deal with a premium. The couple living only on Bitcoins was a great test case. However, when we are looking trying to sell Bitcoin to a large group of people, Bitcoin, like any other product, needs to be something that can be easy for people to use. That couple drove 50 miles to the nearest Bitcoin gas station. That impracticality is where most people just say, look, I'm not going to use Euros, Francs, Pounds, Krones, Pesos, Yen, or whatever other currency is not commonly accepted. I am going to use the Dollar because I can spend it anywhere. This does not mean that there is anything wrong with Bitcoin, or that Bitcoin will never be adopted. The original question was "Are people ready for bitcoin?", and due to the inability to spend it at the places that people spend their Dollars, people (consumers) are not ready for bitcoin. I do believe, it is sellers that are ready for Bitcoin. They just need to have people teach them what it is and how it will save them money.
Wesley Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 This has already been addressed as ignorant nonsense in this thread: http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/38027-bitcoin-blockchain-increasing-size/?hl=bitcoin
PoopMeat Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 Are people ready for bitcoin? I think it's up to the consumers confidence to put some coin in bitcoin or not. I will always for the most part support anything that wants to implement proof of concept such as bitcoin. Not only has bitcoin proved its concept but it's working within a real world enviroment as well which is mind blowing. I think there are some problems with bitcoins, the main problem being that bitcoins is NEW and there is not really a historical precedent for it. Yes bitcoins prices go up and down that's perfectly normal for a starting venture but the long term problems such as how deflation will be handled in bitcoin still need to be played out. I think this is Peter Schiff main problem with bitcoins is that there is a lack of historical precedent with bitcoin, therefore bitcoins to him is a risk he rather not take versus an already well established currency. Schiff is perfectly rational for having doubt in bitcoins. In my eyes bitcoin needs to establish more consumer confidence in it's currency by simply staying the course. The longer bitcoins stays around the more we can interpret the trends, the more legit/validity it gets, the more potential consumer confidence bitcoin can gets aka purchasing a bitcoins. Another problem with bitcoins that I have which may affect consumer confidence is how complicated it can be. Not complicated in the sense of buying bitcoins or exchanging bitcoins but the understanding as to what goes on behind the scene of bitcoin. People want to know why bitcoins are so different, how bittcoins can benefit them, how does bitcoins get there value, how it can be stored, why there is no federal reserve, etc... Being able to break these things down in layman terms is very important in establishing more consumer confidence. Our current currency can be pretty complicated but nothing has really challenged the concept of our currency in proof of concept recently up until bitcoins came around. The question of understanding what goes on behind bitcoin currency is one of the big questions that needs to be addressed to establish more consumer confidence.
cynicist Posted December 9, 2013 Posted December 9, 2013 The great thing is bitcoin can't really fail, even if it doesn't become a mainstream success, because the coins will still be there and demand is obviously there. It may take a long time for cryptocurrencies to replace fiat but it's already useful for many people. Support for it will only increase with awareness, since so few even understand it at the moment. It is still early imo
Hugh Akston Posted December 16, 2013 Posted December 16, 2013 I was recently at a mises seminar here in Brisbane and there Jeff Tucker said exactly what I was thinking about money, but then surprisingly glossed over the point. The fact that money arises because of the alternative use of the commodity. The Bitcoin vs Gold debate is a false dichotomy. Just think about it. Money historically was the most marketable commodity in a society. Is it Bitcoin (more correctly defined as a currency not money)? Is it Gold? Might have been so a few centuries ago but this is certainly not the case in our modern world. A currency backed by a commodity that has a ready alternative use would have its value rooted in the general value / the productive use that commodity represents and would therefore form a stable enough money that can form the basis for economic calculation and be predictable enough to serve as a unit of account and standard of deffered payment. The most logical and powerfull money that you can use to circumvent the state would be a money that can be readily employed in an alternative productive use when the state hinders its use as a medium of exchange.
cynicist Posted December 16, 2013 Posted December 16, 2013 The most logical and powerfull money that you can use to circumvent the state would be a money that can be readily employed in an alternative productive use when the state hinders its use as a medium of exchange. I'm not sure that is true. Just using some made up numbers here, but imagine a situation where gold as currency is valued at $1000, and it's value as an industrial metal or jewelry is $100. So if gold as a currency was banned you would make the argument that at least you still have that alternative use and value, while bitcoin being banned made it worthless. On the other hand, since bitcoin isn't a physical thing with alternative uses it enjoys the benefits of costing almost nothing to produce, store, secure, or trade (unlike gold). Since the cost of using a physical material like gold is far higher than a cryptocurrency, and that cost is factored into its value when you use it, I'm not convinced that the alternative usage is as valuable as many people claim. Sure with gold you retain some value after it was banned, but how do you know that bitcoin didn't give you the same or more value prior to the ban? (simply through being cheaper to use)
Wesley Posted December 16, 2013 Posted December 16, 2013 Not to mention that Bitcoin the distributed ledger is of immense value even if bitcoin the unit of account somehow could be made worthless.
Recommended Posts