You are correct. I was using the article's language, which I agree is not right. It should be called a bubble, not a ponzi scheme.
They are similar in that the price rise is being sustained by many new speculators/investors, and at some point, that will inevitably collapse.
I am reminded of the story that Joseph Kennedy predicted the 1920's stock market crash after receiving stock tips from his shoe-shine boy. He realized that if his shoe shiner was also partaking in the rampant speculation, there were probably few fools left to join in.
> It should be called a bubble, not a ponzi scheme.
This is a first bubble which is popular mainly among tech geeks :)
What is strange, nobody is asking what problem Bitcoin really solves. As far I know it failed as a protection for silk road types. Silk road was compromised and Bitcoin didn't helped them.
Eventually, not everyone will want to pay "cash" (irreversible transfer) for everything. Additional security and services layer will be added to Bitcoin ecosystem, and the fee for making indirect transfers through these intermediaries will go up to the same level. The majority of the economy will then make transactions using these services because they provide additional benefits that regular people need. So in the end, the only benefit of bitcoin will be that you can still transfer the "cash" coins by yourself through the system. I'm just wondering how valuable is that actual difference?
Are you sure? There were a lot of Bitcoin wallet servers compromised lately. I guess that for a really well secured wallet server you have to pay something. In case of thefts, people will want some kind of insurance and so on.
Bitcoin, compared to credit cards, functions as a decentralized system. Is it really cheaper than centralized system in terms of transaction costs? I mean computing power, required hardware and software.
That presumes bitcoin is the only crypto currency, it isn't, and they don't all rely on mining like this. Secondly, as miners drop out because they can't profit, those who stay in see profitability return. It's self adjusting, there will always be profitable mining for those with the best mining rigs.
if GDP grows such that the smallest subdivision of one bitcoin (called 1 satoshi) becomes too expensive, extra decimals are added. So instead of making new coins, the existing coins will be subdivided in smaller pieces.
>> price rise is being sustained by many new speculators/investors, and at some point, that will inevitably collapse
It may but I don't think its inevitable. Many speculators/investors are buying bitcoins because they believe bitcoins will be used in the future as an important currency. If that happens, there will be even more demand for bitcoin and the price will be high forever.
Not really -- between the US government and the Federal Reserve banks, there's enough assets and turnover to unwind all the US dollars in existence in a fairly short amount of time, if there was a long-term decline in demand for dollars.
All money isn't a bubble. If people are known to need certain quantities of an asset to disburse debt and tax obligations they know they will incur in future, then that asset's value isn't driven purely by speculation, especially not if people accept it even as its value is known to diminish over time.
My belief that people and corporations will still have a broadly similar demand for dollars next year isn't based on a graph with a rising value trend line that's known to be driven by amateur speculators, unlike "bubble" type assets.
Well, obviously there are supposed reasoned justifications for the rise in prices. That's true of probably all bubbles. Humans are less rational creatures, than rationalizing creatures. We like stories that convince ourselves we are behaving rationally.
Robert Schiller, the Yale economist and bubble-proponent, suggests diagnosing bubbles based on a checklist-based approach similiar to the way depression or other medical issues are diagnosed, with the following indicators:
- Sharp increases in the price of an asset like real estate or dot-com shares
- Great public excitement about said increases
- An accompanying media frenzy
- Stories of people earning a lot of money, causing envy among people who aren’t
- Growing interest in the asset class among the general public
- “New era” theories to justify unprecedented price increases
- A decline in lending standards
Bitcoin fits the above extremely well. I should note that Eugene Fama shared the Nobel prize with Schiller, but does not believe in the idea of bubbles or Schiller's claimed ability to predict them. After all, one might say that Google's stock fits the above criteria just as well, but that's clearly not a bubble. (I think I side with Schiller on this one though, although Fama raises good points.)
As I said in my first post, I agree that Bitcoin may eventually succeed as a currency and gain a high value. But it will be a slow process backed by fundamentals. The exponential growth taking place right now is pure bubble speculation. Very few really care about this future as an "important currency." Instead, you have people like me. I invested some money. It's now worth nearly 10x. I want it to keep going up, and I am currently letting it ride. I tell myself stories that it will replace gold; I read blog posts arguing that if it does it will be worth $10,000+ a coin. But at some point, the tide will begin to turn. Negative stories will increase. There will be price drops. And people like me, who pretend to themselves that they have a reasoned investment thesis, will say fuck it, and cash out in hordes. And from the ashes, we will then see what it can do as a currency. But the speculators are here, rapidly increasing, and will eventually, rapidly flee. (Although I hope I'm wrong, because I'm probably going to let my BTC's ride one way or the other...it's just too much fun being on this roller coaster.)
Put simply, I think the question is whether the fundamentals have a serious chance at overtaking the speculators before a big bust occurs. The speculators are increasing exponentially. And for all the talk of merchants beginning to use Bitcoin, or a random pizza or bar accepting bitcoins, the fundamentals don't really seem to be there or growing fast enough. I don't know anybody that seriously uses it in that manner, except for the few ardent Bitcoin evangelists. (Although if anyone has any interesting data, please link me!). Black markets and gambling sites seems to be the only real sectors seriously using it as a currency.
Disclaimer: I could be wrong, and change my opinion on BTC way too often to be trusted. :)
Crypto currency definitely has a big future, that I can give you this 12a9hmRF8Aueu38tXyuj7eswTUgsemszp2 and you can pay me there without a bank or government in between is amazing. Anyone who's integrated with a payment processor to run an online business will appreciate the value offered by crypto currencies.
Unfortunately I don't think BTC is that currency, it's built in limit is a terrible idea conceived from the mind of someone who doesn't understand the difference between money and commodities. BTC will never be a good currency, it'll never be stable enough. BTC is e-gold, not e-cash, and it'll suffer the same fate as gold, that of a value holding commodity but not a currency. However, that's a petty flaw easily fixed and BTC paved the way for a whole market of crypto currencies by being open source with each trying slightly different approaches based on different ideas about how currencies work. This is awesome. Regardless of which few crypto currencies eventually dominate, it is the future.
"And people like me, who pretend to themselves that they have a reasoned investment thesis, will say fuck it, and cash out in hordes."
That's a pretty accurate summary of what I did 20 minutes ago. I'm actually pretty optimistic about BTC in the long term, just don't want to ride the roller coaster in the short term.
> Why can't I just use a credit card or similar and buy bitcoints?
Chargebacks are the reason. If you buy a bitcoin with a credit card and I send you a bitcoin, you can get your money back from the credit card company and keep my bitcoin.
What about Paypal? It seems to me they could really advantage of this by becoming the defacto way people use to buy Bitcoins (or at least one of the most popular methods). It's too bad they are so shortsighted about it, and only see Bitcoin as a threat.
Yes, Bitcoin is a threat, for the whole financial system for that matter, but it's much more of a threat for those who don't adopt it than for those who do. At least if Paypal adopted it, they could remain relevant in the future, and people would still use them.
> Right now basically every week we have news of millions of dollars worth of bitcoins being stolen from sites.
Rule 1: If you store your bitcoins with someone else, they'll most likely get stolen. People need to learn how to store their own bitcoins or they'll end up not having any.
Paper wallets using offline-created Bitcoin addresses are the safest means of storage. I etched my keys onto metal dogtags and have them stored in a fireproof box.
> "Our first priority is to keep Americans safe from the threat of terrorism."
Uh, no. The first job of a good, decent government is protect the rights of its citizens. It now seems that the first job of a citizen is protect him/herself from the government.
> "Our first priority is to keep Americans safe from the threat of terrorism."
bzzt!, oh, sorry, that's not the correct answer. The correct answer is set out in the oath that all US Senators take upon being sworn into office[1] which reads:
>"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."
So no, sorry, the first priority is to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, which includes the NSA. Their oath says nothing about terrorism.
>"If government agencies identify a suspected terrorist, they should absolutely go to the relevant phone companies to get that person’s phone records."
Are you done supplicating yourself fully before the police state? My copy of the Constitution (which does not contain the root password "thinkofthekids" or "terrorism") says you need not just suspicion, but probable cause for a warrant.
>"When the Bill of Rights was adopted, it established that Americans’ papers and effects should be seized only when there was specific evidence of suspicious activity."
bzzt!, again, so close! Let's look at what it really says[2], shall we (emphasis mine):
>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Not only do you need suspicion, but you need probable cause for a warrant or the search needs to be reasonable some other way (border crossing, subject gave consent, search subject to arrest, etc).
>Our bill would prohibit the government from conducting warrantless “backdoor searches” of Americans’ communications — including emails, text messages and Internet use — under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Again, so close! Read the fourth amendment again. Nowhere does it say "The right of US Citizens". It says "The right of the people". That means all people - citizens and non-citizens, and that distinction is important. The protections afforded under this amendment apply to everyone in the country and extend to those parties being contacted by someone from this country, otherwise the wording would be different.
Most constituents are too ignorant to know this. That's why I support repealing the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution[1].
The House of Representatives is apportioned by population, and its job is to represent the interests of the people. A more populous state has more representatives so that (theoretically) each representative represents an equal portion of the American population. This is also why spending bills must originate in the House as the money spent is derived from the people.
Each state receives an equal number of Senators. The Senate is responsible for representing the interests of the states. That is why Senators were originally appointed by the state legislature [2] instead of directly elected. A federal republic, such as the United States, is built upon each state have its interests represented equally, and that is why each state receives an equal number of Senators.
I believe that the direct election of Senators undermines the original intent of the Senate and that the 17th Amendment should be repealed.
Which scammer is paying me for my bitcoins out of someone else's promised profits?