George the original one wrote:I'm of the opinion that bitcoins are the monetary equivalent of limited edition beanie babies.
Oooh, that's harsh. But only time will tell. It seems that it is best suited for transactions that are otherwise illegal. Easier to transfer bitcoins than carrying around briefcases full of cash. And I see there are portable applications using flash drives, which look even more innocuous.
It could also be useful in places without freely convertible currencies and active black markets.
It would seem to me if its successful, then it will be duplicated, and could be replaced by something better or more secure. Or perhaps some nation will decide to create its own "bit-coin-like" currency.
JamesR wrote:
I thought libertarians were all about barter, trade, and private property?
Anarcho-capitalists and minarchists in the US have taken that label. The main brain here really seems to be Rothbard. They are all about barter, trade and private property, yes. But the term has its origin and a long history of use (and is still used) by anarchists, who are also historically mostly "socialist" in the sense that they do not believe that someone can legitimately claim part of the work of someone else through enforced property rights like rent or "wage-slavery". They consider it to be an act of force similar to taxation. You have someone claim ownership of land and demand tribute from those simply existing there or else. It's the main difference between the two ideas, but it pretty much changes the entire philosophy. This leads to quarrels about who the "real" anarchists / libertarians are.
"Below the 50% threshold, there are enough independent miners who can separately confirm whether your transaction is legit.
But a collective that breaks the 50% threshold would have the ability to confirm all Bitcoin transactions on their own — and thus the capacity to start messing with the transactions' reliability. For instance, they could send out false confirmations, reverse the direction of transactions, or block them from occurring entirely. And you wouldn't even know it was happening."
Everyone* is making a big deal about Mt. Gox going down...it is, but, yet, it isn't. It's not like banks haven't failed before and taken everyone's money with them. It's not like banks, stock exchanges, armored cars, stores, etc. haven't been robbed (physically and electronically) before. It's not like every single currency on this planet that has ever existed hasn't been counterfeited, stolen, conned, failed, etc. at some point.
All that matters for a currency is what people are willing to believe about a currency. This will be interesting.
On a side note, it will be interesting to find out who actually hacked Mt. Gox. Government? Or, Private? Government is more interesting.
I have to assume most of the reddit users posting massive losses are trolls. Who would be smart enough to accumulate 2 million dollars, but dumb enough to put it in bitcoins?
Scott 2 wrote:I have to assume most of the reddit users posting massive losses are trolls. Who would be smart enough to accumulate 2 million dollars, but dumb enough to put it in bitcoins?
Apparently anyone who had $100 in 2009 and took a gamble?
I bought in with 1.3 BTC. It's very speculative but I think crypto currencies are here to stay. Bitcoin has many problems that need to be sorted out and I wouldn't be surprised to see bitcoin die off one day and another crypto currency become dominant. My 'investment' is small enough where if I lose it it I won't cry + I'm a tech head so having lots of fun learning about bitcoin and using it.
The Gox fiasco hasn't shifted price greatly. It is bad news but there has been worse.
Security is proving to be a big issue. You can't trust others but without good knowledge you shouldn't be trusting yourself either.
