Bits and bob - the Economist’s take on Bitcoin
Close to US$500k stolen in first major Bitcoin theft -> thenextweb.com/industry/2011/06/ … oin-theft/
The price of bitcoins fell from $17.50 to 1 cent on Sunday , in a matter of minutes.
Apparently, someones account was hacked and the trades will be rolled backed
Didn’t Hayek promote the idea that all people should be free to use any currency of their own choosing, and that there should be lots of competing currencies, so people would be free to flee from their domestic currency if their government was over-doing the inflation? I’d concur. Good idea for lots of reasons. The more currencies the better. We should have local ones too, not just these sophisticated online ones (that obviously will require a good bit more development and testing). Great idea imo.
Does that not just reduce to barter in all but name? Heavy and light pigs anyone?
I think the flaw in bitcoin is that there’ll only be 22 million of them created. It lent itself to high price inflation, which for a new currency/commodity leaves itself open to abuse. I also think the scope of the currency was too big, this is the kind of technology that might be good for creating a localised currency.
It’s kinda what happens to all currencies really once people stop believing in them!
I’ve read about several local currency systems over the years, particularly during recessions and in areas with major unemployment. I’m not aware of any system that has been very longstanding or successful in the British Isles, though that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
This site unilets.org/index.asp looks like an attempt to centralize information about such schemes, but all of the links for Ireland are now defunct.
What was interesting was Youtube kept taking down videos relating to Bitcoins, that Max Keiser video is gone.
If I was to hazard a guess I’d say governments/banks arranged a hack to destroy it.
I was so tempted to hop on the Bitcoin bandwagon, thank christ. Its great idea though.
I don’t agree. We are talking about using money. Not barter.
Sure, this argument goes all the way back to the Greeks.
- According to Plato, money has value only by social convention, novmw (the nominalist theory of money), whereas according to Aristotle, money has a value by itself, creiva.
For myself, I lie towards social convention. At least, where the society making the convention (or put another way agreeing to share together in a certain understanding) are civilised and the majority fairly industrious and of good character.
Sure, if we lived in a barbarous society where none were to be trusted, then gold and barter should be to the fore. And perhaps we do live in such a society.
But that is why I like the idea of local currencies - because I think that local communities who know each other can be civilised, even in these times.
Yes, it is a challenge to have a global community that is civilised. Especially with the type of financial dealings and other chicanery that we have seen it marked by each time it has arisen.
Down about 90% since the last post on this thread.
Interesting article on this in the New Yorker earlier this month, including an attempt by the writer of the artcile to track down the person who created Bitcoin which ended up with a 23 year old Trinity post grad as a prime candidate.
I like a lot of what you are suggesting but it seems to me that’s its unworkable;
I think local currencies would be much more difficult to manage as paper money (i’m assuming you mean to have paper money apologies if this is wrong) is far more easily counterfeited. Also all it takes is one crazy local governor to suggest printing money as the answer to all of the local communities issues and everyone’s cash assets are up in smoke.
It would also take up a huge amount of peoples time, keeping up with all the different currencies, deciding which ones to accept/not to accept, deciding which currency to hold your assets. And in our current over-financialized society people are already spending too much time thinking about money imo.
There would likely be endless scams and speculation bubbles, leading to more money being taken away from people actually adding value by working every day and ending up with those who are good ‘strategists’ but don’t actually add any value to society. Our financial regulators can’t keep up with vanilla retail mortgages in retail banks, nevermind an array of currencies.
Well obviously the first priority of a currency is that it is difficult to counterfeit. A large aspect of bitcoin was an effort in this regard I thought. Also, we must look at the possibility of counterfeiting from a modern perspective and modern technology.
As for the crazy governor, well isn’t that the idea in having a variety of currencies? That when you see a crazy governor come to power with a control over the currency that you have the option to go to another currency?
But that scenario does not even take account of the fact that there must be an agreed social convention for a currency, which must be acted within - everyone should understand this about the currency they are using. It is essential.
Like our present currencies - there is an implicit consensus that inflation will be kept with the limits that promote economic growth and help to provide ‘buffers’ for businesses against the normal challenges of business, with the exception that these limits may be exceeded during exceptional economic times, when more inflation may be needed to maintain the social and economic fabric etc. At least that has always been my own understanding, and it seems reasonable enough to me.
Wired Magazine subsequently revised their opinion on Bitcoin and admitted they were wrong.