5 ms·

Advocating against certain tools absolutely makes sense. A well marketed but fundamentally flawed piece of foundational infrastructure is incredibly dangerous.

by GrahamL 12y ago

Advocating against certain tools absolutely makes sense. A well marketed but fundamentally flawed piece of foundational infrastructure is incredibly dangerous. Whether or not someone uses Bitcoin is not merely a decision that affects the implementer. If Patrick believes that's what Bitcoin is then it makes sense for him to be strongly advocating against it.

hempz 12y ago
While, I agree with your statement; that a "fundamentally flawed piece of foundational infrastructure is incredibly dangerous". I was not aware that patio11 nor anyone for that matter, have presented any "fundamental flaw" within the "engineering artifact" known as bitcoin. Which apparently, has also been elected to the position of "foundational infrastructure". Advocation requires an argument, in this case one which I am actually quite interested in reading.
- dublinben 12y ago
  The deflationary fixed amount of BTC is certainly enough of a "fundamental flaw" for me. I don't think you need to be an economist to recognize the problems inherent in that. http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21599053-chronic-deflation-may-keep-bitcoin-displacing-its-fiat-rivals-money http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21599053...
  - joepie91_ 12y ago
    What, exactly, is the fundamental issue with that?
    - wmf 12y ago
      Deflationary systems tend to have no credit (because it's more profitable to hold money than to lend it), which slows economic growth.
      - jessaustin 12y ago
        "Systems" are irrelevant to the discussion of crypto-currencies. No nation ever will have an economy based on BTC. The halfway argument (if a BTC-based economy would be bad, economies exposed to some BTC would be sort-of bad) doesn't work, either: the global economy has survived many other assets that appreciated in value.
        dublinben 12y ago
        Bitcoin isn't supposed to be an asset though, it's meant to be used as a currency. Unless it's no longer a currency, and the bitcoiners have all changed their tune.
        jessaustin 12y ago
        Stop trollin'. No one is that dumb.
      - hollerith 12y ago
        "No credit" is an exaggeration: gold and silver (and notes redeemable for gold and silver) were the standard currencies in Europe (and probably other place) for many centuries, during which time there was plenty of lending and borrowing going on. For most of that time, the total quantity of gold and silver in existence remained approximately constant.
        greiskul 12y ago
        Was the gold and silver being mined negligible compared with the amount in circulation?
      - beaner 12y ago
        Everybody said the same thing about spending bitcoin in the first place, and look how true that is. (Not at all.)
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]

by GrahamL 12y ago

hempz 12y ago

While, I agree with your statement; that a "fundamentally flawed piece of foundational infrastructure is incredibly dangerous". I was not aware that patio11 nor anyone for that matter, have presented any "fundamental flaw" within the "engineering artifact" known as bitcoin. Which apparently, has also been elected to the position of "foundational infrastructure". Advocation requires an argument, in this case one which I am actually quite interested in reading.

dublinben 12y ago
The deflationary fixed amount of BTC is certainly enough of a "fundamental flaw" for me. I don't think you need to be an economist to recognize the problems inherent in that. http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21599053-chronic-deflation-may-keep-bitcoin-displacing-its-fiat-rivals-money http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21599053...
- joepie91_ 12y ago
  What, exactly, is the fundamental issue with that?
  - wmf 12y ago
    Deflationary systems tend to have no credit (because it's more profitable to hold money than to lend it), which slows economic growth.
    - jessaustin 12y ago
      "Systems" are irrelevant to the discussion of crypto-currencies. No nation ever will have an economy based on BTC. The halfway argument (if a BTC-based economy would be bad, economies exposed to some BTC would be sort-of bad) doesn't work, either: the global economy has survived many other assets that appreciated in value.
      - dublinben 12y ago
        Bitcoin isn't supposed to be an asset though, it's meant to be used as a currency. Unless it's no longer a currency, and the bitcoiners have all changed their tune.
        jessaustin 12y ago
        Stop trollin'. No one is that dumb.
    - hollerith 12y ago
      "No credit" is an exaggeration: gold and silver (and notes redeemable for gold and silver) were the standard currencies in Europe (and probably other place) for many centuries, during which time there was plenty of lending and borrowing going on. For most of that time, the total quantity of gold and silver in existence remained approximately constant.
      - greiskul 12y ago
        Was the gold and silver being mined negligible compared with the amount in circulation?
    - beaner 12y ago
      Everybody said the same thing about spending bitcoin in the first place, and look how true that is. (Not at all.)
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]