I wouldn’t call ‘commenting on and discussing’ support, myself. I haven’t seen any of the editors express support for it, but I have seen them talk about it. Because it is interesting, it is very tech-geeky/sf, and it is current.
Sometimes I talk about Sarah Palin (and this blog certainly did). Talking about something is not equal to supporting that something (especially in Palin’s case).
The brutally confounding element, when judging the ‘seriousness’ of investments(whether in meme-backed cryptocurrencies, Facebook stock, or scarce metals with curious optical properties) is the existence of the ‘greater fool theory’ (and the fact that it is in fact accurate, even if the greatest of the greater fools turns out to be a greater-fool-theorist who overestimated the population of fools).
I have a strong emotional sympathy for some sort of notion of ‘fundamental’ value, tempered by a grudging admission that some purely-conventional valuations appear to be remarkably enduring and so must be tolerated; but I also have to admit that, while it is a speculative and potentially risky activity, all kinds of ‘stupid’ investments aren’t, so long as your belief that somebody will take them off your hands for more than you paid for them is correct.
I don’t think that dogecoins are worth a thing, or that facebook stock was anything but hilariously overvalued; but if somebody thinks that they can buy at X and sell at greater than X(sufficiently greater to cover their time and opportunity costs), they needn’t have any belief in the value of what they are buying, purely a belief in what somebody else will pay for it.
Some, of course, don’t think that there is any distinction, and that view is hardly some new aberration coming out of contemporary finance.
“Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it”
-Publilius Syrus(1st century BC) (By way of Civilization IV’s “Currency” tech quote, lest I be mistaken for some fancy classicist rather than a gamer nerd…)
I could be misreading the tone; but I got the impression that the fairly frequent mention was partly a product of Boingboing’s “Weird and new things happening on the Internet!” news beat (which the…delightfully varied…world of bitcoin, ASIC-miner schedule shenanigans, and so on, definitely is), partly a sci-fi enthusiast interest in ‘technological advances that allow novel constructs to function’ (you don’t have to be some sort of cyber-goldbug who thinks that the federal reserve is manipulating their inflationary International-Money-Cartel Gnomes of Zurich Conspiracy Money to think that a decentralized cryptosystem that succeeds in the, seemingly impossible off-the-cuff, task of preventing double-spending and counterfeiting of things that are just trivially copyable series of bits. It’s a pretty neat trick.), and partly an interest in the potential to ‘dis-intermediate’ or ‘disrupt’ (as the insufferable silicon valley kids like to) the assorted, generally odious, middlemen who are currently delighted to transfer money for a small fee and a long list of terms and conditions. Even if good old USD are fine by you, it’s a lot harder to feel warm and fuzzy(even if you are a fuzzy fungus, as I am) about Mastercard, Visa, Paypal, Western Union, etc.
In something like the Wikileaks-donation-freeze situation, a bunch of private companies with a de-facto stranglehold on retail-level money transfer simply stonewalled (totally legal, entirely voluntary, non-fraudulent) transfers from donors to an organization that the powers that be disapproved of. That’s the sort of situation where you start to get interested in at least talking about alternatives.
The other factor to keep in mind is that ‘bitcoin’, the specific cryptocurrency by that name, has some embedded assumptions that are arguably pretty dubious; but at least some of those are purely a matter of consensus among people running clients. Using very similar math, currencies with other properties can be constructed, and it’s worth talking about what the ideal property-set would look like.
Crypto currencies…how do they work??
Juggaloons. It has to be Jugaloons.
I see your mistake. You think ‘the site’ has an opinion.
Welcome to the opinions of several individuals, and a very large peanut gallery!
insane:ill-considered::potayto:potahto
Still, at least Central Management has some regulations in place to mellow out the volatility a bit. BitCoin’s only recently finally beginning to add some limitations, one by one, as they learn from experience what those regulations help prevent.
Money per se isn’t an investment, but a stable store of value that can be invested. The value of the dollar tends to be fairly stable, even if things you can buy with dollars (or other currencies) aren’t.
Money per se isn’t an investment, but a stable store of value that can be invested.
Er, what? FOREX? Currency is definitely utilized as an investment and in some cases it’s similar to foreign-exchange hedge funds.
The foreign-exchange market is loaded with retail investors. Is it risky? Yes. But, it’s not unusual to do especially with the US dollar/yen and euro/US dollar as various trading pairs. Also the British pound, Swiss franc, Canadian and Australian dollars are heavily traded.
The value of the dollar tends to be fairly stable, even if things you can buy with dollars (or other currencies) aren’t.
I agree, but that’s why I never claim that (despite it’s crypto-currency moniker and usage) Bitcoin, etc. is an actual replacement for currency in all cases. To me, it’s more of an investment (at least at this point).
Also, please keep in mind that not all crypto-currencies are built alike, either:
More:
I think while cryptocurrency certainly has its risks and growing pains, it’s being demonized out of ignorance and fear for the most part.
Yes, you are right, one can invest in currencies by playing games with exchange rates. Drew_G’s point was comparing Bitcoin to dollars, where dollars are mostly stable (very mild inflation, though not actually enough IMO), while every example of instability you had offered was tied to the instability not of the dollar, but investments.
Bitcoin is treated in a fairly confused way as both currency and investment, which is part of its problem. It’s pretending to be a stable store of value for the purposes of being used as a means of exchange, with clever mechanisms to facilitate payment, and much cheerleading of it as a currency, but it’s also deflationary so by design it can’t work well for that purpose.
There are other cryptocurrencies that are much better designed, Bitcoin was an obvious dumb idea out of the gate since it had built in instability.
Bitcoin is treated in a fairly confused way as both currency and investment, which is part of its problem.
Some would also consider that a bonus depending on how you look at it.
There are other cryptocurrencies that are much better designed
Yes, we’re in agreement there. That was the point of the latter half of my post.
while every example of instability you had offered was tied to the instability not of the dollar, but investments.
They are sometimes intertwined if you look closer.
Also, you’re shifting the goal posts a bit.
My post was referring to Wall Street, etc.
The depression was in no small part based on the problem that the dollar at that point was still trapped in the gold standard, which created major market instability, the ruinous boom/bust cycles, etc. There also was no FDIC or other basic forms of insurance that serve as economic stabilizers now (hi Mt Gox).
Thankfully, the dollar we have today isn’t the dollar of the 20s.
While there’s interdependence between markets and currency values, the problems we have today are largely that the dollar is too stable, while we need inflation. That would put wealth in the hands of the poor and middle class and increase employment, but would result in rich people becoming poorer so the Fed. sacrifices the jobs and livelihoods of the lesser people to keep inflation in check to make sure the wealthiest can buy more mega-yachts and beach houses.
I was looking at Wall St. as an investment market, though, yes that’s not all it is.
There also was no FDIC or other basic forms of insurance that serve as economic stabilizers now (hi Mt Gox).
Growing pains! 
At least in the case of Bitcoin, when Mt Gox took a dump it didn’t crush the entire USA (nor even Bitcoin) along with it. Once again, I’ve often said in this thread and others that Bitcoin isn’t a replacement for currency in every case. It’s more of an investment at this point.
I’m glad to have supported Bitcoin because its popularity is helping to spawn other, more advanced stuff. I think a lot of the fear and loathing surrounding it is overhyped.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
