Sorry the title is lame, but I went with something which would get attention at BarCamp Nashville. Not all of them are tech savvy, so the title served its purpose and got the talk selected.
Moving on from the title, what do you think of the content?
There are a lot of Bitcoin haters out there, but also a growing group of supporters. From what I've seen, few informed people argue against the actual technology while some argue about the politics or economics. To my knowledge, we've never seen a deflationary currency (outside of some babysitter experiment). We've never seen a store of value with no third party risk which can be transferred anywhere in the world immediately. As for wasted energy concerns, my understanding is the system is more efficient than the overhead associated with ACH, Credit Card, PayPal or other networks for securing transactions.
Either way, curious what you all think about the content. As this is my first HN comment ever, please, be nice. :)
Also, for the non-native speakers: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/egregious, 'reflecting the positive connotations of "standing out from the flock"'.
(edit: removed bitterness)
Edit: It always gets nominated for hyperbolic headlines. I just happened to be the first on the scene.
The only thing you accomplish with bitcoin is wasting electricity and making global warming worse. Please stop destroying the planet.
Most people don't want to live in the wild west, that is a fact, and that's why the wild west went out of existence. There will always be some people who want to live dangerously / adventurously, but their experiences and preferences do not generalize to the entire population.
bitcoin has answer for these undeniable flaws; and besides.. no one is saying that "the entire population" needs to do anything. bitcoin can (and at this point, almost certainly will) exist right along side all these "real" monies you refer to; and people can choose, or not, to use bitcoin (and part of what is appealing to me, and likely others.. is that regardless of what any laws say, I can still "choose" to use bitcoin even if some jurisdiction delclares it illegal--unlike fiat.. where if the government decides i shouldn't have access to my money they can simply shut me down with zero recourse if the courts (or despots, depending on jurisdiction) don't see my side.
If you want to mess around with Bitcoin, awesome, but please don't see it as more than it is: a toy for the privileged.
I think you meant inflated.
Also, there is no distinction between "money" and "Bitcoin". Bitcoin is just another currency like USD, euros, yens, etc. It's people's choice all over the world in what currency to keep their money in a "bank".
That has to be the worst argument against Bitcoin I have ever seen. Why stop at the planet, you could have said "Please stop destroying the known universe", that would have made just as much sense.
We do plenty of this already with conventional currencies (micro-trading algorithms for stocks and currency speculation, for instance). Doesn't make either okay, just want to maintain perspective.
I'm not going to claim that BTC is good or evil, but it's for damn sure both disruptive and interesting. I think we'll also have gold and petro-dollars for quite some time, though.
There are places that are over regulated when it comes to exchanging currency. Bitcoin offers a legal or at least gray way to buy/sell stuff.
I guess not everyone likes change
I don't follow you.
Proof: Bitcoin requires the Internet to function. Therefore, the things disrupted by Bitcoin are a subset of the things disrupted by the Internet. The Internet can be used for disruptive things other than Bitcoin, so the things disrupted by Bitcoin are a proper subset of the things disrupted by the Internet.
Since the total number of things in both categories is finite, this means fewer things are disrupted by Bitcoin than are disrupted by the Internet.
1. "the internet" is a pretty nebulous term. bitcoin certainly requires computer networks, which generally require tcp/ip; but bitcoin could technically function on a darknet, which could arguably be "not the internet".
2. the internet relies on the power grid, which itself relies on copper wire; which essentially, and eventually, says, by your logic, that the internet is a subset of the things disrupted by copper mining.
now i actually agree that in the end the internet is a bigger disruptor; but i don't think your proof holds.
Rather than look at bitcoin, best to look at the websites that it brings about, and the ones it minimizes -- especially the ones that don't embrace bitcoins, such as banks. You could also measure it as a proportion of internet traffic vs web traffic. The key is that websites use bitcoins, and to take that into account.
Maybe if you look at the technologies in the vacuum in which they were created, but in reality you'd want to contextualize them as extensions of one another, otherwise you get a biased picture of their disruptivity.
We can follow this line back to arguing that nothing is more disruptive than the Big Bang.
Well yes, but the Big Bang was not a discovery/invention made by man. Discovery of how to start a fire would probably be a good candidate for the most disruptive tech.
Are there degrees of impossibility? I'm not sure. We may be looking at a partially-ordered set here.