I'm new to this bitcoin thing, but I think it's a great idea. Here's what I think about the author's points, let me know if I'm missing something:
> "Mining" (they even borrowed the word!) bitcoins is pointless busywork that produces nothing of real value.
The "mining" activity is used for bootstrapping the network, the on-going processing of transactions, and the collection of transaction fees. It is not busywork.
> Bitcoins are less convenient than paper currency.
For in-person transactions, this is probably true, but not for computer based transactions, where we're held hostage to companies like PayPal for simple transfers.
> Bitcoin denies the truth of capitalism, that it's about value, not about money, by preventing the money supply from expanding when the economy does.
I'm not sure how true this is, maybe an economist can weigh in, but considering that it's not inconvenient to divide bitcoins into smaller units, I'm not sure why this creates any problem.
> Bitcoin allows for random unrecoverable effects like the 1930s depression.
I don't see how bitcoin would allow for "random unrecoverable effects" any more than Paypal would. Is this related to the possibility of breaking SHA256, which the author also thinks is viable?
> Bitcoin removes government control over the economy, which means there is no control over the economy.
I think this could be argued as a benefit, but it's not like bitcoins are likely to become the one world currency. If anything, it seems likely that a tiny bitcoin-based economy will spring up.
1 comment
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 11.8 ms ] thread> "Mining" (they even borrowed the word!) bitcoins is pointless busywork that produces nothing of real value.
The "mining" activity is used for bootstrapping the network, the on-going processing of transactions, and the collection of transaction fees. It is not busywork.
> Bitcoins are less convenient than paper currency.
For in-person transactions, this is probably true, but not for computer based transactions, where we're held hostage to companies like PayPal for simple transfers.
> Bitcoin denies the truth of capitalism, that it's about value, not about money, by preventing the money supply from expanding when the economy does.
I'm not sure how true this is, maybe an economist can weigh in, but considering that it's not inconvenient to divide bitcoins into smaller units, I'm not sure why this creates any problem.
> Bitcoin allows for random unrecoverable effects like the 1930s depression.
I don't see how bitcoin would allow for "random unrecoverable effects" any more than Paypal would. Is this related to the possibility of breaking SHA256, which the author also thinks is viable?
> Bitcoin removes government control over the economy, which means there is no control over the economy.
I think this could be argued as a benefit, but it's not like bitcoins are likely to become the one world currency. If anything, it seems likely that a tiny bitcoin-based economy will spring up.