so uh, has anyone else noticed that all of dead5's posts have been replaced with a gif of a guy putting a gun to his head

One of my coworkers died a couple years ago.

He was one of our team members in Argentina. We stopped hearing from him for a couple days, which was very unlike him. It turned out he had died of a heart attack.

The miles suddenly mattered. I would work with this guy every day, lots of chat. Suddenly he was too far away for any of us to attend the funeral -- Mendoza was as far away from Boston as Moscow, even if it was only one time zone ahead.

I was a little freaked out that he had died from working too hard. I was worried that I was working too hard as well. My boss explained that he was corpulent, more so than in his possibly doctored IM icon.

Clearly, the true believers of BTC see it as an end-run around all other currency in which we stop trading in dollars or euros and do our transactions in a torrent economy.

The more I've looked at it, the more I believe it will occupy a middle ground for some time to come. As long as the exchanges are more competitive than PayPal, bitcoin has a lot to offer as simply a ledger for online transactions. Coinbase + the bitcoin network looks a lot more attractive than PayPal alone. I see bitcoin eating PayPal within a few years (which might include PayPal becoming a bitcoin wallet). It will also eat Square, then Visa and Mastercard. Only after all of that, do I think bitcoin can start to supplant fiat currencies; and if that happens, it will be mostly because people will no longer recognize the difference between the two.

The speculative bitcoin market is about as rationale as any other bubble market, and I think that Krugman is right to criticize it. However, I would think a Keynesian could recognize that it might not be a matter of bitcoins as units, but the nature of the network. Perhaps he simple sees the innate limited resource aspect of bitcoin and thus throws out the baby and the bathwater. As you said he is attacking the principle. However, bitcoins may very well never need to be currency for the network to change the global economy. The principle behind bitcoin might not matter. IMO Krugman is making the faulty assumption that bitcoin will fail unless bitcoins are a real currency. His arguments might be on point to that extent, but bitcoin is much more than that.

A few days ago I posted an interview a few days ago where Kevin Rose interviewed Brian Armstrong of Coinbase. What I thought was most telling, was how Armstrong only referred to price in terms of raising awareness of bitcoin. IMO from where he is sitting, he wants to see people use it to move 'real' money. Bitcoin might be the http of money, but not money. Krugman should see that. David Woo of BoA sees it.

EDIT: Timothy B. Lee makes the same counterargument in the WaPo. It's no less fluffy as mine. I could be a staff writer.

You beat me to posting this.

Their 'parental control' settings can be blocked from accessing Childline, Refuge, Stonewall or the Samaritans – which is even more frightening when you realise that they could just as easily be switched on by an abusive partner. The most vulnerable people in society are the most likely to be cut off from the help they need.

Holy shit. Who ever thought this was a good idea? Gah.

I see bitcoin eating PayPal within a few years (which might include PayPal becoming a bitcoin wallet). It will also eat Square, then Visa and Mastercard.

Ahh, but grasshopper - do you see what you just did?

Paypal is a company.

Square is a company.

Visa is a company.

Mastercard is a company.

BTC is a PROTOCOL.

Each and every one of them could start honoring BTC tomorrow. They could move to BTC internally. They're not going to, though, because it's unstable and non-portable. They could trade in gold, too - hell, they could trade in Alcoa stock. They don't. They trade in currencies that are insured and regulated by central banking authorities.

That's the only barrier to admission for a large company like Paypal - fiduciary portability. That portability is the home court advantage of conventional currency. BTC may yet get there, but the methodology by which it shall do so is "brute force." None of the companies you mention would face a single penalty to accepting BTC other than its inherent volatility. If that volatility goes away, BTC is as good as cash. However, "that volatility going away" is more likely to be an outcome than a goal.

However, I would think a Keynesian could recognize that it might not be a matter of bitcoins as units, but the nature of the network.

The nature of the network is libertarian and outside of conventional economic theory. Granted, "conventional economic theory" has been decidedly wrong of late, which is a mark in BTC's favor. But then, it's no different than any other black market currency: subject to pressures outside of regulation, vulnerable to pressures within regulation.

As you said he is attacking the principle.

That's not what I meant to say. What I meant to say is that he's attacking the framework of BTC within conventional banking standards while the aegis of BTC is existence outside conventional banking standards. It's akin to a record exec attacking the MP3 algorithm without acknowledging the MP3 economy. Basically, he's an A&R man advising recording industry execs not to invest with the Freunhaufer Institute. He doesn't even get into the wonders of Napster.

IMO Krugman is making the faulty assumption that bitcoin will fail unless bitcoins are a real currency.

My read was that he was attacking the notion that just because it walks like a currency, quacks like a currency and shits like a currency it must be a currency. Considering how much time and effort MtGox and others put into the "WE ARE NOT A BANK" trope, I'd say he has a valid argument.

A few days ago I posted an interview a few days ago where Kevin Rose interviewed Brian Armstrong of Coinbase.

Ain't nobody got time for that, yo. 40 minutes of Kevin Rose is 39:50 too long.

David Woo of BoA sees it.

Right. BoA sure called the housing bubble correctly.

EDIT: Timothy B. Lee makes the same counterargument in the WaPo. It's no less fluffy as mine. I could be a staff writer.

Again, I disagree. The WaPo argument is that BTC mining should not be seen as the same as gold mining because BTC mining is just a way to incentivize people into providing a backbone for BTC transactions. Put into simple terms:

BTC transaction backbone = brick'n'mortar banking network

BTC mine = Brick'n'mortar bank branch

BTC miner = Brick'n'mortar bank teller

The WaPo argues that Bitcoin mining is parasitic, rather than opportunistic. It's a valid argument, and it underlines one of Krugman's (misunderstandings? Omissions? Hard to say) in the article. Your argument, on the other hand, is that an exchange is an exchange is an exchange. It's not. The transaction point between BTC and most currencies is "commodity" not "currency" which

A) makes sense

B) gives governments an incentive (taxation)

C) delegitimizes the fundamental principle of BTC (it's a currency, not a thing)

It's that discontinuity, right there, that keeps BTC volatile. There's no real way to know how portable it will be moving forward, and every government in the world has ample incentive to penalize it.

This is not Krugman's argument (in this column, at least). His argument is that it's like the Gold Standard, and to Keynesian thinking, money standards are dumb. One is reminded of the phone sanitizers in Hitchhiker's Guide, and their choice of "leaves" as currency, which led to massive deforestation in order to drive up currency prices.

I dunno. If I had money to invest, I'd put it in Square, not BTC. My wife ran $10k off a Centurion card two years ago and in one fell swoop saved $300 off what Visa or Paypal would have charged her. They're making that shit easy yo, and it's currency-agnostic. The legislation necessary to make that go happened uneventfully in 2003 or so. It's clear sailing for Square.

Bitcoin? BTC is one justice department finding away from oblivion - or worse, a burn notice. Thus I watch, but I do not invest.

This whole filter ordeal enrages me to no end. Based on the flimsiest of arguments, they've installed a cluttered, totalitarian force of power to put the flow of information in the hands of mismanaged officials. It's wrong on every level, yet it is now here. Wrong sites being blocked is inherent to the system, not something that can be easily fixed. It is highly subjective what sites are 'appropriate' and what aren't. And above all, it shouldn't be on by default but off by default!

I'll be punching sandbags with rage if you need me.

That was a very interesting read. I think the psychological aspects he touched on are becoming increasingly true, namely this section:

Even so, mankind will suffer badly from the disease of boredom, a disease spreading more widely each year and growing in intensity. This will have serious mental, emotional and sociological consequences, and I dare say that psychiatry will be far and away the most important medical specialty in 2014. The lucky few who can be involved in creative work of any sort will be the true elite of mankind, for they alone will do more than serve a machine.

Indeed, the most somber speculation I can make about A.D. 2014 is that in a society of enforced leisure, the most glorious single word in the vocabulary will have become work!

I'm not sure if it's most glorious single word, but it definitely has a weight in a time when so many people are visibly unemployed and when everyone just wants to make their money and go home.

Aw, shucks, thanks. DC was a great night. I am fully committed to a meet-up in New York with you and the gang ( insomniasexx mk b_b ecib and etc) and hopefully lil nowaypablo humanodon - just so long as it doesn't happen the week of 4/19. I would love to see you all again.

And no problem, misreadings on the internet happen.

Festivus greetings to you, dear sir. And to all the rest of us. God help us, every one!

Warning/Disclaimer - Dystopian ranting to follow.

Ok, so both Orwell's future and Huxley's future are coming to pass, Big Brother sees all and we're happy for it because we're so well sedated. (The U.S. has the best soma, chemical and social we've ever seen, never has a population with access to so much done so little) Anyone who tries to expose the abuses of power by their own government is labeled a terrorist and cannot stay safely in the U.S. or in fact, cannot stay safely ANYWHERE. There is nothing standing between your average citizen of the planet and a jail cell, or a drone-launched hellfire missle, except for the whims of a few massively powerful persons who are not elected officials, but installed bureaucratic kings and corporate entities that are actually larger than world governements. What do we do about it? What can your average person in the developed world (U.S., Canada, most of Europe, parts of Asia and the Middle East) do to stop the steel walls of oppression from slamming down on democracy and self-determination? Can we do anything about it? If an open, armed rebellion became the last hope of democracy, would the populace of the 'Developed' world have the stomach for it?