When you said it was the greatest load of baloney and that its use was not worth nearly enough to justify its then price (all of 200 smackeroonies!) - we all knew what you meant.
"The growth of the Internet will slow drastically....."
- Krugman
Keep this post in your database, Dan, as you seem to keep most of my others.
Well actually I was never a great fan of Krugman, he is a tad infected by Shortie Syndrome. In that quote he is straying somewhat outside his area of expertise despite invoking Metcalfe’s Law. However he is far more qualified to comment on the validity of bitcoin as a currency. If he was a lone maverick I would dismiss him. But is there even one maverick economist who thinks bitcoin’s current price is justified?"The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in 'Metcalfe's law'–which states that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the square of the number of participants–becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other! By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's."
- Krugman
Well actually I was never a great fan of Krugman, he is a tad infected by Shortie Syndrome.
B/S trying to keep this on topic
So let us imagine 2018: Major cyber attack, USA pulls in its horns, and we have (yet another) Islam war. What exactly in this scenario underpins the current value of bitcoin?
B/S trying to keep this on topic
Already the wagons are circling.
There is the bullet proof camp who....
There will be the conspiracy theorists who....
There will be those, not unlike the bullet proof camp, who will argue that just because you predicted the right outcome you could not have been certain of it.
I had not thought of that, but Dan gives a clear outline of it here in advance.
Of course it's possible to predict the outcome of something without being certain of it.
It's not me, read the other posts.
I had to order a year's supply of tins of baked beanz after reading B/S apocalypse
I will be perfectly honest....there is no way on this earth I would have predicted.....that it would increase 50,000% in two years. I admit I would have been very seriously wrong......
As a pre-emptive defense that poster made it clear that even if Brendan is proved right later that does not mean he is right now
Upon a quick initial scan, I actually welcomed your post and gave it a like. Then, upon second reading, I realised that you are playing a game and continuing to misrepresent what another poster has said and I don't like that at all.
I think it's time for me to move away again from these threads
I realised that you are playing a game and continuing to misrepresent what another poster has said and I don't like that at all.
Well actually I was never a great fan of Krugman . . . However he is far more qualified to comment on the validity of bitcoin as a currency. If he was a lone maverick I would dismiss him.
He certainly still is a skeptic.Looks like Krugman's views are in development re. bitcoin.
Krugman states that Bitcoin has more utility than gold.
He's still a crypto skeptic but that's a hell of a turn around and a hell of a statement for him.
Even I would agree that it has more utility than gold as a currency. I can actually buy a latte with bitcoin. Notice how his criterion for success is, like most of us, mainstream adaption, completely at variance with arch zealot AA.Krugman said:“Indeed, eight years after Bitcoin was launched, cryptocurrencies have made very few inroads into actual commerce. A few firms will accept them as payment, but my sense is that this is more about signaling — look at me, I’m cutting-edge! — than about real usefulness. Cryptocurrencies have a large market valuation, but they’re overwhelmingly being held as a speculative play, not because they’re useful as mediums of exchange.”
Was never in dispute. However, his current commentary is a long way from his previous - 'putting the monetary system back 300 years' comment.He certainly still is a skeptic.
He referred to the utility of gold - so clearly he was referring to 'store of value' use case rather than transactional use.Even I would agree that it has more utility than gold as a currency.
I don't follow? How does A.A.'s view differ exactly? My understanding is that Antonopoulos believes that the future is not FIAT or crypto - but that there will be specific use cases for both. As regards transactional use, my understanding is that he seems to think Lightning Network will work as a solution to Bitcoins scaling problem.Notice how his criterion for success is, like most of us, mainstream adaption, completely at variance with arch zealot AA.
The thought did cross my mind re. the crypto conference invite. However, surely someone of his standing is above that? He can't be that hard up!I would prefer if we Krugman was more clearly in the "bag of hot air" camp but then he wouldn't get invited to crypto conferences.
My recall of AA's presentation was that he spent considerable time teasing out the audience's criterion for assessment of crypto "success".
I can't imagine he was referring to anything other than store of value as gold is used in the context of store of value rather than transactional.Not sure he was referring to store of value utility when comparing gold with bitcoin. If he did imply that bitcoin was a better long term store of value than gold then I fear that he has indeed taken the "crypto conference soup".
True, his primary use case for cryptos was in nations run by 'despotic leaders' where there was risk of them shutting down the local banking system and confiscating all assets. He believes that cryptos can play a role for people in such states to put some of their wealth out of reach of the regime. He added that in countries such as Ireland with a functioning banking system, he saw no gain or value in using cryptos.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?