[Chugalug] Bitcoin = scam
lpcustom at gmail.com
Wed Aug 7 02:35:52 UTC 2013
You guys were saying the same thing when it was $9 per bitcoin. If you'd
taken a $100 risk, you could have brought in around $2400 last month. I'm
not saying that I'd start using bitcoin as my currency of choice at the
moment. I'm just saying that there have been plenty of negativity toward it
on here and I only wish I'd swept some of that aside and bought about 100
bitcoins last year when it was low. I could have paid a chunk of my house
off this year.
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 9:50 PM, James Nylen <jnylen at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think Bitcoin shows some truly interesting qualities. It is hard to
> counterfeit, transparent, and easy to spend. Digital currencies based on
> cryptography show great promise in terms of libertarian free-market ideals.
> I must disclose that I made a small investment in Bitcoin a couple years
> ago, so my conclusions are subject to the usual biases. Thus far, though,
> I'm glad to have been part of the experiment.
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Stephen Kraus <ub3ratl4sf00 at gmail.com>wrote:
>> I've tried explaining this before, but unfortunately people are really
>> bought into the idea, and its none of my business what they do with their
>> time and processing power.
>> Its pretty much a pyramid scam, insufficient as a dependable currency and
>> fluctuates too quickly.
>> Buy, people can do as they please, but its along the same lines as
>> claiming vaccines cause autism.
>> On Aug 6, 2013 12:01 PM, "Mike Robinson" <miker at sundialservices.com>
>>> I'll call it what it -is-: it's a scam directed at nerds. "... and two
>>> to take him."
>>> The con consists, first, of posing a computationally-difficult yet
>>> not-insurmountable crypto problem. It can be solved; it just takes a long
>>> time. So, nerds are instantly absorbed in the "challenge for a challenge's
>>> own sake," namely, to solve the problem. They can be counted on not to
>>> examine the whole proposal too-seriously, because nerds generally consider
>>> themselves to be trustworthy and thus are too-trusting.
>>> "Someone (but we don't actually know who ...) said" that the number of
>>> bitcoins would be limited .. which is a necessary premise if you're being
>>> conned into thinking that you're mining for gold. "Tokens can only be used
>>> once." And most importantly, "the verification software cannot be tricked
>>> into giving a false-positive."
>>> Subtly, now, the nerds are suckered into giving-up REAL CURRENCY ...
>>> more than $100 USD at this point ... which they don't mind doing because,
>>> of course, they're sure that Nothing Comes Down (-and- that there is
>>> something holding it Up in the first place).
>>> It's pointless, though, to argue these points with people who have
>>> caught "digital Gold Fever." The only thing that can be done in that case
>>> is to sell them shovels and picks, which is precisely what Leland Stanford,
>>> among many others, did. Well, I have nothing to sell you, but I'll rest my
>>> case at this point and disregard the inevitable rebuttal. Presumably,
>>> you're not going to lose any money that you can't afford to lose.
>>> On Aug 5, 2013, at 5:50 PM, chugalug-request at chugalug.org wrote:
>>> Call it what you will, but those who got into Bitcoin early have done
>>> extremely well. Also, there is a pretty clear exponential trend relative
>>> to the dollar, which implies its value is still increasing.
>>> Chugalug mailing list
>>> Chugalug at chugalug.org
>> Chugalug mailing list
>> Chugalug at chugalug.org
> Chugalug mailing list
> Chugalug at chugalug.org
Google reads my email!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Chugalug