OT:Bitcoin taking hits in press

From: Rod-Lists 
From Slashdot
Is Bitcoin Mining a Real-World Environmental Problem?
"Mark Gimein points out that Bitcoing mining uses a lot of power, enough that it is a real world problem: 'About 982 megawatt hours a day, to be exact. That’s enough to power roughly 31,000 US homes, or about half a Large Hadron Collider."

Krugman argues "Adam Smith Hates Bitcoin"

Krugman and others have argued that Bitcoin is experiencing deflation in relation to other currencies.

=============================================================== From: William Wade ------------------------------------------------------ I wonder how much power and environmental resources it takes to do money the old fashioned way. The power it takes to create a bitcoin is part of what gives it value and stability. I think Adam Smith would be intrigued by bitcoin, but like everyone else will not really know what to make of it until more time passes. alf a world-environmental-problem

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ Paul Krugman, Nobel Laureate in Economics thinks otherwise. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/13/paul-krugman-bitcoins

=============================================================== From: James Nylen ------------------------------------------------------ The problem with that argument is that we currently have no way to ensure the desirable properties of bitcoin without making it very difficult to create more bitcoins. It is decentralized, cryptographically sound (as far as I know), reasonably secure and stable, and impossible to counterfeit. I think it is an interesting experiment that has people worried about the possible impact on existing financial systems. On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Stephen Kraus wro= te:

=============================================================== From: Rod-Lists ------------------------------------------------------ Bitcoin replicates most of the same issues with the gold which was also resource intensive, inelastic, and lacked granularity. Most economists,including conservatives ones, reject the notion of going back to the gold standard. ----- James Nylen wrote:

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ Because the gold standard is a dead ideal. This is compounded by the fact that our economy is no longer solely linked to only our own financial standards, but the standards of every other country and their financial system as well. Gold really doesn't allow the flexibility for a world economy as fast paced and fluid as ours. re .

=============================================================== From: James Nylen ------------------------------------------------------ It's always worth considering what we give up for technological or economic advances. Centralization and corporatization can have great benefits, but they also have huge costs to society. I still can't decide whether we would have been better off remaining hunter-gatherers until we were able to figure out how to build societies with less inherent ability to create suffering. On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Stephen Kraus wro= te: g o s e

=============================================================== From: William Wade ------------------------------------------------------ Personally this is what makes Open Source (on topic woot!) and somewhat the Internet in general so interesting and promising. It goes against the centralization trends of history.