A comment on the Bitcoin .. fraud

From: Mike Robinson 
------------------------------------------------------
These are just my thoughts =96 but I see a bully pulpit here, and I'll =
be brief.

If you wanted to fleece a bunch of nerds, how would you do it?  Well, =
first of all, you'd promise them, one way or another, "easy money."  In =
fact, knowing that many of them spend hours each day in gam-environments =
where guns never run out of ammo, you'd promise them "make your own =
money."  An altogether synthetic currency system.  "World Money, Release =
2.0."

You'd slow-roll the whole thing.  Just toss the ball out onto the field =
almost unmentioned.  Aside from the obvious need for plausible denial =
when the sheet hits the fan, you're playing hard to get, in the form of =
a cryptographic-based puzzle that can only be brute-forced, but that can =
be shown to be solvable.  Add a few more promises =96 that the supply of =
this "money" will always be limited (never mind how) =96 and wait for =
the Powerball Effect to take hold of its own accord.  A very large =
number of paper cards are thrown away near my driveway, because I live =
on a country road about a quarter-mile from a convenience store.  I pick =
them up by the hundreds.=20

Meanwhile, start selling supplies .. for real money.  And books, of =
course.  Every now and then, grab a quiet instant-success headline, say =
by selling a Ferrari (a Ford will NOT do ...) for this "new money."  =
Then wait.

It's a Crowd Psychology 101 play, people, and I just want to say .. =
there are some things in this ol' world that are truly ancient, and =
finding new and creative ways to rip off your fellow-man by leveraging =
his own gullibility is one of them.  I don't want my Chattanooga virtual =
friends to be among those many that will eventually be hurt.

#undef soapbox .. Thank you.

=96 Mike Robinson
(615) 268-3829=

=============================================================== From: Matt Keys ------------------------------------------------------ They've stated they'll be shipping once the power issues with the boards are sorted out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C4bgho5JSI

=============================================================== From: Lynn Dixon ------------------------------------------------------ What is surprising to me is the vast number of people that will jump in and criticize the currency after doing no research on it. They will read a few articles on the web, or maybe even some horrid bitcointalk forum posts and simply make an assumption that is usually incorrect. The currency works, and works well. I have been mining for a while now, nearly two years, and I have personally made some impressive returns. I have also used the currency quite a bit. I have used it as a vehicle of exchange when dealing with foreign currency, I have used it as a vehicle of exchange for goods and services, and I even accept bitcoin as payment for my web hosting company. On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 8:02 AM, Mike Robinson w= rote: ." n s e y it. to

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ I criticize it because numerous economics professors criticize it. Look, I'm all for you doing Bitcoin, its your time and your processing power, not mine. But lets be perfectly honest: When a bunch of people who spend their entire lives studying economic systems inside and out say its a waste and it will lead nowhere, I'm of the mind to take their opinions into account. Especially when a Nobel Laureate is saying so. Right now, I've watched the Bitcoin trends from Mt. Gox and it is bouncy as hell, repeatedly bubbles then pops. It doesn't matter how often it spikes if it cannot stay consistent at a certain value for long or trends rapidly up and down. Just read this thread, ignore some of the goofiness and listen to some of the people in it. I find their opinions seem to reflect a lot of people I know in the economics fields: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3D3543334&pagenumb= er=3D70#lastpost a s of e y." en e is y he by ait. e w to

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ And Lynn, I think you are probably one of the smartest people here, so I find it hard to criticize your argument because they are usually fairly well thought out. My other big thing with Bitcoins is the rapid inflation. I mean look at that guy who paid for a pizza in bitcoins a couple years ago, the amount he paid for the pizza would now be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars! Even inflation from the early 1900s to now isn't nearly that bad. On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Stephen Kraus wro= te: . mber=3D70#lastpost d a ts of r be s ey." hen be his f ry the by wait. ding s to

=============================================================== From: Randy Yates ------------------------------------------------------ Isn't that rapid deflation? On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Stephen Kraus wro= te: he rote: d t. s f I umber=3D70#lastpost ad a sts I e of or be n ts ney." d when be this of try the y by wait. nding ds to

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ Randy, thank you, yes, deflation. rote: he wrote: nd nt. y ds ple number=3D70#lastpost n ead a osts , I f le of for l In nts oney." " denial of a n be this of ntry y the ay by n wait. inding n nds to

=============================================================== From: Joshua Estes ------------------------------------------------------ https://www.google.com/search?q=3Dinventor%20committed%20to%20mental%20inst= itution Even the smartest people are wrong some of the time. 1: When you start out learning something say economics, you read everything you can on the subject. Eventually you can recall things based on previous work or come up with your own theories. At some point you believe in your idea so strongly that no one else is right. You die, you leave your legacy of books and papers behind. Goto 1; This process repeats itself over and over again. One of my biggest questions I have with bitcoins, which I haven't bothered to ask yet, is if each block contains transactions that are to be tracked. What happens when the last block is found? Does the system fail at that point? Bitcoins interest me because it makes me ask questions, other people's questions about bitcoins interest me as well. Nothing is set yet and this whole "experiment" could fail. - Joshua Estes @JoshuaEstes "If you live periods of your life in misery, when you remember back to those times, all you'll remember is the misery. The misery robs you of great memories you could otherwise be making." On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Stephen Kraus wrot= e: wrote: I t he and unt. ten ople enumber=3D70#lastpost : ll forum urns. le of cle of for ll , In ents money." ." denial of a an be f this r of untry by the say by en wait. finding wn ends to

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ Joshua, saying that inventors committed to institutions acts as proof that people currently recognized in their fields as experts doesn't essentially disprove what they are saying. stitution f n ote: : rly t nt he ! g and ount. ften e eople genumber=3D70#lastpost : ill k forum turns. cle of icle of t for 'll money." em "make Money, e denial m of a can be of this e er of ountry by the say by hen wait. finding own iends to

=============================================================== From: Lynn Dixon ------------------------------------------------------ Stephen, I didn't mean to direct my comments towards you, at all. It's just the huge number of folks writing articles on the web only seem to use a small resource pool for their investigations in Bitcoin. Most of the time, they will use the Bitcointalk forums since those results pop up highest in Google searches. Usually those folks are pretty crafty when it comes to writing blog posts, and they can, on the surface, present a good argument. Albeit based on half-correct or wrong information. Then you have people whom maybe be slightly interested in Bitcoin looking into the currency, and they stumble across these articles and learn mis-information. That's where my frustrations lie. Feel free to criticize bitcoin, it does indeed have its flaws. Firstly, I think its a bit cumbersome for simple transactions like buying stuff at the convenience store. Granted, there are alot of folks working on alot of cool projects to fix this, but for right now, it's not very easy. I use Bitcoins in FOREX mostly. I also use it as another investment vehicle. But thats just my use cases. I like the idea of a currency's value being dependant upon its demand. We know the supply to be constant, so therefore the exchange prices are solely driven on demand. There's no fiscal or monetary policies being controlled by a government to regulate the currencies value. This is why alot of the Keynesian economists say its a bunk currency. Since there is no way a controlling body can regulate the supply of the currency, most Keynesian's will generally discredit it. The demand driven currency ideals flys right in the face of Keynesiasts. With that being said, demand driven prices do tend to "bubble" more easily since there is no way to control the supply to mitigate the forming "bubbles". Again, this is what *some* economists will steer clear of demand driven ideas. If we look at the price over time, we really only have two "bubbles" in the entire bitcoin history. We had the first bubble that formed almost 2 years ago, when the price spiked to $33ish. Then we have the one that happened just recently, when it spiked to $266. http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/mtgoxUSD#rg360ztgSzm1g10zm2g25zv And Lynn, I think you are probably one of the smartest people here, so I he rote: d t. s f I umber=3D70#lastpost ad a sts I e of or be n ts ney." d when be this of try the y by wait. nding ds to

=============================================================== From: Randy Yates ------------------------------------------------------ Studying economics is like studying the opposite gender. As soon as you think you're an expert, you find out you don't have a clue. , e I he ol s he e th ce up at . e st ic f rote: he wrote: nd nt. y ds ple number=3D70#lastpost n ead a osts , I f le of for l In nts oney." " denial of a n be this of ntry y the ay by n wait. inding n nds to

=============================================================== From: Aaron welch ------------------------------------------------------ So Stephen, how many of those guys actually do anything with all that knowledge? No one has EVER created a global economic system that does not require a central governing body to function. Imagine if we removed the bank bloat from the US economy by getting rid of banks and the Federal Reserve. Think about how much of our economy is wasted by banks and banking transactions. I personally think the so called experts have no idea what to make of bitcoin or bitcoin-like systems. -AW PS - Most of these assholes also missed the housing crisis. On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Stephen Kraus wro= te: . mber=3D70#lastpost d a ts of r be s ey." hen be his f ry the by wait. ding s to

=============================================================== From: Dave Brockman ------------------------------------------------------ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Fixed that for you! Regards, dtb -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRbBonAAoJEMP+wtEOVbcdoEgIAJkWaS8z+KvYSgTWPUvzoP2o sFSgnlRPZzYWrspNH8VY19J4AxeCxFj5g8obP+e2OogK/W9lyrYYjuRyVMrvBk6S pCNmqX5ZDOiDmvVYjl8GpcUjiRI3PlEYHXRvoaDbpkInkoxZfNqKYtMJGODOW2Gn HOPzw23riACHYJgbh1OKLdUYwr0RZ9t6VnE4OLvRUMjYDKbkFJZyqRyLXBCr09q9 v2mo2WEjJwZUYM21dcFzggff5KG1lpAHrCGGYpGSxTAui1uREsQUMH8H+F7oxcVv NExx8oRfCBCPdd9h1eu2D3wFT9Z//dEgtDOvkQZDm9yr0exa9uoUwCSXv2unL3I= =eOjv -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ Paul Krugman actually predicted the housing crisis. A few economists did actually. I am in no way saying the banking industry is perfect, after all, they purposely wanted the removal of the Glass-Steagall Act so that they could make trades and investments they knew were bad just to make a quick buck. Its why regulation and deregulation is a double edged sword, some regulations are heavy handed sure, but some were also put in place to protect people and prevent overzealous companies from causing intentional harm for the sake of profit. Randy, c'mon now. So I guess based on that logic, any and all experts should be dismissed as apparently they have not a clue? That is very backwards thinking. Everyone makes mistakes and everyone is wrong at some point in time, that is not the same as saying 'People studying systems like an economy as a science are wrong because they know nothing despite their credentials' On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Aaron welch wrote= : nstitution d if en rote: : o irly amount lars! e and count. often r t of agenumber=3D70#lastpost e: p will lk forum eturns. icle of hicle of nt for money." hem "make Money, le denial rm of a can be of this he ber of country p by the f , say by Then wait. . d finding own riends to

=============================================================== From: Aaron welch ------------------------------------------------------ Josh, the difficulty would increase to make finding blocks that much harder and the value that much higher. Imagine it like the first stock certificate for GE or Coke and how much those would be worth today after all the stock splits. -AW stitution f n ote: : rly t nt he ! g and ount. ften e eople genumber=3D70#lastpost : ill k forum turns. cle of icle of t for 'll money." em "make Money, e denial m of a can be of this e er of ountry by the say by hen wait. finding own iends to

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ That is a false equivalency Dave, not every economist is a bank shill. That is like saying every stud is a horse, but not every horse is a stud. Assuming that economists were all cheer-leading bad investments and doing whatever the banking industry wanted is rather worrying.

=============================================================== From: Randy Yates ------------------------------------------------------ There's very few sciences that I don't trust, economics is one of them. Call it backward thinking if you want, but I find economics experts about as credible as big foot experts. I wouldn't even trust a super computer mining big data to predict the economy. There's too many factors that come into play to change it. There's the obvious things like natural disasters and the outbreak of war, but there's also events like a damn economics expert making a TV appearance or writing an article about something. All those things can alter the natural flow of the economy. So I don't see it as a very accurate science. A physicists can't get on TV and talk about gravity and cause gravity to change its behavior. On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Stephen Kraus wro= te: ke e: : institution ed u if hen wrote: e: y amount llars! r te and ccount. often or ot of pagenumber=3D70#lastpost te: They cointalk t. returns. hicle of ehicle of ent for y money." them "make d Money, ble denial orm of a t can be y of this the mber of country up by the line, say ." Then , and aging his ual

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ True, the problem arises when your economist is not an unbiased source, i.e. they work specifically for an investment firm or bank of some sort. For the most part, research economists are less likely to be biased towards their source of income. Its more of the 'We don't want bad news' bit, if you say something contrary to the companies interests its not in your interests.

=============================================================== From: James Nylen ------------------------------------------------------ This is very interesting reading. On the subject of learning about and working against cognitive biases, I also like the Center for Applied Rationality, http://appliedrationality.org/.

=============================================================== From: William Wade ------------------------------------------------------ This is even more off topic, but people are really bad at predicting the future (often worse than a coin toss). This is one of the issues that the Aggregative Contingent Estimation Program is trying to work on. (Best place to learn about it is: http://goodjudgmentproject.com/blog/?p=87 which is one of the teams.) Some of these teams are predicting events well due to training regarding biases, some research, and a fair number of people. Also on the subject, although not always the best source, generally a good lay source: http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/09/14/new-freakonomics-radio-podcast-the-folly-of-prediction/

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ Nice link James, I'll have to check that out further.

=============================================================== From: Randy Yates ------------------------------------------------------ "unbiased economists" are mythical beasts much like big foot

=============================================================== From: James Nylen ------------------------------------------------------ Let's say "most" economists instead of "all". I believe that most economists failed to see the signs of a crisis brewing, in part because they were entrenched in the same system that created the crisis. I see no reason to believe that this has changed.

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ Sure, everyone has an agenda. But if we are just going to go around declaring everyone's theories as invalid because they might have an agenda, we make no progress. Its just silly. 'The Big Bang Theory might be invalid because the scientists who proposed it were not wholly unbiased in their research' It just doesn't work for any field, but when it comes to economics I'll trust the college economist phds who spend their time doing nothing but modeling and research versus economists with an iron in the fire. Either way Randy, your viewpoint is offering no viable alternative other than sow distrust and paranoia. I cannot really work with it, even as valid as it could be.

=============================================================== From: Joshua Estes ------------------------------------------------------ @Aaron, I don't think I understand your point. From my understanding about bitcoin blocks https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block it contains a transaction log. I understand that as the more people mining will cause blocks to become harder to find. Fast forward into the future when the very last block is mined and no more bitcoins will be created. What happens at that point? Are blocks still created? Why should I try to generate blocks if there is no reward for doing so? When this happens, does the entire system break down? Some of this is just my own ignorance and I don't think could be considered valid since I haven't taken the time to really dig into the code and make sure I understand a lot of this stuff. If any can answer, please do. - Joshua Estes @JoshuaEstes "If you live periods of your life in misery, when you remember back to those times, all you'll remember is the misery. The misery robs you of great memories you could otherwise be making." On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Aaron welch wrote= : nstitution d if en rote: : o irly amount lars! e and count. often r t of agenumber=3D70#lastpost e: p will lk forum eturns. icle of hicle of nt for money." hem "make Money, le denial rm of a can be of this he ber of country p by the f , say by Then wait. . d finding own riends to

=============================================================== From: Chad Smith ------------------------------------------------------ I am not a horse. *- Chad W. Smith*

=============================================================== From: James Nylen ------------------------------------------------------ So, how do you propose to determine the best way to make progress / come up with valid theories? My favorite example of how wrong established fields can be is in medicine and nutrition. America is undergoing an obesity epidemic

=============================================================== From: Randy Yates ------------------------------------------------------ Joshua, If I understand it correctly the blocks will continue as long as their are transactions. However the blocks may not contain new coins. At that point you may say, why mine if there are no coins. Transactions require miners hashing to very the transactions, if I'm not mistaking. But the difficulty to mine a block at that point would be very small, since so few people would be mining. That's when I predict that it would become a centralized system where a few people get together and create a monopoly on the mining. They can then alter the transactions anyway they please since they control the distribution of transaction checking machines. I could be completely wrong though. t m de e: : institution ed u if hen wrote: e: y amount llars! r te and ccount. often or ot of pagenumber=3D70#lastpost te: They cointalk t. returns. hicle of ehicle of ent for y money." them "make d Money, ble denial orm of a t can be y of this the mber of country up by the line, say ." Then , and aging his ual

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ We're putting you out to pasture anyways.

=============================================================== From: Dan Lyke ------------------------------------------------------ I don't think you need to look to outside sources for reasons to be skeptical of bitcoin, on the other hand there are tremendous profits to be made from bubbles if you can figure out when to get off. Objects have value because people collectively believe they have value, but currencies also have the property where too much rarity means they're no longer usable as a currency. Collector's items aren't fungible, which means they don't work as currency: You have to find a buyer for that specific item. I believe the overall concept is flawed for a simple reason: Currency supply is capped at at 21 million bitcoins. Over time bitcoins will be lost, people will die and not leave codes to their wallets, hardware will fail, entropy occurs. Which means that the currency supply will, inevitably, shrink. This, to a point, encourages hoarding, until people lose faith in the currency and it collapses entirely. The question is: how far off is that time? So, yeah, you won't find me playing in that bubble, but if you wanna soak some suckers on the rise up, no skin off my nose... And who knows, that rise may last for years and years. Dan

=============================================================== From: Randy Yates ------------------------------------------------------ 2140 is the estimated year of the last bitcoin I think. Also, bitcoins can be divided into 8 decimal places. If there are 21,000,000 bitcoins...you could also look at it like there are 2,100,000,000,000,000 units of currency.

=============================================================== From: Randy Yates ------------------------------------------------------ Hehe well the weather can be predicted to some extent with the data, but a meteorologist can't change the weather by making a forecast. t me s t wrote: d ld k. al me ir ote: k er ns o f ote: , ok . g rote: . le e nd e he ply r m , y

=============================================================== From: Randy Yates ------------------------------------------------------ By the way, I'm not claiming to be an expert in economics. It's not a science, despite the claims. I've seen too many economics experts arguing with other economics experts with totally opposite views. A chemist can't turn mercury into gold by talking about it. A nobel prize winning economics expert, however, can change a lot about the economy by simply making an appearance on TV or writing an internet article. Need a for instance on that. The recent Bitcoin bubble is a direct result of news articles and such about dun da da dun Bitcoin. I also don't view bitcoins as a viable currency, and if I were an economics expert, I'd make a few media appearances stating that. People would lose faith in bitcoins....they'd stop mining and buying/selling them. The price would plummet. Then I could go buy a bunch. Then I'd get one of my colleges to go on TV saying that they are a great investment. The price would rise back up, and I'd be so rich I'd never have to read another economics book or even look at a number if I didn't want to.

=============================================================== From: "kitepilot@kitepilot.com" ------------------------------------------------------ From economics to aviation... Pilots *KNOW* that the weather forecast is nothing else than a horoscope with numbers. Does that equalize the 'Science of Economy' with the 'Science of Astrology'? Let the firestorm begin! ;-) ET Randy Yates writes:

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ We can turn lead into gold, but I wouldn't touch it afterwords. As much as Sturgeon's Law appeals, it really has no actual basis, there are no statistics to back it ('Most Statistics are false', and do go as far to say 90% of all published materiel is crap, that is most likely false.

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ Randy, As far as weather, you are absolutely correct, but of course predictions for weather are made based on the currently known variables and their results, it cannot totally predict every small change that can have vast changes on a system overall (see Chaos theory for why)

=============================================================== From: Randy Yates ------------------------------------------------------ And predictions in economics can be completely based upon currently known variables and observations of past events, but the predictions can be completely invalidated based solely on the prediction being stated. Are you understanding how that's not a science?

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ Difficulty to predict is a sure thing with economics, any predictions based on a system where the variables are constantly changes is always difficult to predict, however, you can predict trends based on rules in the system (regulations and current events) to some point of reliability, granted with a wide margin of error. e rote: d . l e ike r te: r : 0institution sed ou s if when s te: ly k e amount ollars! s a waste nto w often or lot of &pagenumber=3D70#lastpost ote: They tcointalk ct. e returns. ehicle of vehicle of ment for d sy money." them "make ld Money, e ible denial form of a at can be ly of this the umber of a country up by the dline, say y." Then t, and raging his tual

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ No, I think it can still be considered a science. Its not like trying to hunt ghosts or studying paranormal animals, it is still based on solid grounds of statistics, mathamatics, and game theory. Just because you distrust it doesn't exactly invalidate it as a scientific endeavor, modeling how economic systems work and the many variables therein still requires some level of understanding vs. just making things up.

=============================================================== From: Lynn Dixon ------------------------------------------------------ I think what Randy is saying is that a "science" that is based upon predictions, with which those variables can be influenced by the mere prediction itself is not in fact a "science". Economics is easy to "massage" your predictions into reality, especially if you are in control of a currency, like the Fed. The fact that some "highly respected economist" can make a public prediction is in fact altering the variables to coax that prediction into becoming a reality is what makes stuff like "economic sciences" a load of horse hockey. On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Stephen Kraus wro= te: he t me s t wrote: d ld k. al me like ir ote: k er e: 20institution ased you is if when ns o f ote: , lly go, the nds of . ts a waste into ow often g or lot of 4&pagenumber=3D70#lastpost rote: . They itcointalk ect. ressive it as a sed it as a tcoin as nd asy money." e them "make rld Money, plausible in the form but that can supply of this r the number of a country m up by the , adline, say ey." Then y nt, and eraging his rtual

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ I mean if you are going to go that far, might as well call SETI and tell them to pack up, because obviously there is no aliens and not worth the endeavor

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ Well in economics you have the ability to change values to influence the system doesn't exactly invalidate the results. We can influence the weather through cloud seeding and pollution, it doesn't make the weather any less valid. rote: the : ut ome rs l it uld ck. nal ome like eir rote: ck ter te: %20institution based u you is if s when s ons e ou of rote: re usually ago, the ands of t. its a waste into s how often ng or o a lot of 34&pagenumber=3D70#lastpost wrote: t. They bitcointalk rect. pressive d it as a used it as a itcoin as and easy money." se them "make orld Money, plausible , in the form but that can supply of this or the number of n a country em up by the ccess r this "new ancient, and veraging his irtual

=============================================================== From: William Wade ------------------------------------------------------ "Let the firestorm begin! ;-)" Are you attempting a forecast? To the stake! (Reminds me also that I love the new player in the weather site and api business: forecast.io ) t me s t wrote: d ld k. al me ir ote: k er ns o f ote: , ok . g rote: . le e ere, and e he he supply ait for m , y

=============================================================== From: Dan Lyke ------------------------------------------------------ One of the problems with economics is that the measurement very clearly changes the system. Knowledge about how the market works is integrated back into the market extremely quickly, which means that it's only knowledge about how the market works as long as it isn't disclosed. Dan

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ Lets put it this way: When the Glass Steagall Act was struck down, it was already estimated by many economists that it would lead to a financial crisis in the future, and while it took some time for it to happen and they couldn't estimated EXACTLY what would happen. Same thing could be said of Climate Change: Science has been proclaiming it would happen for years, with much booing and anger from the public at large, but now we are starting to see the effects and the models are beginning to line up, doesn't make climate science any less valid. On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 12:37 PM, William Wade wrote= : ut rs l it id rote: ck u s s e to of rote: e, o s o a wrote: a and e or n s, ay

=============================================================== From: Lynn Dixon ------------------------------------------------------ Not to change the argument, but I think most everyone agrees Climate Change does indeed happen. Its man-caused Global Warming that causes much debate. On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Stephen Kraus wrot= e: nd e: e . r ll t y s wrote: ou , , ns le wrote: f . is to l a and ? for e

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ When I say 'Climate Change' I mean't human influenced climate change. Its safe to say we have some impact, for better or for worse, on the global climate. h ote: and te: m. er s e ut ey o s h s k u , a r t * ll d s , t? o t

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ Well economics is difficult to predict because while it is a system, its a very chaotic system which changes quickly from day to day and variables come and go. But if you step back from the crowd, even chaos has patterns that can be recognized and described. Even a mosh pit has a patter and system.

=============================================================== From: Aaron Welch ------------------------------------------------------ +1 -AW sts failed to see the signs of a crisis brewing, in part because they were e= ntrenched in the same system that created the crisis. I see no reason to be= lieve that this has changed. rote: at is like saying every stud is a horse, but not every horse is a stud. whatever the banking industry wanted is rather worrying. e:

=============================================================== From: Aaron Welch ------------------------------------------------------ Now think about how easy it is for "experts" to change popular opinion about= what is happening right now. People are so entrenched in their favorite me= dia sources that they spew them as though they were the gospel. If I was ri= ch and wanted things my way, I would just pay the right person to have the r= eality of facts changed to benefit me. -AW ll it backward thinking if you want, but I find economics experts about as c= redible as big foot experts. I wouldn't even trust a super computer mining b= ig data to predict the economy. There's too many factors that come into play= to change it. There's the obvious things like natural disasters and the out= break of war, but there's also events like a damn economics expert making a T= V appearance or writing an article about something. All those things can alt= er the natural flow of the economy. So I don't see it as a very accurate sci= ence. A physicists can't get on TV and talk about gravity and cause gravity t= o change its behavior. rote: ctually. rposely wanted the removal of the Glass-Steagall Act so that they could make= trades and investments they knew were bad just to make a quick buck. Its wh= y regulation and deregulation is a double edged sword, some regulations are h= eavy handed sure, but some were also put in place to protect people and prev= ent overzealous companies from causing intentional harm for the sake of prof= it. uld be dismissed as apparently they have not a clue? That is very backwards t= hinking. Everyone makes mistakes and everyone is wrong at some point in time= , that is not the same as saying 'People studying systems like an economy as= a science are wrong because they know nothing despite their credentials' te: der and the value that much higher. Imagine it like the first stock certifi= cate for GE or Coke and how much those would be worth today after all the st= ock splits. : institution hing you can on the subject. Eventually you can recall things based on previ= ous work or come up with your own theories. At some point you believe in you= r idea so strongly that no one else is right. You die, you leave your legacy= of books and papers behind. tions I have with bitcoins, which I haven't bothered to ask yet, is if each b= lock contains transactions that are to be tracked. What happens when the las= t block is found? Does the system fail at that point? Bitcoins interest me b= ecause it makes me ask questions, other people's questions about bitcoins in= terest me as well. Nothing is set yet and this whole "experiment" could fail= . hose times, all you'll remember is the misery. The misery robs you of great m= emories you could otherwise be making." wrote: te: o I find it hard to criticize your argument because they are usually fairly w= ell thought out. at that guy who paid for a pizza in bitcoins a couple years ago, the amount= he paid for the pizza would now be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars! ing power, not mine. r entire lives studying economic systems inside and out say its a waste and i= t will lead nowhere, I'm of the mind to take their opinions into account. Es= pecially when a Nobel Laureate is saying so. ouncy as hell, repeatedly bubbles then pops. It doesn't matter how often it s= pikes if it cannot stay consistent at a certain value for long or trends rap= idly up and down. ome of the people in it. I find their opinions seem to reflect a lot of peop= le I know in the economics fields: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthre= ad.php?threadid=3D3543334&pagenumber=3D70#lastpost ote: mp in and criticize the currency after doing no research on it. They will r= ead a few articles on the web, or maybe even some horrid bitcointalk forum p= osts and simply make an assumption that is usually incorrect. now, nearly two years, and I have personally made some impressive returns. = I have also used the currency quite a bit. I have used it as a vehicle of e= xchange when dealing with foreign currency, I have used it as a vehicle of e= xchange for goods and services, and I even accept bitcoin as payment for my w= eb hosting company. =20 e, and I'll be brief. ell, first of all, you'd promise them, one way or another, "easy money." In= fact, knowing that many of them spend hours each day in gam-environments wh= ere guns never run out of ammo, you'd promise them "make your own money." A= n altogether synthetic currency system. "World Money, Release 2.0." field almost unmentioned. Aside from the obvious need for plausible denial= when the sheet hits the fan, you're playing hard to get, in the form of a c= ryptographic-based puzzle that can only be brute-forced, but that can be sho= wn to be solvable. Add a few more promises =E2=80=93 that the supply of thi= s "money" will always be limited (never mind how) =E2=80=93 and wait for the= Powerball Effect to take hold of its own accord. A very large number of pa= per cards are thrown away near my driveway, because I live on a country road= about a quarter-mile from a convenience store. I pick them up by the hundr= eds. f course. Every now and then, grab a quiet instant-success headline, say by= selling a Ferrari (a Ford will NOT do ...) for this "new money." Then wait= . . there are some things in this ol' world that are truly ancient, and findin= g new and creative ways to rip off your fellow-man by leveraging his own gul= libility is one of them. I don't want my Chattanooga virtual friends to be a= mong those many that will eventually be hurt.

=============================================================== From: Aaron Welch ------------------------------------------------------ As there are fewer blocks, it becomes INCREDIBLY difficult to mine them furt= her. We are talking difficulty adjustments that are 1000x harder than today= . It slows the creation of the currency which causes an increase in value. = Look at the increasing cost of oil for example. There is still lots of it o= ut there, but oil from oil sands is 10x harder to acquire. So the supply is= still steady, but the cost goes up significantly. Hope that helps. -AW ut bitcoin blocks https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block it contains a transaction= log. I understand that as the more people mining will cause blocks to becom= e harder to find. Fast forward into the future when the very last block is m= ined and no more bitcoins will be created. What happens at that point? Are b= locks still created? Why should I try to generate blocks if there is no rewa= rd for doing so? When this happens, does the entire system break down? d valid since I haven't taken the time to really dig into the code and make s= ure I understand a lot of this stuff. If any can answer, please do. se times, all you'll remember is the misery. The misery robs you of great me= mories you could otherwise be making." e: er and the value that much higher. Imagine it like the first stock certific= ate for GE or Coke and how much those would be worth today after all the sto= ck splits. nstitution ing you can on the subject. Eventually you can recall things based on previo= us work or come up with your own theories. At some point you believe in your= idea so strongly that no one else is right. You die, you leave your legacy o= f books and papers behind. ions I have with bitcoins, which I haven't bothered to ask yet, is if each b= lock contains transactions that are to be tracked. What happens when the las= t block is found? Does the system fail at that point? Bitcoins interest me b= ecause it makes me ask questions, other people's questions about bitcoins in= terest me as well. Nothing is set yet and this whole "experiment" could fail= . hose times, all you'll remember is the misery. The misery robs you of great m= emories you could otherwise be making." rote: e: o I find it hard to criticize your argument because they are usually fairly w= ell thought out. t that guy who paid for a pizza in bitcoins a couple years ago, the amount h= e paid for the pizza would now be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars! ng power, not mine. entire lives studying economic systems inside and out say its a waste and i= t will lead nowhere, I'm of the mind to take their opinions into account. Es= pecially when a Nobel Laureate is saying so. uncy as hell, repeatedly bubbles then pops. It doesn't matter how often it s= pikes if it cannot stay consistent at a certain value for long or trends rap= idly up and down. me of the people in it. I find their opinions seem to reflect a lot of peopl= e I know in the economics fields: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthrea= d.php?threadid=3D3543334&pagenumber=3D70#lastpost te: p in and criticize the currency after doing no research on it. They will re= ad a few articles on the web, or maybe even some horrid bitcointalk forum po= sts and simply make an assumption that is usually incorrect. ow, nearly two years, and I have personally made some impressive returns. I= have also used the currency quite a bit. I have used it as a vehicle of exc= hange when dealing with foreign currency, I have used it as a vehicle of exc= hange for goods and services, and I even accept bitcoin as payment for my we= b hosting company. =20 , and I'll be brief. ll, first of all, you'd promise them, one way or another, "easy money." In f= act, knowing that many of them spend hours each day in gam-environments wher= e guns never run out of ammo, you'd promise them "make your own money." An a= ltogether synthetic currency system. "World Money, Release 2.0." ield almost unmentioned. Aside from the obvious need for plausible denial w= hen the sheet hits the fan, you're playing hard to get, in the form of a cry= ptographic-based puzzle that can only be brute-forced, but that can be shown= to be solvable. Add a few more promises =E2=80=93 that the supply of this "= money" will always be limited (never mind how) =E2=80=93 and wait for the Po= werball Effect to take hold of its own accord. A very large number of paper= cards are thrown away near my driveway, because I live on a country road ab= out a quarter-mile from a convenience store. I pick them up by the hundreds= . f course. Every now and then, grab a quiet instant-success headline, say by= selling a Ferrari (a Ford will NOT do ...) for this "new money." Then wait= . . there are some things in this ol' world that are truly ancient, and findin= g new and creative ways to rip off your fellow-man by leveraging his own gul= libility is one of them. I don't want my Chattanooga virtual friends to be a= mong those many that will eventually be hurt.

=============================================================== From: Aaron Welch ------------------------------------------------------ +5 for the point on entropy. Especially those folks who created the coins when they were easy and let hundreds if not thousands of them expire into the dark part of the interwebs. -AW

=============================================================== From: Aaron Welch ------------------------------------------------------ I think this is happening today. It's too much money not to be doing it now= . Market cap passed $1 Billion this month. -AW nce, despite the claims. I've seen too many economics experts arguing with o= ther economics experts with totally opposite views. A chemist can't turn mer= cury into gold by talking about it. A nobel prize winning economics expert, h= owever, can change a lot about the economy by simply making an appearance on= TV or writing an internet article.=20 f news articles and such about dun da da dun Bitcoin.=20 s expert, I'd make a few media appearances stating that. People would lose f= aith in bitcoins....they'd stop mining and buying/selling them. The price wo= uld plummet. Then I could go buy a bunch. Then I'd get one of my colleges to= go on TV saying that they are a great investment. The price would rise back= up, and I'd be so rich I'd never have to read another economics book or eve= n look at a number if I didn't want to.=20 n be divided into 8 decimal places. If there are 21,000,000 bitcoins...you c= ould also look at it like there are 2,100,000,000,000,000 units of currency.= rote:

=============================================================== From: Aaron Welch ------------------------------------------------------ It in fact does invalidate the results. An experiment where I start with the result I want and build the test case to produce it 95% of the time is not an experiment at all, it is a business/operational process.

=============================================================== From: Aaron Welch ------------------------------------------------------ Apples and oranges Stephen. There is no psychological element to climate ch= ange. Human behavior cannot immediately effect a total collapse of the clim= ate. The climate system functions without our input and the economy is driv= en by our choices and values. -AW any economists that it would lead to a financial crisis in the future, and w= hile it took some time for it to happen and they couldn't estimated EXACTLY w= hat would happen. t would happen for years, with much booing and anger from the public at larg= e, but now we are starting to see the effects and the models are beginning t= o line up, doesn't make climate science any less valid. e: usiness: forecast.io ) with numbers. gy'? ut ome rs l t id uld ck. nal ome like eir rote:=20 ck ter ote:=20 %20institution=20 ased u you is if s when s ons e o f rote:=20 e, ally ook he amount dollars!=20 =20 t.=20 heir aste and o account. s ow often ng or o lot of 34&pagenumber=3D70#lastpost=20 wrote:=20 t. They itcointalk rect.=20 ile ve returns. vehicle of vehicle of ayment for ere, and easy money." se them "make orld Money, he usible denial e form of a hat can be he supply of this ait for the number of n a country em up by the s, eadline, say ney." Then ay ent, and veraging his irtual

=============================================================== From: Eric Wolf ------------------------------------------------------ "Human behavior cannot immediately effect a total collapse of the climate." I believe there's a dude in Washington D.C. with a button that, when pressed, would essentially cause an immediate, total collapse of the climate. -Eric -=3D--=3D---=3D----=3D----=3D---=3D--=3D-=3D--=3D---=3D----=3D---=3D--=3D-= =3D- Eric B. Wolf 720-334-7734 On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Aaron Welch wrote= : is : nd e: e . r ll t y s wrote: ou , , ns le wrote: f . is to l a and ? for e

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ If you are depending on media organizations for financial advice, specifically CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc, then I can understand why you might be upset with economic science. This is pretty common for all the sciences, people would rather ask their politicians or news organizations if the Theory of Evolution/Big Bang Theory/ Global Warming is real than the actual scientists. However, the assumption that a system we create and change is totally within our control is rather false, otherwise car accidents would be a thing of the past and house fires would be a lot less common. Every little variable counts, and economics is no different, you could be as rich as you want and there is a good chance that things can go totally against you due to minor changes outside your control. Once again, Chaos Theory helps us understand why that is. is : nd e: e . r ll t y s wrote: ou , , ns le wrote: f . is to l a and ? for e

=============================================================== From: Aaron Welch ------------------------------------------------------ Touch=C3=A9. Prolly another one in Russia. -AW " ed, would essentially cause an immediate, total collapse of the climate. =3D- e: change. Human behavior cannot immediately effect a total collapse of the c= limate. The climate system functions without our input and the economy is d= riven by our choices and values. : many economists that it would lead to a financial crisis in the future, and= while it took some time for it to happen and they couldn't estimated EXACTL= Y what would happen. it would happen for years, with much booing and anger from the public at la= rge, but now we are starting to see the effects and the models are beginning= to line up, doesn't make climate science any less valid. ote: business: forecast.io ) pe with numbers. logy'? m. bout er come ters s ll e it ut did ey ould uck. o ional s some ms like heir h tock fter rote:=20 al%20institution=20 s based ou e, you t, is if ens when ins tions ole k to u of ere, sually look , the amount f dollars!=20 d.=20 it.=20 their waste and nto account. is r how often ong or to t a lot of 3334&pagenumber=3D70#lastpost=20 ll it. They d bitcointalk orrect.=20 hile sive returns. a vehicle of s a vehicle of payment for t here, and t? "easy money." mise them "make World Money, o the lausible denial he form of a t that can be t the supply of this d wait for the ge number of on a country hem up by the oks, headline, say oney." Then say cient, and everaging his virtual =20

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ I hear some bastard in North Korea has one too, but it might just be a firecracker ." -=3D- e: e e is and te: m. er s e ut ey o s h s k u , a r t * ll d s , t? o t

=============================================================== From: Aaron Welch ------------------------------------------------------ I am very sad that you would send me an email stating all that stuff. It ju= st shows how little you understand about how economics actually works in a c= apitalist economy in the digital age. Information is power and is more valu= able than money in today's economy. -AW ally CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc, then I can understand why you might be upset with= economic science. This is pretty common for all the sciences, people would r= ather ask their politicians or news organizations if the Theory of Evolution= /Big Bang Theory/ Global Warming is real than the actual scientists. in our control is rather false, otherwise car accidents would be a thing of t= he past and house fires would be a lot less common. Every little variable co= unts, and economics is no different, you could be as rich as you want and th= ere is a good chance that things can go totally against you due to minor cha= nges outside your control. : change. Human behavior cannot immediately effect a total collapse of the c= limate. The climate system functions without our input and the economy is d= riven by our choices and values. : many economists that it would lead to a financial crisis in the future, and= while it took some time for it to happen and they couldn't estimated EXACTL= Y what would happen. it would happen for years, with much booing and anger from the public at la= rge, but now we are starting to see the effects and the models are beginning= to line up, doesn't make climate science any less valid. ote: business: forecast.io ) pe with numbers. logy'? m. bout er come ters s ll e it ut did ey ould uck. o ional s some ms like heir h tock fter rote:=20 al%20institution=20 s based ou e, you t, is if ens when ins tions ole k to u of ere, sually look , the amount f dollars!=20 d.=20 it.=20 their waste and nto account. is r how often ong or to t a lot of 3334&pagenumber=3D70#lastpost=20 ll it. They d bitcointalk orrect.=20 hile sive returns. a vehicle of s a vehicle of payment for t here, and t? "easy money." mise them "make World Money, o the lausible denial he form of a t that can be t the supply of this d wait for the ge number of on a country hem up by the oks, headline, say oney." Then say cient, and everaging his virtual =20

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ I guess I don't, since I'm talking theory... Well, I think that is enough for me today. n e : al e ou e : e e is and te: m. er s e ut ey o s h s k u , a r t * ll d s , t? o t

=============================================================== From: Aaron welch ------------------------------------------------------ I was not meaning to shut you down, but economics is literally about the flow of money based on people hoarding/saving/spending. PEOPLE are very volatile elements in a finite element system and though chaos theory does help with some of the issues, there are still plenty more. What you seem to be missing is the fact that there are people who choose to derail the system for their own benefit or just to screw the system. The fact that our current economic systems do not handle this particularly well is why I am interested in seeing what Bitcoins and similar currency do in the long run. -AW On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Stephen Kraus wrot= e: t in re e ual le you ue e: pse y and g t ote: i t cs s to ts y t ch t n e d t n ** n s s e, , t e s o a .

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ I acknowledged that people choose to derail the system for their own benefit, see my statement about the banking industry, but the idea that economists, especially scholarly economists, are behind that is rather an odd position to take, as its been more industry related than economists specifically misleading people. Lobbying to remove regulations that prevent such foolishness are usually lobbied for by wealthy individuals or corporations, not economists. And as much as there is a fanfare about Bitcoins, its a neat system I agree and may even provide some information we can use. As far as being a valid replacement for the US Dollar or the EU...that is stretching methinks. I ote: orks s be , tual tle you due te: apse e ure, ed the dels rote: . y k ry e y t st s s r =3D** a re, n n e it k w y

=============================================================== From: Aaron welch ------------------------------------------------------ No one thus far has suggested that Bitcoin could or would ever "As far as being a valid replacement for the US Dollar or the EU...that is stretching methinks". It would be foolish to think that it could at this point in time. -AW On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Stephen Kraus wrot= e: nt : s m I g rote: works is be s, ctual ttle s you due ote: lapse he ture, ted m the odels . wrote: s e t * d e e s =3D* t o in . r he ait

=============================================================== From: Chad Smith ------------------------------------------------------ I don't think it is far to say that because economists' predictions may have an effect on the system they are addressing, that Economics as a whole is "not a science". If that is true, then I guess Physics isn't a science, either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ Now you are stepping in my field :)

=============================================================== From: John Aldrich ------------------------------------------------------ I forget who said it, but I think this quote is quite applicable: "There are three kinds of lies - lies, damned lies and statistics." :D

=============================================================== From: John Aldrich ------------------------------------------------------ What happens when you have competing theories, Aaron??? I think you are failing to take into account the self-balancing effect of competing opinions. I also think you're a bit too cynical for your own good, but that's just a personal opinion. :D

=============================================================== From: John Aldrich ------------------------------------------------------

=============================================================== From: Ed King ------------------------------------------------------ I wish I had a bitcoin for every email in this thread, then I could retire! ;)

=============================================================== From: Chad Smith ------------------------------------------------------ I imagine the best economists don't call themselves economists at all - they call themselves successful investors, and they don't go around telling everyone else how to invest. *- Chad W. Smith*

=============================================================== From: Aaron Welch ------------------------------------------------------ +1 Warren Buffet is a prime example for today. Rockefeller, JP Morgan, and V= anderbilt were from previous generations. ey call themselves successful investors, and they don't go around telling ev= eryone else how to invest. omists than those employed by the financial institutions, that we would be m= uch better off. That being said, most "credible news sources" will get their= "experts" from some financial institution, which really sucks, IMHO.

=============================================================== From: Lynn Dixon ------------------------------------------------------ With Warren Buffett, his success is pretty easy to understand. He himself says he only buys companies that are old, stable, and have already been successful. He refuses to make risky investments. He made his money very early in his career by doing the same, albeit a very slow growth at first. He also will not buy a company that has not been profitable, and the company must have a very stable history with most of the years having measureable profitability.

=============================================================== From: William Wade ------------------------------------------------------ Bitcoin... Now you can use it to buy a spouse: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2013/04/16/ok-cupid-tells-users-they-can-pay-with-bitcoin/

=============================================================== From: Rod-Lists ------------------------------------------------------ ''Which brings us to bitcoin. It is a digital currency, which a certain variety of techno-utopian futurist crowd views as a form of money unencumbered by the shackles of privacy-reducing international anti-money laundering laws and inflation-tolerant central banks. Its value has been extraordinarily volatile over the last several weeks, rising from $20 a couple of months back, to over $250, to around $60 on Friday, with a couple of trading halts in between. Bitcoin really is a tiny market in the scheme of things, and its recent gyrations mean that the dollar, euro and yen have nothing to fear from the competition. If a currency can lose 75 percent of its buying power in two days, it may not be the best store of value. " http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/12/bitcoin-is-ludicrous-but-it-tells-us-something-important-about-the-nature-of-money/ And if we all clap our hands and believe, Tinkerbell will get better. Here is the the problem all systems get hacked, including financial systems. Remember the Hunt Brothers and their effort to corner the silver market. Or the Contango game to manipulate oil futures by parking full tankers off shore till the price rises. http://exiledonline.com/koch-industries-lackeys-admit-to-manipulating-oil-prices-and-gloat-about-it-too/ When it is the banking system, the Futures market, the stock market, etc, we have a host of alphabet soup agencies to deal with that. Who defends the bitcoin system from attack & manipulation who puts their faith and credit on the line to back it? ----- Lynn Dixon wrote:

=============================================================== From: Rod-Lists ------------------------------------------------------ When steve Forbes and I agree on something. Hell is about to frezeover. http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2013/04/16/bitcoin-whatever-it-is-its-not-money/ --