NikolaTesla

It's free.

Kind of reminds me of:

Customer: "But using it, I'm loosing money on every purchase." Vendor: "Don't worry, buy more, you'll make it up on volume."

(Virtual) Downvote

What "proof" do you have that they made "boatloads of money"?

I think the real benefit of sites like this are accountability and historic research. Having the ability to see what has been omitted or taken down is far more interesting.

This takes pretentiousness to an entirely new level. But I'm sure they'd say I'm just a "hick" that doesn't "get it".

I think what is missing or lost in all of these Bitcoin articles is they are reaction to a fatally flawed central banking system. Of course, anyone who says things like that is immediately labelled a gold bug or belonging to the tin-foil hat club.

Gold can be a currency, called a commodity currency, not a fiat currency.

> Any currency that isn't backed by (value derived from) a hard asset is a fiat currency.

(I'm not a gold bug, I could care less about gold, if gold offends, substitute some other tangible commodity)

That's my point that Bitcoin is more of a commodity currency and is not (at present) a fiat currency. The fact that the electricity is gone doesn't make any difference. Mining gold requires fuel and labor which is gone, used up, and what remains is gold. This expense is what limits the production of and correlates the commodity to the underlying economy.

What is really interesting is your assertion that the value derives from confidence and not assets. I would argue that value derives from the fact that its supply is limited by the use of resources and labor.

When you say prevailing wisdom, are you referring to the prevailing wisdom from the Keynesian viewpoint?

What would be an example of the "wide range of issues" that policy-controlled inflation helps prevent?

If mining additional Bitcoins at present is not economically viable than Bitcoins are not (currently) a fiat currency. The cost for the fed to increase the money supply is $0, the cost to produce a Bitcoin is equal to the cost of the hardware and electricity to produce it. I'm not sure if the definition would change once the maximum limit of Bitcoins is reached.

Agreed on your first point.

(no sarcasm intended) Are you saying that a currency that cannot be controlled (e.g. the money supply controlled by something like a federal reserve) is more dangerous than one that is?

Interesting that the mere mention of "fiat currency" invokes tin-foil hat. Whether Bitcoins can survive the volatility is indeterminate. If it does survive, however, and becomes an alternative to (avert your eyes) fiat currencies, the impact will be far greater than another obscure fiat currency suddenly being used.

Can you imagine how much self awareness folks will have when everyone can switch on their wearable device and record it live in HD?