Hacker News Reader

Comment by GrahamL | Hacker News Reader

Advocating against certain tools absolutely makes sense. A well marketed but fundamentally flawed piece of foundational infrastructure is incredibly dangerous. Whether or not someone uses Bitcoin is not merely a decision that affects the implementer. If Patrick believes that's what Bitcoin is then it makes sense for him to be strongly advocating against it.

View on HN

While, I agree with your statement; that a "fundamentally flawed piece of foundational infrastructure is incredibly dangerous".

I was not aware that patio11 nor anyone for that matter, have presented any "fundamental flaw" within the "engineering artifact" known as bitcoin. Which apparently, has also been elected to the position of "foundational infrastructure".

Advocation requires an argument, in this case one which I am actually quite interested in reading.

The deflationary fixed amount of BTC is certainly enough of a "fundamental flaw" for me. I don't think you need to be an economist to recognize the problems inherent in that.

http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21599053...

What, exactly, is the fundamental issue with that?

Deflationary systems tend to have no credit (because it's more profitable to hold money than to lend it), which slows economic growth.

"Systems" are irrelevant to the discussion of crypto-currencies. No nation ever will have an economy based on BTC. The halfway argument (if a BTC-based economy would be bad, economies exposed to some BTC would be sort-of bad) doesn't work, either: the global economy has survived many other assets that appreciated in value.

Bitcoin isn't supposed to be an asset though, it's meant to be used as a currency. Unless it's no longer a currency, and the bitcoiners have all changed their tune.

Stop trollin'. No one is that dumb.

"No credit" is an exaggeration: gold and silver (and notes redeemable for gold and silver) were the standard currencies in Europe (and probably other place) for many centuries, during which time there was plenty of lending and borrowing going on.

For most of that time, the total quantity of gold and silver in existence remained approximately constant.

Was the gold and silver being mined negligible compared with the amount in circulation?

Everybody said the same thing about spending bitcoin in the first place, and look how true that is. (Not at all.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com