# Lifestyles & Discussion > Bitcoin / Cryptocurrencies >  Peter Schiff vs. Stefan Molyneux on Bitcoin

## green73

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFcTJAQ7zc4

----------


## dannno

So is Stefan officially pro bitcoin? How much does he promote it on his regular show, I don't think I've heard him promote it before? I know he runs in a lot of the same circles with the same sorta folks who support it so it's not a huge surprise.

----------


## juleswin

> So is Stefan officially pro bitcoin? How much does he promote it on his regular show, I don't think I've heard him promote it before? I know he runs in a lot of the same circles with the same sorta folks who support it so it's not a huge surprise.


He is a fanboy. He has made 2 pro bitcoin videos this month, his audience is very pro bitcoin and he accepts bitcoin donation, so he probably knows which side his bread is buttered .

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Definitely not one of Peter's better debates.  Thanks for sharing, though.

----------


## dannno

> Definitely not one of Peter's better debates.  Thanks for sharing, though.


Do you think he may come out pro bitcoin one of these days?

He really should have just bought like 5 or 10 of them a couple months or so ago as a hedge if he doesn't own some already. That way he wins no matter what happens.

----------


## gwax23

Good interview. Peter made great points as usual.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Do you think he may come out pro bitcoin one of these days?
> 
> He really should have just bought like 5 or 10 of them a couple months or so ago as a hedge if he doesn't own some already. That way he wins no matter what happens.


I imagine he would if the evidence in favor of BC as a good currency were overwhelming.  ATM, it seems rather speculative to me-but it has potential.  I don't know enough about it to have a solid opinion yet.

----------


## green73

> Do you think he may come out pro bitcoin one of these days?
> 
> He really should have just bought like 5 or 10 of them a couple months or so ago as a hedge if he doesn't own some already. That way he wins no matter what happens.


He did say that he regrets not having bought in.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> He did say that he regrets not having bought in.


Well I'm not necessarily "pro-bitcoin" but I regret not buying in. Everyone regrets not buying in (if for nothing else, to dump them now). I could have made a few thousand dollars if I would have listened to Presence.

I do support the notion of competing currencies. Let the market decide what they want. I'll still prefer silver and gold. I have a feeling the Fed isn't going to go down without a fight. I don't understand BTC enough to speculate on how they may be (if it can be) shut down. New legal tender laws, I'm sure. And a ten year prison sentence for the first employer that wishes to pay his employees in BTC.

----------


## gwax23

> Definitely not one of Peter's better debates.  Thanks for sharing, though.


Have to disagree. Peter schiff won this debate IMO, and thats saying something when you consider how well spoken and articulate Mr. Molyneux is. It was a good spirited and informative debate.

----------


## GregSarnowski

> And a ten year prison sentence for the first employer that wishes to pay his employees in BTC.


Many overseas freelance contractors are already paid in bitcoin.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Many overseas freelance contractors are already paid in bitcoin.


I was referring to US citizens. I'm sure there are ways around tax laws with regards to paying in BTC, but an example will be made on the unlucky soul who gets caught. I suspect new legal tender laws will be drafted to retain a competition-less fiat currency. I'm not an expert in the area, but to imagine BTC, and its purported capabilities or the aspects of it that I consider positive (the relative anonymity, the lack of ability to counterfeit (as far as I'm aware), and the relative demand for them), and you can understand that the Federal Reserve and funny money con artists cannot allow it to continue. That is an aside from where if it ever gained true popularity people would "exploit" it to save themselves from paying taxes. That's a big no-no for the empire. I suspect they are content in their palaces of watching the dollar implode before letting a competing currency usurp their power. And I further suspect that this world would burn, if need be, before they ever produced or thrived legitimately. Understanding these underlying factors, I can say that while I do not know how exactly BTC will be squashed or rendered illegal, I do know that they won't let it go on for long, unmolested.

----------


## GregSarnowski

You're probably right but at the same time I'm sure they're worried that coming down hard on cryptos could easily backfire publicity-wise. Also AFAIK there's not much they can do to stymie it that the major banks aren't already doing. It's certainly getting harder to demonize it when you have figures like Richard Branson supporting it.

----------


## juleswin

Just finished watching it and I have to say that is the best I have seen Peter do in a debate. For one, he actually allowed his opponent to speak, was never loud and rarely spoke out of turn. He countered Stephan point by point using real world and historical examples to do so. If he can maintain his composure like this on TV debates, theres no tell what he could achieve. 

Thanks for posting this.

----------


## Neil Desmond

Peter Schiff has both stated and demonstrated that he doesn't understand what bitcoin is.  From now on, if he doesn't fully understand bitcoins, then perhaps he needs to close his mouth and study how it works.  In fact, I'm not going to bother listening what Peter has to say about bitcoins anymore, until he has done just that.  I suggest everyone else do the same.  When he can demonstrate that he understands what bitcoins actually is, then I'll be interested in hearing what he has to say about it, after then.  He also needs to come up with a better argument to defend his claims that gold has intrinsic value but bitcoin doesn't, because right now they seem awfully weak to me.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Peter Schiff has both stated and demonstrated that he doesn't understand what bitcoin is.  From now on, if he doesn't fully understand bitcoins, then perhaps he needs to close his mouth and study how it works.  In fact, I'm not going to bother listening what Peter has to say about bitcoins anymore, until he has done just that.  I suggest everyone else do the same.  When he can demonstrate that he understands what bitcoins actually is, then I'll be interested in hearing what he has to say about it, after then.  *He also needs to come up with a better argument to defend his claims that gold has intrinsic value but bitcoin doesn't, because right now they seem awfully weak to me.*


+1  This is the worst argument against bitcoin I've heard.  There is no such thing as "intrinsic value"-which Austrians agree on.  Historical value, market demand, and utility are not the same as "intrinsic value".

----------


## juleswin

> Peter Schiff has both stated and demonstrated that he doesn't understand what bitcoin is.  From now on, if he doesn't fully understand bitcoins, then perhaps he needs to close his mouth and study how it works.  In fact, I'm not going to bother listening what Peter has to say about bitcoins anymore, until he has done just that.  I suggest everyone else do the same.  When he can demonstrate that he understands what bitcoins actually is, then I'll be interested in hearing what he has to say about it, after then.  He also needs to come up with a better argument to defend his claims that gold has intrinsic value but bitcoin doesn't, because right now they seem awfully weak to me.


I did watch the video and Peter just knocked out Stephan's arguments point by point. He clearly seems to have done his homework on bitcoin btw towards the end, Stephan's said he doesn't fully understand bitcoin either but that doesn't stop him from promoting. Its a 1hr video that could have easily be done in 30mins but still its a good watch if you have the time for it. One of the points he made about intrinsic value is what happens when someone comes out with an alternative digital currency to bitcoins with all the good properties of bitcoins without the high price? bitcoin collapses and people with bitcoin end-up with something with no intrinsic value.

To me, that is a good reason why intrinsic value is important to have in a currency. I cannot do it justice by telling you what was said in the video, you just need to watch it.

----------


## Neil Desmond

> I did watch the video and Peter just knocked out Stephan's arguments point by point. He clearly seems to have done his homework on bitcoin btw towards the end, Stephan's said he doesn't fully understand bitcoin either but that doesn't stop him from promoting. Its a 1hr video that could have easily be done in 30mins but still its a good watch if you have the time for it. One of the points he made about intrinsic value is what happens when someone comes out with an alternative digital currency to bitcoins with all the good properties of bitcoins without the high price? bitcoin collapses and people with bitcoin end-up with something with no intrinsic value.
> 
> To me, that is a good reason why intrinsic value is important to have in a currency. I cannot do it justice by telling you what was said in the video, you just need to watch it.


I did watch it, and I didn't comment until after watching it.

----------


## GregSarnowski

> Peter Schiff has both stated and demonstrated that he doesn't understand what bitcoin is.  From now on, if he doesn't fully understand bitcoins, then perhaps he needs to close his mouth and study how it works.  In fact, I'm not going to bother listening what Peter has to say about bitcoins anymore, until he has done just that.  I suggest everyone else do the same.  When he can demonstrate that he understands what bitcoins actually is, then I'll be interested in hearing what he has to say about it, after then.  He also needs to come up with a better argument to defend his claims that gold has intrinsic value but bitcoin doesn't, because right now they seem awfully weak to me.


I have a friend who completely dismissed cryptos by claiming that he can "hack" it. He only has a vague notion of what it is yet is confident that he can "hack" it somehow, making it irrelevant in his eyes. I offered him a large sum of money if he can "hack" me 100 btc yet he didn't take me up. Apparently the mathematicians and other computer geniuses who developed the protocol are lucky he doesn't find it worth his time!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I did watch the video and Peter just knocked out Stephan's arguments point by point. He clearly seems to have done his homework on bitcoin btw towards the end, Stephan's said he doesn't fully understand bitcoin either but that doesn't stop him from promoting. Its a 1hr video that could have easily be done in 30mins but still its a good watch if you have the time for it. One of the points he made about intrinsic value is what happens when someone comes out with an alternative digital currency to bitcoins with all the good properties of bitcoins without the high price? bitcoin collapses and people with bitcoin end-up with something with no intrinsic value.
> *
> To me, that is a good reason why intrinsic value is important to have in a currency.* I cannot do it justice by telling you what was said in the video, you just need to watch it.


"Intrinsic value" does not exist in currency or anything else.  Value is subjective.  Just one of hundreds of essays, articles, and books on this from the Austrian perspective -> http://mises.org/journals/scholar/stringham4.pdf

----------


## gwax23

> Peter Schiff has both stated and demonstrated that he doesn't understand what bitcoin is.  From now on, if he doesn't fully understand bitcoins, then perhaps he needs to close his mouth and study how it works.  In fact, I'm not going to bother listening what Peter has to say about bitcoins anymore, until he has done just that.  I suggest everyone else do the same.  When he can demonstrate that he understands what bitcoins actually is, then I'll be interested in hearing what he has to say about it, after then.  He also needs to come up with a better argument to defend his claims that gold has intrinsic value but bitcoin doesn't, because right now they seem awfully weak to me.



Where did Peter show this supposed ignorance of Bitcoin? And if he did show such ignorance why didnt Stefan call him out on it? 

You talk about Peters faulty argument about Intrinsic value (which shouldnt be dismissed) while ignoring all his other great points. Further the argument your making, which Ive heard countless times before, is to simply claim anyone whoes arguing against Bitcoin is "Ignorant of it." So thus they have no credibility, and should be dismissed. 

Constantly the Bitcoin fanboys vaguely claim some general ignorance of Bitcoin on the part of its critics, yet they rarely demonstrate how the person in question was wrong about Bitcoin. Since you claimed to have watched the video I propose you back up your original argument with the areas in which Peter was wrong. (Im not even saying he was 100% right on everything but making a post as you did with little to nothing to back it is bold to say the least) 

Further this is all coming from someone who isnt anti Bitcoin, just skeptical.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Where did Peter show this supposed ignorance of Bitcoin? And if he did show such ignorance why didnt Stefan call him out on it? 
> 
> You talk about Peters faulty argument about Intrinsic value (*which shouldnt be dismissed*) while ignoring all his other great points. Further the argument your making, which Ive heard countless times before, is to simply claim anyone whoes arguing against Bitcoin is "Ignorant of it." So thus they have no credibility, and should be dismissed. 
> 
> Constantly the Bitcoin fanboys vaguely claim some general ignorance of Bitcoin on the part of its critics, yet they rarely demonstrate how the person in question was wrong about Bitcoin. Since you claimed to have watched the video I propose you back up your original argument with the areas in which Peter was wrong. (Im not even saying he was 100% right on everything but making a post as you did with little to nothing to back it is bold to say the least) 
> 
> Further this is all coming from someone who isnt anti Bitcoin, just skeptical.


Actually, that should be dismissed, as it's false.  IDK why Peter keeps saying that.

----------


## Neil Desmond

> I have a friend who completely dismissed cryptos by claiming that he can "hack" it. He only has a vague notion of what it is yet is confident that he can "hack" it somehow, making it irrelevant in his eyes. I offered him a large sum of money if he can "hack" me 100 btc yet he didn't take me up. Apparently the mathematicians and other computer geniuses who developed the protocol are lucky he doesn't find it worth his time!


If your friend can hack it, then there are probably many others who could also hack it.  If there are many others who could hack it, then there's bound to be someone who does hack it.  If it is indeed hackable, seems to me it's very likely that it would've already happened by now.

----------


## muh_roads

> Where did Peter show this supposed ignorance of Bitcoin? And if he did show such ignorance why didnt Stefan call him out on it? 
> 
> You talk about Peters faulty argument about Intrinsic value (which shouldnt be dismissed) while ignoring all his other great points. Further the argument your making, which Ive heard countless times before, is to simply claim anyone whoes arguing against Bitcoin is "Ignorant of it." So thus they have no credibility, and should be dismissed. 
> 
> Constantly the Bitcoin fanboys vaguely claim some general ignorance of Bitcoin on the part of its critics, yet they rarely demonstrate how the person in question was wrong about Bitcoin. Since you claimed to have watched the video I propose you back up your original argument with the areas in which Peter was wrong. (Im not even saying he was 100% right on everything but making a post as you did with little to nothing to back it is bold to say the least) 
> 
> Further this is all coming from someone who isnt anti Bitcoin, just skeptical.


Stefan was a bad person to debate with.  Stefan talks too much.  Most people that major in philosophy love to hear themselves talk.  He should have debated Trace Mayer instead.

Peter was wrong on the idea that another digital currency could come along and be better than Bitcoin.  Stefan didn't defend this properly from what I watched.  Bitcoin is open-source and will assimilate any good ideas others have.

Peter actually defended a banks ability to not need all the gold in their vaults.  That was amazing to me.

A digital currency backed by gold would be centralized.  And easy to shut down whenever a Government wants to.  You don't need intrinsic properties unless the power goes out.  FOREX proves this daily.

----------


## juleswin

> "Intrinsic value" does not exist in currency or anything else.  Value is subjective.  Just one of hundreds of essays, articles, and books on this from the Austrian perspective -> http://mises.org/journals/scholar/stringham4.pdf


Intrinsic value in sense of what you can do with it when the value drops to near zero. With gold, you can make eating utensils, jewelry, electronics, book ends etc etc, on the other hand, what can one do with a bitcoin when the value is zero? I think that is what he is getting at when he talks about intrinsic value. But to his other argument about competition to bitcoin, why would someone like me who was late to the bitcoin party adopt bitcoin when something else could come into the market? I think a different company can duplicate the features of bitcoin once the idea of digital currency has been established, announce to everyone about it and have a fair introduction to it .

People would be more receptive to that if they believed in the idea of digital currency and if and when that happens, what do you think would happen to the value of your bitcoin? This is why intrinsic value matters cos unlike silver and gold backed currencies co-existing, a bitcoin competition would likely kill bitcoin off very similar to what facebook did to myspace.

----------


## Neil Desmond

> Where did Peter show this supposed ignorance of Bitcoin?


When he talks about people smuggling bitcoins, or something to that effect.  That made me notice that he doesn't have any clue what a bitcoin is.  He probably doesn't even understand what decentralized means, when it comes to information; or, perhaps he does know what that is, but isn't aware that bitcoin is decentralized.  Anyone who knows enough about bitcoin knows that it's decentralized, and that's one of its beneficial features.  His apparent lack of awareness demonstrates ignorance of what bitcoins are, from him.




> And if he did show such ignorance why didnt Stefan call him out on it?


You'll have to ask Stefan why.  If Stefan doesn't fully understand bitcoins himself, then maybe that has something to do with why.




> You talk about Peters faulty argument about Intrinsic value (which shouldnt be dismissed) while ignoring all his other great points.


I'm not saying he didn't make any interesting points, but what difference does that make?  If he wants people who do understand bitcoin to listen to him, then he needs to understand it himself.




> Further the argument your making, which Ive heard countless times before, is to simply claim anyone whoes arguing against Bitcoin is "Ignorant of it." So thus they have no credibility, and should be dismissed.


And they have a legitimate reason for saying so.




> Constantly the Bitcoin fanboys vaguely claim some general ignorance of Bitcoin on the part of its critics, yet they rarely demonstrate how the person in question was wrong about Bitcoin. Since you claimed to have watched the video I propose you back up your original argument with the areas in which Peter was wrong. (Im not even saying he was 100% right on everything but making a post as you did with little to nothing to back it is bold to say the least)


Well, I just did with one example.




> Further this is all coming from someone who isnt anti Bitcoin, just skeptical.


I've been aware of bitcoins for years, probably since it came out.  Initially I didn't care for it, and knew much about it, but not enough.  Once I understood it enough, that's when I got interested in it and see it as potentially and very likely to be the key medium of exchange for the world.

----------


## GregSarnowski

> Intrinsic value in sense of what you can do with it when the value drops to near zero. With gold, you can make eating utensils, jewelry, electronics, book ends etc etc, on the other hand, what can one do with a bitcoin when the value is zero? I think that is what he is getting at when he talks about intrinsic value. But to his other argument about competition to bitcoin, why would someone like me who was late to the bitcoin party adopt bitcoin when something else could come into the market? I think a different company can duplicate the features of bitcoin once the idea of digital currency has been established, announce to everyone about it and have a fair introduction to it .
> 
> People would be more receptive to that if they believed in the idea of digital currency and if and when that happens, what do you think would happen to the value of your bitcoin? This is why intrinsic value matters cos unlike silver and gold backed currencies co-existing, a bitcoin competition would likely kill bitcoin off very similar to what facebook did to myspace.


I think you're underestimating the advantage BTC has being the first out of the gate. Also plenty of altcoins already exist in harmony with BTC. It's not a zero-sum game, far from it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Intrinsic value in sense of what you can do with it when the value drops to near zero. With gold, you can make eating utensils, jewelry, electronics, book ends etc etc, on the other hand, what can one do with a bitcoin when the value is zero? I think that is what he is getting at when he talks about intrinsic value. But to his other argument about competition to bitcoin, why would someone like me who was late to the bitcoin party adopt bitcoin when something else could come into the market? I think a different company can duplicate the features of bitcoin once the idea of digital currency has been established, announce to everyone about it and have a fair introduction to it .
> 
> People would be more receptive to that if they believed in the idea of digital currency and if and when that happens, what do you think would happen to the value of your bitcoin? This is why intrinsic value matters cos unlike silver and gold backed currencies co-existing, a bitcoin competition would likely kill bitcoin off very similar to what facebook did to myspace.


You're describing subjective value (and utilititarian value to an extent, which is also not "intrinsic" value), not "intrinsic" value.

----------


## muh_roads

> Intrinsic value in sense of what you can do with it when the value drops to near zero. With gold, you can make eating utensils, jewelry, electronics, book ends etc etc, on the other hand, what can one do with a bitcoin when the value is zero? I think that is what he is getting at when he talks about intrinsic value. But to his other argument about competition to bitcoin, why would someone like me who was late to the bitcoin party adopt bitcoin when something else could come into the market? I think a different company can duplicate the features of bitcoin once the idea of digital currency has been established, announce to everyone about it and have a fair introduction to it .
> 
> People would be more receptive to that if they believed in the idea of digital currency and if and when that happens, what do you think would happen to the value of your bitcoin? This is why intrinsic value matters cos unlike silver and gold backed currencies co-existing, a bitcoin competition would likely kill bitcoin off very similar to what facebook did to myspace.


I always take advice from non-technical people who don't understand what open-source means.

People already believe in digital currency.  It is called the US Dollar and every other currency that trades on FOREX.  Bitcoin is going to shake things up by not being unlimited.

The price instability comes from it being a new currency that is not bound by price controls.  People around here talk about wanting decentralization.  Well now you have it.  Time for people to put their big boy pants on and actually see what that means...decentralization.  The time is now.

Businessmen love it.  They are tired of all the bank fees.  We're talking about companies that remove one dorito chip from a bag to cut costs.  If they can save 3+% on transaction fees that is HUGE to their bottom line.

Bitcoin's value is derived from it being a payment processor without the need of a middle man.

Bitcoin is not just a currency, it is a payment processor.
Bitcoin is not just a currency, it is a payment processor.
Bitcoin is not just a currency, it is a payment processor.
Bitcoin is not just a currency, it is a payment processor.
Bitcoin is not just a currency, it is a payment processor.
Bitcoin is not just a currency, it is a payment processor.

Should I repeat that a few more times?

You know whose utility value is going in the toilet?  Western Union.

----------


## gwax23

> When he talks about people smuggling bitcoins, or something to that effect.  That made me notice that he doesn't have any clue what a bitcoin is.  He probably doesn't even understand what decentralized means, when it comes to information; or, perhaps he does know what that is, but isn't aware that bitcoin is decentralized.  Anyone who knows enough about bitcoin knows that it's decentralized, and that's one of its beneficial features.  His apparent lack of awareness demonstrates ignorance of what bitcoins are, from him.
> 
> 
> You'll have to ask Stefan why.  If Stefan doesn't fully understand bitcoins himself, then maybe that has something to do with why.
> 
> 
> I'm not saying he didn't make any interesting points, but what difference does that make?  If he wants people who do understand bitcoin to listen to him, then he needs to understand it himself.
> 
> 
> ...


No he said he was worried that governments would label people who use Bitcoins as Smugglers, terrorists, criminals etc. He didnt say they would smuggle the bitcoins themselves. 

Schiff isnt ignorant of Bitcoin he is simply claiming it isnt a Money. And hes right. 

Its a currency. Theres a big difference. Gold is money, since it is it is a store of value. 

-Medium of Exchange (BTC yes and Gold Yes)
-A Unit of account (BTC Yes and Gold Yes)
-Portable (BTC yes {digitally and only digitally, may be a negative in some peoples minds} Gold Yes
-Durable (BTC yes and Gold Yes)
-Divisible (BTC yes and Gold Yes)
-Fungible (BTC yes and Gold Yes) 
-Store of Value (BTC no and Gold Yes)

Since BTC doesnt meet all the characteristics of money (Store of Value) it is a currency at best, which come and go.

----------


## muh_roads

> No he said he was worried that governments would label people who use Bitcoins as Smugglers, terrorists, criminals etc. He didnt say they would smuggle the bitcoins themselves. 
> 
> Schiff isnt ignorant of Bitcoin he is simply claiming it isnt a Money. And hes right. 
> 
> Its a currency. Theres a big difference. Gold is money, since it is it is a store of value. 
> 
> -Medium of Exchange (BTC yes and Gold Yes)
> -A Unit of account (BTC Yes and Gold Yes)
> -Portable (BTC yes {digitally and only digitally, may be a negative in some peoples minds} Gold Yes
> ...


Bitcoin has already passed the point of being small and easy to take down.  The government won't go after people who just hold BTC.  Winklevoss, Virgin CEO, and McAfee say hello.

Gold is EXPENSIVE to transport.  Insurance, weight.

Schiff wants to sell you paper gold.  And you defend him...lol

Let's get one thing straight.  Schiff makes money by being a middle man in facilitating transactions for people over FOREX.  Schiff doesn't like Bitcoin for a reason...lol

Don't let your sour grapes cloud your judgement on a new trend as big as the internet itself that most still don't know about.  Otherwise you'll be a poor man your whole life waiting for the collapse to happen and wondering why your metals don't increase in value with respect to fiat toilet paper.

----------


## Neil Desmond

> No he said he was worried that governments would label people who use Bitcoins as Smugglers, terrorists, criminals etc. He didnt say they would smuggle the bitcoins themselves.


I doesn't really matter, because he himself said he doesn't fully understand it.  That's enough reason for someone who does understand it to lose interest in what he has to say until he does his homework.

I was trying to recall from memory so I don't have to listen to the entire hour again.  I do recall him mentioning something about people carrying them in their pocket.  I was associating that with the smuggling.  Maybe I'm off on a superficial detail; but regardless, my confidence in him knowing what bitcoin is isn't high enough for me to bother lending any significant weight to what he has to say about bitcoin.

It could be that he does understand it well, but is misrepresenting it; the only reason I could see for this subterfuge would be because he wants to try to grab as many bitcoins as possible for a cheap price.  He even admits that he wishes he had gotten into bitcoins earlier.  My point is not to accuse him of being up to something dirty & no good, just to explain why with some speculation that isn't implausible.

The bottom line is that when he does demonstrate that he does understand it I'll be interested in hearing what he has to say about it.  Until then, he's just hurting his credibility more and more.  I give him a lot of credibility in general, and would rather not see him ruin his reputation with bitcoins (but that's his problem, not mine, if he does ruin it).




> Schiff isnt ignorant of Bitcoin he is simply claiming it isnt a Money. And hes right. 
> 
> Its a currency. Theres a big difference. Gold is money, since it is it is a store of value. 
> 
> -Medium of Exchange (BTC yes and Gold Yes)
> -A Unit of account (BTC Yes and Gold Yes)
> -Portable (BTC yes {digitally and only digitally, may be a negative in some peoples minds} Gold Yes
> -Durable (BTC yes and Gold Yes)
> -Divisible (BTC yes and Gold Yes)
> ...


Well, does Schiff want to discuss the benefits & advantages of bitcoins, or is he just trying to give a lesson in semantics?

----------


## Neil Desmond

> Bitcoin has already passed the point of being small and easy to take down.  The government won't go after people who just hold BTC.  Winklevoss, Virgin CEO, and McAfee say hello.
> 
> Gold is EXPENSIVE to transport.  Insurance, weight.
> 
> Schiff wants to sell you paper gold.  And you defend him...lol
> 
> Let's get one thing straight.  Schiff makes money by being a middle man in facilitating transactions for people over FOREX.  Schiff doesn't like Bitcoin for a reason...lol
> 
> Don't let your sour grapes cloud your judgement on a new trend as big as the internet itself that most still don't know about.  Otherwise you'll be a poor man your whole life waiting for the collapse to happen and wondering why your metals don't increase in value with respect to fiat toilet paper.


Yeah, that is another way of looking at why he's probably really trying to be so dismissive of bitcoin.

----------


## eduardo89

Molyneux is even worse than the Bearded Buffoon. (green73 will know who I'm referring to)

----------


## green73

> Molyneux is even worse than the Bearded Buffoon. (green73 will know who I'm referring to)


DIE!

----------


## gwax23

> Bitcoin has already passed the point of being small and easy to take down.  The government won't go after people who just hold BTC.  Winklevoss, Virgin CEO, and McAfee say hello.
> 
> Gold is EXPENSIVE to transport.  Insurance, weight.
> 
> Schiff wants to sell you paper gold.  And you defend him...lol
> 
> Let's get one thing straight.  Schiff makes money by being a middle man in facilitating transactions for people over FOREX.  Schiff doesn't like Bitcoin for a reason...lol
> 
> Don't let your sour grapes cloud your judgement on a new trend as big as the internet itself that most still don't know about.  Otherwise you'll be a poor man your whole life waiting for the collapse to happen and wondering why your metals don't increase in value with respect to fiat toilet paper.


Bitcoiners are deluding themselves. Im not anti Bitcoin, though their proponents are annoying with their hubris. 

Gold is MONEY. Period. IF your trying to argue against that your economically Illiterate. Calling the difference between a Money and a Currency a trivial semantic issue (Neil Desmond) is ignorance of basic economics pure and simple. 

Bitcoin is just one of many currencies/payment processors that will come and go. It will not replace gold and it will not become money. Its not bigger than the internet itself thats the most ridiculous claim ive heard from a Bitcoin fanatic to date. 

Bitcoiners seem to be now denying an economic collapse is going to come WHILE AT THE SAME TIME going on about the problems of fiat currency. Very ironic and contradictory. You have a enough common sens to realize that the fiat inflationary system we have in place is bad economics, so you say Buy bitcoins, but at the same time you feel the current system is sustainable and anyone thinking about economic repercussions of this system is delusional?

Pick a consistent position and stick with it. Bitcoins are fine and all but insulting those who buy gold and are concerned with hyperinflation will get you nowhere. 

Also you dont need to physically transport gold for every transaction. You claim people are ignorant of Bitcoins your ignorant of gold and apparently basic economic principles. Both far more important than your cryptocurrency.

and dont worry Ill continue to buy gold, their manipulated price in relation to fiat currencies does not concern me because Im not selling gold to make a profit in Fiat currencies. Interestingly enough Bitcoins are simply being sold to make a profit denominated in fiat currencies.... The exact thing people are being told to get out of by buying bitcoins. 

Ill enjoy my real wealth and money, you enjoy your pixels.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

Bitcoin is one of those things that is easy to be dismissive about. Especially if you aren't particularly computer savvy. I'm sure Schiff, as Ron Paul, or I, advocate for the market to decide what they wish to use. There are things about BTC that are concerning, perhaps because of a lack of understanding about the technical aspects. I, as well as anyone truly interested in freedom, wish those who saw this coming the best of luck. I couldn't endorse people to begin buying BTC though. I think a lot of the people said to be advocating "against" BTC fall in the same category as I. I haven't watched the debate yet, but may later, or if not tomorrow will. If my suspicions about the nature of Schiff's skepticism were off, please excuse me.

----------


## Neil Desmond

> Calling the difference between a Money and a Currency a trivial semantic issue (Neil Desmond) is ignorance of basic economics pure and simple.


I've taken college courses in microeconomics, macroeconomics, and money and banking.  I've also taken a course in engineering economics.  I also have a year of psychology.  I also have a 4 year computer science degree, and have met all the course requirements for an electrical engineering degree.

But let's put all that aside and forget about it for a moment.  If I'm ignorant about something, doesn't that mean I ought to close my mouth until I do my homework, particularly if I were to claim - myself - that I don't understand something I'm talking about?

----------


## gwax23

> I've taken college courses in microeconomics, macroeconomics, and money and banking.  I've also taken a course in engineering economics.  I also have a year of psychology.  I also have a 4 year computer science degree, and have met all the course requirements for an electrical engineering degree.
> 
> But let's put all that aside and forget about it for a moment.  If I'm ignorant about something, doesn't that mean I ought to close my mouth until I do my homework, particularly if I were to claim - myself - that I don't understand something I'm talking about?


If Peter schiff had said something completely ignorant and off base in that interview, then I would understand your point. The fact is he didnt. He may of said things that Bitcoiners wouldnt agree with or like, but thats irrelevant. 

You claimed (from vague memory) that he said something along the lines of putting Bitcoins in his pocket or smuggling them, both of which I refuted by saying you misunderstood him, he was making an argument regarding Government regulation of Bitcoin. He said the government would crack down of organizations and individuals who use and exchange Bitcoin. 

Of course the Bitcoiners claim its impossible, as they do with any criticism of Bitcoin. Though in reality It would be fairly easy for them (the government) to crack down on the use of Bitcoins by any business. Maybe tracking down individuals would be harder but they wouldnt need to if they effectively destroyed most of the places people could actually spend Bitcoins for goods and services (Which is very small in and of itself, especially when compared to the volume of Bitcoin trading, most of which is speculative and simply to exchange Bitcoins for Fiat Currencies ironically)

----------


## Neil Desmond

> If Peter schiff had said something completely ignorant and off base in that interview, then I would understand your point. The fact is he didnt. He may of said things that Bitcoiners wouldnt agree with or like, but thats irrelevant. 
> 
> You claimed (from vague memory) that he said something along the lines of putting Bitcoins in his pocket or smuggling them, both of which I refuted by saying you misunderstood him, he was making an argument regarding Government regulation of Bitcoin. He said the government would crack down of organizations and individuals who use and exchange Bitcoin. 
> 
> Of course the Bitcoiners claim its impossible, as they do with any criticism of Bitcoin. Though in reality It would be fairly easy for them (the government) to crack down on the use of Bitcoins by any business. Maybe tracking down individuals would be harder but they wouldnt need to if they effectively destroyed most of the places people could actually spend Bitcoins for goods and services (Which is very small in and of itself, especially when compared to the volume of Bitcoin trading, most of which is speculative and simply to exchange Bitcoins for Fiat Currencies ironically)


This may all be true, but it's still really just side issue stuff.  He still needs to go from saying he doesn't understand bitcoin that well to saying something like "I completely understand bitcoin", and it would be helpful if he demonstrated it to persuade others who do understand bitcoin.  Until then, I'm keeping the status quo.

----------


## muh_roads

> Bitcoiners are deluding themselves. Im not anti  Bitcoin, though their proponents are annoying with their hubris. 
> 
> Gold is MONEY. Period. IF your trying to argue against that your  economically Illiterate. Calling the difference between a Money and a  Currency a trivial semantic issue (Neil Desmond) is ignorance of basic  economics pure and simple. 
> 
> Bitcoin is just one of many currencies/payment processors that will come  and go. It will not replace gold and it will not become money. Its not  bigger than the internet itself thats the most ridiculous claim ive  heard from a Bitcoin fanatic to date. 
> 
> Bitcoiners seem to be now denying an economic collapse is going to come  WHILE AT THE SAME TIME going on about the problems of fiat currency.  Very ironic and contradictory. You have a enough common sens to realize  that the fiat inflationary system we have in place is bad economics, so  you say Buy bitcoins, but at the same time you feel the current system  is sustainable and anyone thinking about economic repercussions of this  system is delusional?
> 
> Pick a consistent position and stick with it. Bitcoins are fine and all  but insulting those who buy gold and are concerned with hyperinflation  will get you nowhere. 
> ...


Of course you should care about the fiat value.  It is the  transmission factor by which we accumulate what we think we need.  It's  difficult to explain this without bragging.  Lets just say I can buy far  more gold now than if I accumulated it last year had I not invested in  BTC & BTC related industries first.

I don't think all  "Bitcoiners" aren't in this just to get "rich".  The rich part is a nice  reward, but this is about challenging the Government and freeing the  people from the banking system.  And to me, this is the most fun I've  had in years.  We feel we are truly apart of taking down the hold the  aristocrats think they have on us.  Getting involved with  crypto-currency has changed the enjoyment I get out of life since  discovering Ron Paul in 2007.  The value is really in what you get out  of BTC at this time in your life.  Bitcoin might fail.  No one is going  to speak in absolutes.  I apologize if I do.  I feel I am apart of a  war.  I take it a bit personal at times.

This is about numbers.   It is simple math.  When the supply is low, the demand will be high.   That what is in demand is divisible by 8 decimal places.  Wouldn't you  love it if our silver dimes and nickles could be divided further had we  lived during the gold standard period?  We don't need to increase M3.   We need to divide a dollar into more than 100 pennies god damnit.  I  don't care to get into an argument about deflation.  I could give two  $#@!s about my house right now compared to what I now see as possible  when the PEOPLE are in full control of their money.  BTC will soon only  be traded as mBTC.  1000 mBTC = 1 BTC.

This is about guessing  when everything collapses.  I feel things will  only get worse little by little every year for a long time to come.   Research the "Petrodollar".  Value is subjective, sure.  And you are  concerned with the collapse.  Fine.  So let me put gold at the top of  the heaven pyramid for you from my perspective of a slow decline.  For  anyone reading, replace gold with what is at the top of your own  personal heaven pyramid.  Cars, hookers, blow?

I can accumulate more gold with more BTC than with fiat.
I can accumulate more BTC with fiat and by playing alt-coin markets like LTC & NMC.
I can accumulate more LTC & NMC with PPC, TRC, etc.

The  banking system uses financial instruments to squeeze your nuts.  Think  of acquiring crypto-currency as a means to acquire more gold for  yourself and squeeze their sick desire of control over you.  That  control is a loan.  A mortgage?  The possibility is very real to pay off  all large debts.  School loans, car loans, home equity loans.  Imagine  the amount of charity that will emerge?

Divide 21m by your  share.  If you break up the global Bitcoin economy, you own one piece of  the resulting number.  How long it lasts is the gamble.  If you think  alt-coins will take over, then get some.  They are easy to acquire with  BTC.

Advice, buy one for christ sake.  I own more than one ounce  of gold.  I shrugged off BTC in 2011.  Big mistake.  I feel there is  still time to correct the mistake, even now for new people.  Nobody on  the street knows about this.  People are too $#@!tarded.  Take advantage  of the opportunity before the $#@!tards wake up.  Then you can truly  say "it pays to be libertarian".

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Of course you should care about the fiat value.  It is the  transmission factor by which we accumulate what we think we need.  It's  difficult to explain this without bragging.  Lets just say I can buy far  more gold now than if I accumulated it last year had I not invested in  BTC & BTC related industries first.
> 
> I don't think all  "Bitcoiners" aren't in this just to get "rich".  The rich part is a nice  reward, but this is about challenging the Government and freeing the  people from the banking system.  And to me, this is the most fun I've  had in years.  We feel we are truly apart of taking down the hold the  aristocrats think they have on us.  Getting involved with  crypto-currency has changed the enjoyment I get out of life since  discovering Ron Paul in 2007.  The value is really in what you get out  of BTC at this time in your life.  Bitcoin might fail.  No one is going  to speak in absolutes.  I apologize if I do.  I feel I am apart of a  war.  I take it a bit personal at times.
> 
> This is about numbers.   It is simple math.  When the supply is low, the demand will be high.   That what is in demand is divisible by 8 decimal places.  Wouldn't you  love it if our silver dimes and nickles could be divided further had we  lived during the gold standard period?  We don't need to increase M3.   We need to divide a dollar into more than 100 pennies god damnit.  I  don't care to get into an argument about deflation.  I could give two  $#@!s about my house right now compared to what I now see as possible  when the PEOPLE are in full control of their money.  BTC will soon only  be traded as mBTC.  1000 mBTC = 1 BTC.
> 
> This is about guessing  when everything collapses.  I feel things will  only get worse little by little every year for a long time to come.   Research the "Petrodollar".  Value is subjective, sure.  And you are  concerned with the collapse.  Fine.  So let me put gold at the top of  the heaven pyramid for you from my perspective of a slow decline.  For  anyone reading, replace gold with what is at the top of your own  personal heaven pyramid.  Cars, hookers, blow?
> 
> I can accumulate more gold with more BTC than with fiat.
> ...


I'm too low on FRNs at the moment.  What do you predict the BTC price in early 2014 to be? /curious

----------


## gwax23

> Of course you should care about the fiat value.  It is the  transmission factor by which we accumulate what we think we need.  It's  difficult to explain this without bragging.  Lets just say I can buy far  more gold now than if I accumulated it last year had I not invested in  BTC & BTC related industries first.
> 
> I don't think all  "Bitcoiners" aren't in this just to get "rich".  The rich part is a nice  reward, but this is about challenging the Government and freeing the  people from the banking system.  And to me, this is the most fun I've  had in years.  We feel we are truly apart of taking down the hold the  aristocrats think they have on us.  Getting involved with  crypto-currency has changed the enjoyment I get out of life since  discovering Ron Paul in 2007.  The value is really in what you get out  of BTC at this time in your life.  Bitcoin might fail.  No one is going  to speak in absolutes.  I apologize if I do.  I feel I am apart of a  war.  I take it a bit personal at times.
> 
> This is about numbers.   It is simple math.  When the supply is low, the demand will be high.   That what is in demand is divisible by 8 decimal places.  Wouldn't you  love it if our silver dimes and nickles could be divided further had we  lived during the gold standard period?  We don't need to increase M3.   We need to divide a dollar into more than 100 pennies god damnit.  I  don't care to get into an argument about deflation.  I could give two  $#@!s about my house right now compared to what I now see as possible  when the PEOPLE are in full control of their money.  BTC will soon only  be traded as mBTC.  1000 mBTC = 1 BTC.
> 
> This is about guessing  when everything collapses.  I feel things will  only get worse little by little every year for a long time to come.   Research the "Petrodollar".  Value is subjective, sure.  And you are  concerned with the collapse.  Fine.  So let me put gold at the top of  the heaven pyramid for you from my perspective of a slow decline.  For  anyone reading, replace gold with what is at the top of your own  personal heaven pyramid.  Cars, hookers, blow?
> 
> I can accumulate more gold with more BTC than with fiat.
> ...


So basically you dont disagree with anything I said especially the economics, just that you believe Bitcoin is a means to acquire gold due to the profit you can earn via selling them for fiat. I understand this, and its all fine, but dont think this is the dawn of some new era. 

Further, like peter said, dont delude yourself with the thoughts of becoming super rich and this lasting forever. As you basically admitted, you and many others (maybe the majority) are simply using Bitcoin to get more fiat or transfer to different fiat currencies. Few people are holding them solely for the purpose of using them, the majority are holding out waiting to sell at a higher price. But if that price doesnt come, and the trend reverses for whatever reason and theres a massive sell off of Bitcoin (i.e. the bubble collapsing) then you and a lot of people will only be left with a few worthless pixels. Its all very risky, so play your cards right and know when to get out. If the feds truly believe Bitcoin to be a threat (they dont) they will crush it, have no doubt about that. Despite the grand ideological claims of Bitcoiners, the majority arent using it to replace the fiat system, theyre using it for personal gain within the fiat system.

Other points:

-Of course if your a Bitcoiner its price in terms of fiat is very important because you want to sell Bitcoin for that fiat. Gold holders (non speculators) could care less because they are holding gold long term as Money. Its a store of value unlike Bitcoin which is just a means to  transfer currencies and a speculative bubble.

----------


## LibertyEagle

I will just say that the government's wet dream is to do away with all cash and have it all be electronic.  That way they can track every single thing everyone purchases.  I support competing currencies.  I am just worried that this will end up being the final segue into a cashless society.  Once that happens, there will be zero anonymity.

----------


## gwax23

> I will just say that the government's wet dream is to do away with all cash and have it all be electronic.  That way they can track every single thing everyone purchases.  I support competing currencies.  I am just worried that this will end up being the final segue into a cashless society.  Once that happens, there will be zero anonymity.


Yes this is a very legitimate fear.

----------


## robert68

"Is Bitcoin Money: What Economists Have To Say "

----------


## silverhandorder

I listened to half the debate. Bitcoin is a much better currency when it spreads through the economy. However peter is right in the fact that it will be regulated out of existence. Government will not allow dollar to be behind any other currency. Just as gold is a better medium of exchange than the dollar it is proportionally more regulated. 

I will jump into bitcoins when I see a benefit to my self. Right now there is zero benefit to me. I have to learn how it works. Install programs. And I am not even sure about it's security and value five days from now. I don't want to be my own banker and worry about encryption and anonymity.

----------


## GregSarnowski

> Yes this is a very legitimate fear.


Compared to VISA or paypal, bitcoin is anonymous. It's basically as close as we're going to get to an electronic version of cash. I mean, Silk Road operated for YEARS doing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of transactions and was only brought down because the operator made some careless mistakes unrelated to bitcoin or TOR. Bitcoin is a push back against financial eavesdropping, and a hard one at that. I can't imagine the powers that be are happy about this development.

----------


## muzzled dogg

Good video but not really a debate.  Schiff just ripped bitcoin and had a lot of good points 

I thought peter Schiff was gonna debate Erik vorhees

----------


## dannno

Peter says that you can't make longterm contracts in bitcoin because the price is too volatile - but can't you make longterm contracts denominated in another currency at the time payments are made and still pay with bitcoin if you are worried about stability?

----------


## muh_roads

> I'm too low on FRNs at the moment.  What do you predict the BTC price in early 2014 to be? /curious


I honestly don't know.  All a person can go on is existing known  numbers and apply that to the supply.  There are about 1 billion people  globally that use the internet.  If just 20% of them try to acquire btc, that is  21m to spread across 200m people.  And less than 1% of people on the internet already own many  more than just 1 of the current 12m market cap.

It might come across as "classist".  But classes will always exist.  Owning 2.1 BTC now means you own one piece out of 10m pieces of the total BTC economy.  That is becoming further and further out of reach every day.  I have no idea how far things will drop when it corrects, new support levels keep breaking through.

Unless you enjoy day trading and are good at it, this video is the best advice I can give.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I will just say that the government's wet dream is to do away with all cash and have it all be electronic.  That way they can track every single thing everyone purchases.  I support competing currencies.  I am just worried that this will end up being the final segue into a cashless society.  Once that happens, there will be zero anonymity.


In order for that to be of any concern, it would have to be centrally controlled and inflatable.  It's not.  Your worry isn't a "cashless society".  Your worry is a society in which value of the world reserve currency is centrally controlled.  There's nothing wrong with a "cashless society" per se, it's just that credit cards are what allow us to be tracked, and their use can be withheld from people at any time, plus there is nothing to back them up.  This is not true for bitcoin because that point would only be valid if the government could control it.  Bitcoin, by its very nature, cannot be controlled.

----------


## muh_roads

> I will just say that the government's wet dream is to do away with all cash and have it all be electronic.  That way they can track every single thing everyone purchases.  I support competing currencies.  I am just worried that this will end up being the final segue into a cashless society.  Once that happens, there will be zero anonymity.


You already do trade with electronic cash.  The US Dollar is 97% electronic.  The IRS and SS Admin already knows who we are.  If it has to come to that, I would rather be trading in limited digital supply over unlimited digital supply any day.  Which is the whole point.  Druggies can move on and use whatever competing currency they wish.  It is obvious that SR doesn't drive this thing anymore.  Businesses are taking notice.

A cashless society was only a wet dream to the Government when they thought they could fall asleep on the "0" key indefinitely.  Be thankful that anonymity is the only thing our dim-witted Keynesian politicians are concerned about.  The bigger picture at play to remove them of their power over the people is growing.  Whether it is with Bitcoin or something else, their time is coming to an end.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Peter says that you can't make longterm contracts in bitcoin because the price is too volatile - but can't you make longterm contracts denominated in another currency at the time payments are made and still pay with bitcoin if you are worried about stability?


If you do that, then is the originator holding bitcoins to make the payment later (volatile)?  Or buying bitcoins to make the payment, then the receiver sells them?  That's not using bitcoins as money, but only a transfer mechanism.




> You already do trade with electronic cash.  The US Dollar is 97% electronic.  The IRS and SS Admin already knows who we are.  If it has to come to that, I would rather be trading in limited digital supply over unlimited digital supply any day.  Which is the whole point.  Druggies can move on and use whatever competing currency they wish.  It is obvious that SR doesn't drive this thing anymore.  Businesses are taking notice.
> 
> A cashless society was only a wet dream to the Government when they thought they could fall asleep on the "0" key indefinitely.  Be thankful that anonymity is the only thing our dim-witted Keynesian politicians are concerned about.  The bigger picture at play to remove them of their power over the people is growing.  Whether it is with Bitcoin or something else, their time is coming to an end.


I can still pay cash for things, currently.  I might do that for various reasons.

----------


## dannno

> If you do that, then is the originator holding bitcoins to make the payment later (volatile)?  Or buying bitcoins to make the payment, then the receiver sells them?  That's not using bitcoins as money, but only a transfer mechanism.


Well for one maybe I only want to use them as a transfer mechanism, but that's just one option.

Another options is let's say I was starting a business where I will be receiving revenue in bitcoin and expected to receive about $1k worth of bitcoin/month in profit and am planning to make $100 worth of bitcoin/month loan payments for 3 years for the loan I got in bitcoin as my vendors also accept bitcoin in payment (why else would I be getting a loan in bitcoin?)

If the price of bitcoin goes up to $100k in 3 years, but my business is still only profiting $1k/mo then I would be paying back $100 worth of bitcoin each month. So the payments would be denominated in dollars, but I would be paying in bitcoin. So nobody has to sell bitcoin for dollars per se, but the person who made the loan is getting less bitcoin each month but they are worth more so they are still receiving their interest.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Well for one maybe I only want to use them as a transfer mechanism, but that's just one option.
> 
> Another options is let's say I was starting a business where I will be receiving revenue in bitcoin and expected to receive about $1k worth of bitcoin/month in profit and am planning to make $100 worth of bitcoin/month loan payments for 3 years for the loan I got in bitcoin as my vendors also accept bitcoin in payment (why else would I be getting a loan in bitcoin?)
> 
> If the price of bitcoin goes up to $100k in 3 years, but my business is still only profiting $1k/mo then I would be paying back $100 worth of bitcoin each month. So the payments would be denominated in dollars, but I would be paying in bitcoin. So nobody has to sell bitcoin for dollars per se, but the person who made the loan is getting less bitcoin each month but they are worth more so they are still receiving their interest.


In that case, then the bitcoin is not being used as the standard, so has no meaning in the transactions other than for transfer.  Dollars are still the base.

What if you are paying the bitcoin loan back in bitcoins?  Well, that depends on whether they are more or less valuable in goods in the future.

----------


## dannno

> In that case, then the bitcoin is not being used as the standard, so has no meaning in the transactions other than for transfer.  Dollars are still the base.


No, dollars are just being used to calculate how much bitcoin they are paying back each month because the person making the loan is unsure of the future value of bitcoin and more comfortable denominating the loan payments in terms of dollars. You could also denominate the payments in terms of gold. Nobody would ever have to touch gold, you just look at the price of gold and make your bitcoin payments in terms of gold. That may be better than using dollars which could become inflated. But you're still just using bitcoins either way.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> No, dollars are just being used to calculate how much bitcoin they are paying back each month because the person making the loan is unsure of the future value of bitcoin and more comfortable denominating the loan payments in terms of dollars. You could also denominate the payments in terms of gold. Nobody would ever have to touch gold, you just look at the price of gold and make your bitcoin payments in terms of gold. That may be better than using dollars which could become inflated. But you're still just using bitcoins either way.


Exactly what I was saying.  The bitcoin would not be used as the base (for value) but just a method of transfer (which amount would depend on it's value in gold/currency at the time).  

_You would be free to purchase the bitcoin at any time prior to the transaction and take the "risk" based on "when" before the transaction (ie, years before or moments before)._

----------


## dannno

> Exactly what I was saying.  The bitcoin would not be used as the base (for value) but just a method of transfer (which amount would depend on it's value in gold/currency at the time).  
> 
> _You would be free to purchase the bitcoin at any time prior to the transaction and take the "risk" based on "when" before the transaction (ie, years before or moments before)._


So you agree this mitigates the risk factors that Peter Schiff claimed could absolutely not be mitigated using bitcoin?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> You already do trade with electronic cash.  The US Dollar is 97% electronic.  The IRS and SS Admin already knows who we are.  If it has to come to that, I would rather be trading in limited digital supply over unlimited digital supply any day.  Which is the whole point.  Druggies can move on and use whatever competing currency they wish.  It is obvious that SR doesn't drive this thing anymore.  Businesses are taking notice.
> 
> A cashless society was only a wet dream to the Government when they thought they could fall asleep on the "0" key indefinitely.  Be thankful that anonymity is the only thing our dim-witted Keynesian politicians are concerned about.  The bigger picture at play to remove them of their power over the people is growing.  Whether it is with Bitcoin or something else, their time is coming to an end.


What I am saying is that with cash, you have the ability to conduct a trade with someone without the government tracking what you bought.  They don't like that one bit, which is why their goal is to totally do away with cash.  Don't let it go away, easily.  You will regret it.

----------


## dannno

> What I am saying is that with cash, you have the ability to conduct a trade with someone without the government tracking what you bought.  They don't like that one bit, which is why their goal is to totally do away with cash.  Don't let it go away, easily.  You will regret it.


You can make a bitcoin transaction without the government knowing anything other than  lk2j35l235jp2oin3op2n3oin32l3k3l2n3lk2n3k4j36857kj  8j36

Each person uses a wallet not tied to any exchanges where you have used your bank account. Wallets are free and anonymous, you can have hundreds of them if you want.

----------


## PRB

I'll trust the guy who makes money for a living over a theorist who only has a podcast.

----------


## dannno

> I'll trust the guy who makes money for a living over a theorist who only has a podcast.


Hey what are your thoughts on my previous question? 

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5322639

If I'm right, why didn't Peter Schiff the 'expert' think of that? I mean, I'm a huge Peter Schiff fan and I defend his views in all the other threads - and I agree he has some valid concerns with bitcoin but I think he also misses the huge potential for what it could possibly do. He has a few points that he gets stuck on and it blocks his view of the potential and he doesn't even consider how the market could think of ways to get around these and other issues. Nobody knows 100% about everything.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

Excellent debate.

----------


## PRB

> Peter says that you can't make longterm contracts in bitcoin because the price is too volatile - but can't you make longterm contracts denominated in another currency at the time payments are made and still pay with bitcoin if you are worried about stability?


yes you can, his main point is, that you can't depend on bitcoin as a currency or exchange medium unless and until it's widely accepted. in short, as long as bitcoin remains the cryptocurrency for internets, most people won't take it seriously, and long term contracts are less likely to use it.

your question is basically asking "Why can't I sell or buy a house worth $500,000 to $1,000,000 with bitcoin", of course you can, but how many people today are able and willing? Until that's the case, Schiff is not impressed or interested, he doesn't like being the experiment rat.

----------


## Madison320

Gold has intrinsic value (or historic or whatever you want to call it) ON ITS OWN. Bitcoin does not. This point is NOT debatable. Now if you want to argue that Bitcoin has other advantages as a currency that's fine. But when you use a patently false statement as a leading argument, you're not helping your case.

----------


## Neil Desmond

> Gold has intrinsic value (or historic or whatever you want to call it) ON ITS OWN. Bitcoin does not. This point is NOT debatable. Now if you want to argue that Bitcoin has other advantages as a currency that's fine. But when you use a patently false statement as a leading argument, you're not helping your case.


I'd like to refer you to the following two threads, as a rebuttal to your own claims and arguments:

1. Value is subjective (against the "intrinsic value" crowd on the interwebz)

2. What is a store of value?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

edit: n/m, neil beat me to it.

----------


## Neil Desmond

> edit: n/m, neil beat me to it.


Ha!  Wudda I win?

----------


## PRB

> Gold has intrinsic value (or historic or whatever you want to call it) ON ITS OWN. Bitcoin does not. *This point is NOT debatable.* Now if you want to argue that Bitcoin has other advantages as a currency that's fine. But when you use a patently false statement as a leading argument, you're not helping your case.


It has intrinsic value because you said so and won't debate it?

----------


## Madison320

> It has intrinsic value because you said so and won't debate it?


Of course value is subjective, but the subjective value of certain things tends to be stable over time. I can be reasonably sure that my ounce of gold will have subjective value over my lifetime and I'll be able to trade it for other items, even if gold is not used as a currency. The argument that intrinsic value is subjective therefore the value of gold, dirt, paper and bitcoin are all equal stores of value is laughable.

----------


## jmdrake

At 7 minutes in Peter makes the argument of whether you would rather have a digital currency issued by an online bank and backed by gold or a bitcoin.  A digital currency backed by gold has already been tried.  It was called "egold".  It got shut down by the feds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-gold

It remains to be seen what will happen to a cryptocurrency like bitcoin if/when the feds make a concerted effort to shut it down.

----------


## gwax23

> At 7 minutes in Peter makes the argument of whether you would rather have a digital currency issued by an online bank and backed by gold or a bitcoin.  A digital currency backed by gold has already been tried.  It was called "egold".  It got shut down by the feds.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-gold
> 
> It remains to be seen what will happen to a cryptocurrency like bitcoin if/when the feds make a concerted effort to shut it down.


Obviously in a true free market that type of digital currency would prevail the Bitcoin and its clones would fail.

Also the fact that the government shut that down shows they where threatened by it and not Bitcoin. They dont view Bitcoin as a threat.

----------


## kpitcher

Bitcoin was deliberately designed to not have a centralized server so it could not be shut down like those others. Unlike EGold and Liberty Reserve bitcoin is peer to peer and functions around the world.

----------


## Neil Desmond

> Obviously in a true free market that type of digital currency would prevail the Bitcoin and its clones would fail.


Why exactly would bitcoin and its clones fail in a "true free market"?  It may be obvious to you why, but not to me at all.  Can you please enlighten me?




> Also the fact that the government shut that down shows they where threatened by it and not Bitcoin. They dont view Bitcoin as a threat.


Bitcoin is not centralized, so there's no way to pull the plug on something (e.g. a server somewhere) to shut bitcoin down; so, that isn't helpful for indicating whether or not the government (what government, btw?) sees bitcoin as a threat.  You don't seem to have a grasp or very good comprehension of what bitcoin is (and isn't).

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> What I am saying is that with cash, you have the ability to conduct a trade with someone without the government tracking what you bought.  They don't like that one bit, which is why their goal is to totally do away with cash.  Don't let it go away, easily.  You will regret it.


Why, exactly, do you WANT cash?  Paper currency, even if physical, is still an inflatable, centrally controlled currency.  There is NOTHING special about currency being physical.  The only beef you have with virtual currencies is the idea of the government centrally controlling the currency and the issuing of credit.  Credit is what's bad, not the fact that takes place virtually.  When you have a centrally controlled, virtual fiat system, that means there is no actual currency, just the trust that the government has the currency that is represented by the numbers.  With bitcoin, you are getting something that only YOU hold and possess at one time, and its transfer is not controlled by any third party, just you.  It is an actual thing, and not just the promise from a third party that such a thing exists.  Your apprehension of all things virtual is unfounded and misguided.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I'll trust the guy who makes money for a living over a theorist who only has a podcast.


They both make money for a living...

----------


## gwax23

> Why exactly would bitcoin and its clones fail in a "true free market"?  It may be obvious to you why, but not to me at all.  Can you please enlighten me?
> 
> 
> Bitcoin is not centralized, so there's no way to pull the plug on something (e.g. a server somewhere) to shut bitcoin down; so, that isn't helpful for indicating whether or not the government (what government, btw?) sees bitcoin as a threat.  You don't seem to have a grasp or very good comprehension of what bitcoin is (and isn't).


All the government would have to do is crack down on people who accept Bitcoin (Businesses, organizations etc) killing the market for it. It could then cut down on Bitcoin exchanges and websites, including the ones where you can buy locally. Theres a myriad of things the government could do to cripple Bitcoin, just have some imagination and look at history of government oppression. You claim im ignorant of Bitcoin your naive and ignorant of history.

----------


## PRB

> They both make money for a living...


which one makes more?

----------


## PRB

> The argument that intrinsic value is subjective therefore the value of gold, dirt, paper and bitcoin are all equal stores of value is laughable.


I totally agree!

----------


## Neil Desmond

> All the government would have to do is crack down on people who accept Bitcoin (Businesses, organizations etc) killing the market for it. It could then cut down on Bitcoin exchanges and websites, including the ones where you can buy locally. Theres a myriad of things the government could do to cripple Bitcoin, just have some imagination and look at history of government oppression. You claim im ignorant of Bitcoin your naive and ignorant of history.


Your information in this response is incomplete; I'm still missing the answer to the question: what government are you talking about?

EDIT: Furthermore, why would exchanges be needed once bitcoin becomes a dominant medium of exchange or goes mainstream?  Exchanges are only really needed to convert between currencies of different nations (e.g., dollars for yens).  Bitcoins, on the other hand, are international (kinda like gold or silver, as a medium of exchange); you don't need an exchange for bitcoins if you travel to a different country and prices are in bitcoins.

----------


## FrankRep

Fun interview.

----------


## muh_roads

> All the government would have to do is crack down on people who accept Bitcoin (Businesses, organizations etc) killing the market for it. It could then cut down on Bitcoin exchanges and websites, including the ones where you can buy locally. Theres a myriad of things the government could do to cripple Bitcoin, just have some imagination and look at history of government oppression. You claim im ignorant of Bitcoin your naive and ignorant of history.


History had P2P technology?  Unless you put a cop in every household, office and server room in the world to monitor people 24-7, you can't stop the protocol.

If Government attempted to do what you say, they would look like they are wasting time & money.  After Silk Road was taken down and 10 new ones immediately popped up, Carper practically admitted defeat.

----------

