Ron Paul on Bitcoin: "If I can't put it in my pocket, I have reservations" (other topix 2)

[devil21]

Ron Paul on Bitcoin: "If I can't put it in my pocket, I have reservations" (other topix 2)

Pardon if a repost. Didn't see it.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-...f-i-cant-put-it-my-pocket-i-have-reservations

"To tell you the truth, it's little bit too complicated. If I can't put it in my pocket, I have some reservations about that. But it has been designed in the free market. If it is a means of exchange, it would not ever be illegal. You shouldn't regulate it in the free market, but I do not think it fits the definition of money, which has been around for 6000 years.

People want to see something they can know what it is, they can define it, touch it and put in their pocket. If you do not have a computer and someone running the computer and calculations, you don't have it. I am not a big supporter of that, but I am not opposed to it. I admit, I do not fully understand what is going on with it."

Whole article and interview is worth a look. Covers much more than just Bitcoin.

 

[dannno]

Original thread:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?412272-Ron-Paul-discusses-gold-and-bitcoin


Well, he can put it in his pocket, but I can understand why it wouldn't serve him a whole lot of utility at the moment. You have to have some imagination toward what the future of technology can hold if you are to be excited about the future of bitcoin and use it for investment purposes.

 

[sailingaway]

Ron has written at least one book on this subject, a ton of papers and joint authored a minority report on the Gold Commission, and has a definition of money bitcoin doesn't satisfy. People who see it as preferable to FRN for whatever reason, and want to use it are welcome to do so.

 

[dannno]

Ron has written at least one book on this subject, a ton of papers and joint authored a minority report on the Gold Commission, and has a definition of money bitcoin doesn't satisfy.

Others would argue that his definition of bitcoin is limited to the capacity at which he has personally investigated it and perhaps not to the full capacity in which it could be.

 

[crhoades]

Maybe he is worried about an EMP strike. Bit coins go bye bye. Gold coin, still in pocket.

 

[brooks009]

Maybe he is worried about an EMP strike.

Build a Faraday cage = EMP proof. Plus you can keep your bitcoins on paper or even just in your head (Nowhere is safer then in your head).

 

[presence]

 

[Bitmunitions]

Bitmunitions - Secure online re-seller for ammunition that only accepts Bitcoins.

Pardon if a repost. Didn't see it.




Whole article and interview is worth a look. Covers much more than just Bitcoin.

Hey, just wanted to let you guys know about my website, Bitmunitions.com -- Where you can take those "fake Bitcoins" and turn them into cold, hard ammunition that you can most definitely put in your pocket .. or better yet, your rifle!

Thanks guys!
Craig

 

[tttppp]

Pardon if a repost. Didn't see it.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-...f-i-cant-put-it-my-pocket-i-have-reservations



Whole article and interview is worth a look. Covers much more than just Bitcoin.

I think he sums it up well by saying he doesn't fully understand it. His statement sounds like someone who grew up without computers. Most people today know everyone is going to have a computer, so there is nothing wrong with requiring a computer to get your money.

 

[jclay2]

Bitcoin just doesn't pass the smell tests. Why I don't trust it: It was created by humans out of thin air and has existed for not even 5 years. Its value is not stable at all. People seem to be more interested in speculation then its use as a currency. It has 0 intrinsic value. There is no utility in a bitcoin by itself. The history of gold/silver started out as barter based on utility in of itself and transformed into a currency as people recognized the great money properties they possessed. Bitcoin just bypassed that all "as people just accepted it because..". Bitcoin is also extremely susceptible to political risk. If a major government starts seeing that it can be utilized to bypass taxes/etc, there is a huge probability that it will be declared illegal.

Lastly, If someone gave you the choice of receiving $ 1,000,000 k today or 65000 bitcoins in 20 years(today they would be valued at 10 million dollars), I am guessing that 99% of bitcoin supporters would take the cash now! Why? Because they know that bitcoin has a huge probability of ending up like the beanie baby/tulip. If you know in your heart it has little chance of carrying any value in the future, you should be very wary.

 

[sailingaway]

Others would argue that his definition of bitcoin is limited to the capacity at which he has personally investigated it and perhaps not to the full capacity in which it could be.

He has a definition of money, and it doesn't satisfy it. You can disagree that his definition of money is the ONLY possible definition of money, but he stated his opinion based on that definition.

 

[muh_roads]

The key things to take from this...

"To tell you the truth, it's little bit too complicated. If I can't put it in my pocket, I have some reservations about that. But it has been designed in the free market. If it is a means of exchange, it would not ever be illegal. You shouldn't regulate it in the free market, but I do not think it fits the definition of money, which has been around for 6000 years.

People want to see something they can know what it is, they can define it, touch it and put in their pocket. If you do not have a computer and someone running the computer and calculations, you don't have it. I am not a big supporter of that, but I am not opposed to it. I admit, I do not fully understand what is going on with it."

If you like BTC that is all you need to know. Ron Paul understands that free people and free markets should be allowed to choose whatever competing currency they want to use.

I never expected a full endorsement. I expected his respect to let me use it if I wish. This is all that matters.

 

[Aeroneous]

Bitcoin just doesn't pass the smell tests. Why I don't trust it: It was created by humans out of thin air and has existed for not even 5 years. Its value is not stable at all. People seem to be more interested in speculation then its use as a currency. It has 0 intrinsic value. There is no utility in a bitcoin by itself. The history of gold/silver started out as barter based on utility in of itself and transformed into a currency as people recognized the great money properties they possessed. Bitcoin just bypassed that all "as people just accepted it because..". Bitcoin is also extremely susceptible to political risk. If a major government starts seeing that it can be utilized to bypass taxes/etc, there is a huge probability that it will be declared illegal.

Lastly, If someone gave you the choice of receiving $ 1,000,000 k today or 65000 bitcoins in 20 years(today they would be valued at 10 million dollars), I am guessing that 99% of bitcoin supporters would take the cash now! Why? Because they know that bitcoin has a huge probability of ending up like the beanie baby/tulip. If you know in your heart it has little chance of carrying any value in the future, you should be very wary.

I'm not planning on investing in Bitcoin either, but there's a couple things I'd like to point out.

Precious metals have no intrinsic value either, outside of their ability to be used for manufacturing. Most people aren't buying them for that reason. You could argue that scarcity itself creates intrinsic value, but if that were the case then Bitcoin would hold intrinsic value due to its clearly defined scarcity. Also, EVERY currency has just been created out of thin air to some extent. The FRN was created out of thin air, every fiat currency around the globe was created out of thin air, and the idea of using precious metals as a currency came out of thin air. There was no guideline thousands of years ago that told everyone, "You will use this shiny metal for barter." I think getting hung up on the lack of a physical aspect is probably the least of your worries when it comes to Bitcoin. When it comes right down to it, it's just like any other item in that it has scarcity, demand, and utility.

The only reason I'm not getting into it is that it seems to be rather volatile, which I'm not a fan of. Bitcoin's Beta has got to be sky high.

 

[sailingaway]

I'm not planning on investing in Bitcoin either, but there's a couple things I'd like to point out.

Precious metals have no intrinsic value either, outside of their ability to be used for manufacturing. Most people aren't buying them for that reason. You could argue that scarcity itself creates intrinsic value, but if that were the case then Bitcoin would hold intrinsic value due to its clearly defined scarcity. Also, EVERY currency has just been created out of thin air to some extent. The FRN was created out of thin air, every fiat currency around the globe was created out of thin air, and the idea of using precious metals as a currency came out of thin air. There was no guideline thousands of years ago that told everyone, "You will use this shiny metal for barter." I think getting hung up on the lack of a physical aspect is probably the least of your worries when it comes to Bitcoin. When it comes right down to it, it's just like any other item in that it has scarcity, demand, and utility.

The only reason I'm not getting into it is that it seems to be rather volatile, which I'm not a fan of. Bitcoin's Beta has got to be sky high.

there is a huge difference, as we have seen lately, between physical silver and paper silver. It is almost as if fractional reserve banking in silver were considered a possibility. Having it in hand matters. Gold may be money only because people accept it as such, but people have accepted it as such since before recorded history, through rise and fall of civilizations. Bitcoin was just made up and doesn't have any particular reason why it, rather than any of a bunch of potential models, should be adopted, that I see, If people want to use it, great, but saying its intrinsic value is the same as gold, even if its structural monetary system dies, just doesn't sound true.

 

[devil21]

Competing currencies are always a good thing. IF the BTC can survive these pump and dump days intact then it will be a genuine competing currency. How to prevent a complete internet shutdown from rendering it useless and how to prevent the FRN moneyed interests from taking it over early and killing it are the keys to it surviving. The internet needs to be reinvented for an online currency to be viable long term imho. The net is too vulnerable now. Completely P2P needs to be setup before BTC is a viable competing currency. Unfortunately the best software minds work for the biggest offenders to this sort of project right now. They're designing more "clouds" instead of P2P networks. Money talks.

But hey what do I know. Im computer illiterate.

 

[anaconda]

Ron has written at least one book on this subject, a ton of papers and joint authored a minority report on the Gold Commission, and has a definition of money bitcoin doesn't satisfy. People who see it as preferable to FRN for whatever reason, and want to use it are welcome to do so.

But Ron Paul appears to be under the false impression that you need to be some computer whiz to manage your BTC.

 

[TheGrinch]

Build a Faraday cage = EMP proof. Plus you can keep your bitcoins on paper or even just in your head (Nowhere is safer then in your head).

Not necessarily true:

 

[jclay2]

I'm not planning on investing in Bitcoin either, but there's a couple things I'd like to point out.

Precious metals have no intrinsic value either, outside of their ability to be used for manufacturing. Most people aren't buying them for that reason. You could argue that scarcity itself creates intrinsic value, but if that were the case then Bitcoin would hold intrinsic value due to its clearly defined scarcity. Also, EVERY currency has just been created out of thin air to some extent. The FRN was created out of thin air, every fiat currency around the globe was created out of thin air, and the idea of using precious metals as a currency came out of thin air. There was no guideline thousands of years ago that told everyone, "You will use this shiny metal for barter." I think getting hung up on the lack of a physical aspect is probably the least of your worries when it comes to Bitcoin. When it comes right down to it, it's just like any other item in that it has scarcity, demand, and utility.

The only reason I'm not getting into it is that it seems to be rather volatile, which I'm not a fan of. Bitcoin's Beta has got to be sky high.

You need to focus on my word choice closer. "no utility in of itself" is where I put emphasis on. Of course bitcoin has value because people accept it. I don't deny that. What I am saying is that a bitcoin can not accomplish anything outside of someone else accepting it. That is I can't use it for decoration or in some sort of manufacturing. If possible, give me one task/project/thing I could accomplish with a bitcoin outside of trading it for goods with another person? At least gold/silver have some sort of value other than people accepting it has value. They derived value as a medium exchange on the basis that they had innate utility for manufacturing/beauty. Bitcoin is a castle built in the sky and gold/silver are a castle built on the rock. I hope that helps.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm not planning on investing in Bitcoin either, but there's a couple things I'd like to point out.

Precious metals have no intrinsic value either, outside of their ability to be used for manufacturing. Most people aren't buying them for that reason. You could argue that scarcity itself creates intrinsic value, but if that were the case then Bitcoin would hold intrinsic value due to its clearly defined scarcity. Also, EVERY currency has just been created out of thin air to some extent. The FRN was created out of thin air, every fiat currency around the globe was created out of thin air, and the idea of using precious metals as a currency came out of thin air. There was no guideline thousands of years ago that told everyone, "You will use this shiny metal for barter." I think getting hung up on the lack of a physical aspect is probably the least of your worries when it comes to Bitcoin. When it comes right down to it, it's just like any other item in that it has scarcity, demand, and utility.

The only reason I'm not getting into it is that it seems to be rather volatile, which I'm not a fan of. Bitcoin's Beta has got to be sky high.

You're right. A lot of things have been tried as money. However, gold and PMs have withstood the test of time because they satisfy the requirements of "money": durability, recognizability, etc. And "intrinsic value" is just a buzzword made up by salesmen to sell pms and other such things.

 

[sailingaway]

But Ron Paul appears to be under the false impression that you need to be some computer whiz to manage your BTC.

Honestly, I thought he was being polite, not wanting to cut it down according to his standards. He certainly has run through the elements of money. I think he was just saying he hadn't exhaustively looked into it, because he wasnt interested for his own reasons.