31–40 of 66 posts
Buffet is famous for having strong convictions as an investor. He refuses to invest in any business, industry or technology if he doesn't understand how it works. Though his point about Bitcoin may be valid, we should take it with a grain of salt. Buffet is often predisposed to be standoff-ish about emerging (digital) technology.
Buffet is famous for having strong convictions as an investor. He refuses to invest in any business, industry or technology if he doesn't understand how it works. Though his point about Bitcoin may be valid, we should take it with a grain of salt. Buffet is often predisposed to be standoff-ish about emerging (digital) technology.
Why? His point is valid. Just because something is digital doesn't make it magical and certainly doesn't make it a good idea.
For all intents and purposes, the dollar has been digital for a while. Certainly, there is the analog equivalent and certainly it is centralized, but it's definitely digital.
I want a pure decentralized digital currency as much as the next guy, but bitcoin is definitely not there yet.
His argument (that articles priced in bitcoin change their priced based on the value of a fiat currency such as USD) is valid as a qualitative judgement of bitcoin's utility as a currency, but isn't really a valid test of what is or isn't a currency. Case in point: The Zimbabwean dollar remained a currency through its hyperinflation period, and is still considered a currency (however useless) even though it is no lon…
Bitcoin isn't legal tender anywhere. One could argue that a currency is something which is legal tender somewhere in the world.
Thus the old system fear Bitcoin because with Bitcoin you do not need the banks. With Bitcoin the banks cannot create new debt/credit money through thin air so the banks do not have a special privilege in that system. The banks took Satoshi Nakamotos family home via foreclose and then he created Bitcoin, score settled.
http://mag.newsweek.com/2014/03/14/bitcoin-satoshi-nakamoto....
But I would agree Bitcoin is not a currency Bitcoin it is a new economic system where alternative crypto currencies compete with the Central banks FIAT money. Bitcoin also competes with credit cards and payment providers such as Paypal and money wire transfers Credit Union.
His definition of currency is nonsensical. He gave a valid point, but it has little to do whether a unit is a currency or not. Wasn't he the one who initially called bitcoin "rat's poison"? Wonder who he referred to as "rat" that the bitcoin is poisoning.
Buffet owns a large stake in Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs is one of the big banks who benefit from the current system with the central bank FED. Goldman Sachs is a part owner of the FED who centrally plans the price of new money the interest rate. FED is a private institution owned by the regional federal reserves, the regional federal reserves is in turn owned by the private banks. Thus the old system fear Bitcoin b…
His argument (that articles priced in bitcoin change their priced based on the value of a fiat currency such as USD) is valid as a qualitative judgement of bitcoin's utility as a currency, but isn't really a valid test of what is or isn't a currency. Case in point: The Zimbabwean dollar remained a currency through its hyperinflation period, and is still considered a currency (however useless) even though it is no lon…
His argument (that articles priced in bitcoin change their priced based on the value of a fiat currency such as USD) is valid as a qualitative judgement of bitcoin's utility as a currency, but isn't really a valid test of what is or isn't a currency. Case in point: The Zimbabwean dollar remained a currency through its hyperinflation period, and is still considered a currency (however useless) even though it is no lon…
I'm sure there are lots of people who feel that they know the "correct" definition, many with a compelling justification for its validity, but without consensus the word is little more than a rhetorical value judgement.
If people want to have meaningful discussions about new topics which fall outside the established semantic shorthands of past discussion, it generally better to avoid those words entirely.
There are lots of unambiguous claims one can make about Bitcoin, and I really wish people would talk in terms of those, instead of endlessly arguing about what names we're allowed to call it.