10 votes

ECB: "Roots of Bitcoin Can Be Found In The Austrian School Of Economics"

The ECB (European Central Bank) has produced the first official central bank study of the decentralized cryptographic money known as bitcoin, Virtual Currency Schemes. Ignoring for a moment the ECB’s condescending and derogatory use of the virtual currency phrase and scheme phrase, the study produced at least one landmark achievement.

In claiming that “The theoretical roots of Bitcoin can be found in the Austrian school of economics,” the ECB forever linked Bitcoin to the proud economic heritage of Menger, Mises, and Hayek as well as to Austrian business cycle theory. This recognition is also a direct testament to the monetary theory work of Friedrich von Hayek who inspired many with his 1976 landmark publication of Denationalisation of Money.

Bitcoin fully embodies the spirit of denationalized money as it seeks no authority for its continued existence and it recognizes no political borders for its circulation. Indeed according to the report, proponents see Bitcoin as “a good starting point to end the monopoly central banks have in the issuance of money” and “inspired by the former gold standard.”

DOWNLOAD: http://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/virtualcurrencyscheme...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2012/11/03/ecb-roots-...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I actually like both these

I actually like both these answer lol :) it is fiat and will implode as all fiats do and seems weak from what i have read... but i agree that doesn't stop me from blowing a couple hundred on a stupid thing like bitcoin and hope to make a profit... i mean its not like i can go to the stock market and make some quick cash... i mean im 22 years old and an entrepreneur... why not... but i am also an austrian anarcho/capiltalist who knows the ride could end tomorrow... decisions decisions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtN9YUvh_XM

You know, we can type it all out, but researching yourself is generally the better thing to do. Start with this movie. And ask around, don't just take my word for it. Most of your concerns have already been addressed and answered. But if you still don't believe, that's also okay.

Now Bitcoin has movies?

That's odd

Lol, you really are paranoid.

Lol, you really are paranoid. But paranoia is not a bad thing to be nowadays. Look, if you have doubts, nothing beats using your own eyes and ears. But if you haven't used them and didn't bother to look for the truth, then you really have no right to judge anything.

I'm not asking anyone to be pro BC here. Just telling not to condemn it straight away with just hearsay as justification.

Again with the "paranoid" thing?

Are you reading from some kind of Bit(ch) Coin argument algorithm?

-- > If the mark shows trepidation, call him paranoid, and if he continues to show reservations, tell him it's very complicated, but everybody will soon be doing it and there's a chance to make enormous profits.

Paranoia is a conman's enemy.

Context

In the context of computer security, calling someone paranoid means they are diligent. Willing to sacrifice ease of use and capability to gain security.

It doesn't have negative connotations.

Paranoia is a good thing. But

Paranoia is a good thing. But some people take it too far. You can often notice it with people that can't express themselves coherently.

I know the answers to my questions

Because I have looked into it.

So you already know the

So you already know the answers (IN DETAIL) to the questions you posed? I would be interested to hear it (I'm serious).

I already did but you just skipped right on past it

Here it is again:

"A scratch beneath the surface and you discover this program comes from an unknown/untrusted source, has not been peer reviewed by anyone remotely qualified to do so, has already been hacked, is not secure, is not backed by anything, and there is a hidden hand of support funding this endevor."

Troy,

it's going to take a little more than a mere "scratch beneath the surface" to gain any kind of understanding about the way this currency operates.

If you don't trust it fine, don't use it. It's kind of annoying to see you doing your best to discredit a thing that you have no understanding of while attempting to spread your delusion to others that have yet to educate themselves on it. Why is this your agenda?

Not fair

He's not delusional. Sure, he may not have much knowledge of the domain, but history is on his side and using a digital currency carries a lot more risk than say, a new real time messaging protocol.

You're right.

Please forgive this.

Pray tell

What part do you believe I am misunderstanding?

Ah, I thought that part was

Ah, I thought that part was merely conjecture. As far as I know, only the userside of BC has been hacked, but not the protocol itself. But that's the same as people robbing the bank. You can't blame the money for the fact that the bank was not secure enough.

But are you suggesting that someone managed to hack the protocol itself?

Anyways, that nobody qualified is reviewing the source code can hardly be blamed on the source code, since it's opensource. Unless people are deliberately preventing others from looking at the source code and only allowing a select few to do that. In that case, some paranoia would be warranted.

As for the funding, what did you hear about that?

The protocol IS precisely at fault

Imagine money that can only be carried around by a special wallet (by design)

And there was a gapping hole in the wallet.

When you lose your money you can say "hey it's not the money's fault - it was just the wallet"

The Bitcoin has two codes. One to install on the server side and one to install on the client side. Neither of which will work without the other. Your claim that "only" the server side is hackble is hardly comforting.

> Imagine money that can only

> Imagine money that can only be carried around by a special wallet (by design)

That isn't accurate. There is nothing special about the "bitcoin wallet"

> The Bitcoin has two codes. One to install on the server side and one to install on the client side.

Incorrect. Bitcoin is peer to peer.

You're

still missing it. Give it some time.

But that's essentially the

But that's essentially the same problem we have with regular money, that's my point. Thieves can't print money. Stealing our money is much easier than trying to counterfeit it. What users must do, is go to some lengths to secure their wallets. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT PEOPLE USING BC MUST DO. And are doing.

Regular money has essentially the same problem you are accusing BC of. Some lengths must be taken to secure the wallet, this is a problem that both regular users of money share and BC users.

Anyways, I'm open to good arguments people have why they think BC will fail. It's not like I have any money in BC, so I have nothing to gain by defending BC. I'm open to GOOD reasons and information that people have on this subject. To me, it's more a case of being able to understand than me advocating this or that.

You missed the distinction

even fiat money you have your choice to hide in your mattress, carry in your wallet, bury in your backyard, place in a bank.

Bitcons are limited to THEIR wallet

Their wallet that which just so happens to be vulnerable as already proven by the hacking/looting of bitcoins earliest this year.

> Bitcons are limited to

> Bitcons are limited to THEIR wallet

NO! They are not. You fundamentally misunderstand.

You *can* bury bitcoin in your back yard, or hide it under your mattress. You can have bitcoins without a computer.

You could even print bitcoins out on paper and store them without the use of any electronic media.

All of this hype is not about yet another online banking system!

From what I understand, you

From what I understand, you can essentially place your wallet anywhere on the internet or anywhere on your computer. You can even place it on a usb stick. This to me is no different than hiding it in a mattress or burying it in your backyard. The hacker would still need to know the location of WHERE the wallet is hidden, before he can make an attempt to steal it. And it's even possible to put an extra layer of protection over this wallet.

I still don't see the distinction. Maybe you need to use another example.

There is a hole in the Bitcoin wallet

The software has been hacked.

But how does this exactly

But how does this exactly counteract my point? You need to be more specific.

It's pretty simple...

...libertarians favor a free market in money, as in all other goods. Let the best money win. Yet, most Austrian economists recognize that gold or silver is inevitably going to win that competition on the market, and that any kind of pure fiat money like bitcoin is going to lose. In other words, there's nothing ethically wrong with something like bitcoin, but it's not likely to succeed on the market. I know, personally, I have no interest in holding my wealth in the form of fiat digital money.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

You hit the nail

on the head. The point is it's all dependent on the free market.

You're free to have an opinion on bitcoin and use it or not. So do others. But it's not any government that has the say so. Bitcoin is a purely voluntary currency. Thousands around the world already do value it.

I actually recommend people keep the majority of their wealth in gold/silver. However, they can also keep a small amount say 1-2% in Bitcoin or exchange into it as needed, because you can't transfer gold across the world in a matter of seconds and for free, with nobody being able to stop you, like you can with Bitcoin.

Well said

I'm not going after anybody with a gun. I just wouldn't accept Bit Coin in trade, nor would I ever try and use it as a store of value.

It loses out in the free market for a reason, there's no value in it. We could back up our receipt money with a thousand different commodities, but gold and silver will still win out for very good reasons.

Except

it's not losing out in the free market...

It is up thousands of percent over it's price in 2009 and has a total current market cap of around 100 million dollars (there are about 10 million now in existence, and current price is about $10).

You think there's a free market in money?

"it's not losing out in the free market..."

Seriously? So I'm now free to start my own receipt money backed up by gold and silver, to distribute it locally and manage it free from government interference?

This isn't a free market.

No, there

isn't a free market in money. That's the whole problem and the reason Dr. Paul spent 12 terms in congress.

But with Bitcoin there is.

The government shut down use of the Liberty Dollar created by Bernard von NotHaus. They also shut down e-Gold. All this happened because feds knew where to raid offices and apply any necessary pressure. That's not possible with Bitcoin because it's decentralized.

People currently buy and use Bitcoin (globally) whether any government likes it or not, and it can't be shut down without shutting down the entire Internet.