The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!
12 votes

Bitcoin is a Bitcon by Karl Denninger

A large article, but worth reading if you are considering Bitcoin and are interested in an alternative perspective.
BitCon: Don't
by Karl Denninger - Posted: 2013-03-30 17:44

Ok, I've been asked enough times, here it is -- my view and analysis of "Bitcoin", which I have taken to calling "Bitcon." That probably deserves an explanation....

Let's first define what an ideal currency would be. Currency serves two purposes; it allows me to express a preference for one good or service over another, and it allows me to express time preference (that is, when I acquire or consume a good or service.)
Unfortunately Bitcoin, as I will explain in detail, also does a*****-poor job of satisfying either of these requirements.

But before I get to that, I want to first demolish the argument for using it that is going around in various circles and media these days -- the idea that it is stateless (that is, without a State Sponsor) and this is somehow good, in that it allows the user to evade the tentacles of the State.

This is utterly false and, if you're foolish enough to believe it and are big enough to be worth making an example of you will eventually wind up in prison -- with certainty.
Continued at:

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

more understanding...

bitcoins don't need to be 'more' durable than gold/silver to be durable, but a strong case could be made that they ARE more durable. bitcoins are as durable as the internet itself. it's a peer-to-peer networked, decentralized form of money, so there can be no single point of failure that impacts the whole. All you who say bitcoin will "crash", why do you think this?! SteveMT said because of a 'sell-off' due to masses of traders cashing out... Well, all else being equal that would imply a rebound following the sell-off. Bull for bitcoin...

That would be what I'm waiting for.

A good investor doesn't let the emotion of a rising market dictate his actions. It's when prices drop that people should buy. I'm waiting for a discount in bitcoin.

What scares me the most is that thought of, "What if I had bitcoins right now? What would I do?" I definitely wouldn't be spending them, I'd probably be trying to time the market to get out at the top so I can buy more at the bottom. The question then comes, Where is the top? Everyone has their own opinion and thoughts. And are people actually foolish enough to spend bitcoins in this price inflation? Why buy something today for 1 bitcoin when in a week it will only be .5 bitcoin?

But bitcoin can't just keep increasing in value forever, it isn't the housing market or the Dow, you know?


When there's a dip, I buy and hold. As much as I can put into it, I plan to. I plan to hold all of it, watching it grow, if I need to pay a bill in USD then I'll trade in that amount, and if a free fall is happening, I'll trade in BTC before it falls below the price at which I bought it. Then I'll just watch it tumble, until it stops, and buy back in with everything I can spare. It's volatile, yes. But it's also nowhere near it's true value and it's notoriety and usage continues to soar exponentially. There are something like 6000+ pending acct approvals in que on Mt.Gox (by far and away the largest exchange for BTC), which means... well does it even need to be said? This is all good for Bitcoin, and anyone with a position in Bitcoin.

SteveMT's picture

Agree with your cautious concerns.

Time is only way to see how this plays out. Many are jumping on the Bitcoin bandwagon. Bitcoin just crossed the $100 threshold. It's being run-up/set-up for a big fall when people abruptly cash out, IMO.
Caution? Yes, I'm with you about that.

Bitcoin Hits $101 - Doubles Since Cyprus

anyone who wants to 'cash

anyone who wants to 'cash out', I'll gladly give you my fiat paper for Bitcoin. I welcome a sell-off. Remember this when April ends at $200+/BTC.

From Reddit: "Am I the only one that thinks this way when I hear the term "cashing out"?" >>>

You seem to know about

You seem to know about Bitcoin so maybe you can answer this.
What stops our government, or any gov't, from saying that Bitcoin is a counterfeit currency and making it illegal to use in transactions? Because I have to believe if Bitcoin is seen to be competing with the banks even in the slightest, this will happen. What then? What good are the Bitcoins if you can't use them hardly anywhere, because if they are made illegal to use most business will not accept them.

Fair question

bitcoin could never be called counterfeit, much the same way video arcade tokens are not considered counterfeits. however, bitcoin is not like arcade tokens in that arcade tokens cannot be transfered back into the currency they were traded for in the first place, and are no good out in the light of day away from the bells, whirls, beeps and bleeps, while bitcoin is good anywhere it is accepted and these places and people are increasing exponentially. Cyprus is turning to bitcoin, the first bitcoin ATM is going in there ASAP (matter of days)...amazing, right?!

Anyway, your question about state power is a good one, and a real threat. But is the state interested in WoW gold? Reddit gold? etc (all redeemable for USDs, etc.) Here's a link for you that may better explain an answer to your question:

an excerpt from "Bitcoin - The Libertarian Introduction" by Erik Voorhees, BitInstant's Marketing Dir.

Bitcoin vs. The State -

Now we get to the more fun part, which is especially relevant to any libertarian discussion of Bitcoin. This is the manner by which Bitcoin supersedes government control. "Okay," people say, "so Bitcoin is new and the government doesn't regulate it yet, but they will!" Unfortunately for the government, they cannot. No person nor group of people can defy the laws of mathematics upon which Bitcoin is built.

But first, let's look at the ways the government could interfere with the Bitcoin system.

Private websites on a hosted server can be taken down by the government. We saw this in amazing clarity recently when MegaUpload was taken down by the US government, even before any trial or finding of criminal activity had been accomplished. It should be assumed that the government can take down any site it wishes, with or without the legal cover of legislation like SOPA and PIPA (which merely give legal blessing to powers already assumed and demonstrated). So this means that any website that dealt in Bitcoins could be removed and shut down. The exchanges would be the first target.

Yet, even here the government runs into trouble, because websites can be mirrored, copied, and hidden very easily. Taking down Bitcoin websites would be like cutting the heads of a Hydra - for each successful severance, publicity and the profit motive would compel more sites to spring up (case in point: how many file sharing sites exist, other than MegaUpload?).

In fact, certain sites have proven impossible for the government to take down altogether. Take the example of The Silk Road, which is a brazen website selling illicit drugs. US Senator Chuck Schumer expressed angst in this regard, though he's pitifully impotent to remove the site because it exists on what's known as the "dark web," on servers hidden via cryptography. If the above-ground Bitcoin websites are shut down, the below-ground sites will flourish. And every time a high profile site is taken down, Bitcoin would get free publicity around the world.

So taking down websites is an inadequate strategy if the government wishes to impede Bitcoin. What else could they do?

Within one country, at least, a government could prohibit individuals and businesses from openly accepting Bitcoins (and if this happened in the US, it'd be the ultimate sign that the Supreme Court had fully abandoned its proper responsibilities). Suppose the US Government did ban the acceptance of it would mean Bitcoin could only be accepted in secret. This would harm the economy significantly, but wouldn't come close to stopping Bitcoin (and indeed, unless every government did this, Bitcoins could be openly accepted in other countries leading to capital flight which would pressure governments not to outlaw it in the first place).

But what about the more obvious attack method - can't the government just "shut down" Bitcoin transfers? Amazingly, no. Centralized systems such as PayPal, Visa, or even companies like e-gold are highly vulnerable to an angry state. The thugs must merely break down the door, confiscate the servers, and throw the owners in jail. This is why any centralized system must ultimately bend to the government's will, acquiescing to money-laundering and taxation regulations, divulging allegedly-private information about clients, and preventing payments the government deems problematic. If they don't, they're shut down.

Bitcoin is not vulnerable to this risk, because there is no central point of failure. There is no Bitcoin office. There are no central Bitcoin servers. There is no president nor employees of Bitcoin. Bitcoin has no home country, it is licensed nowhere. It is a distributed network, a protocol, that can operate as long as the internet exists (and, in fact, even without the internet per se). Transactions occur peer-to-peer, meaning no governing body approves them. Accounts cannot be frozen, because nobody has the freeze button.

Bitcoin cannot be turned off - it is like a benevolent virus which, so long as a few hosts survive somewhere in the world, can perpetuate itself and regrow at the speed of information.

SteveMT's picture

Pure silver was called counterfeit by the government.

Why would you think that the government wouldn't also consider Bitcoin a counterfeit currency?

Did Bernard von NotHaus Counterfeit Coins?
Posted by Michael S. Rozeff on March 20, 2011 08:04 AM

A jury just found NotHaus guilty of counterfeiting U.S. coins. The coins or medallions that he had produced by a mint were pure silver, worth many times the value of any U.S. coin asserted to be that which was counterfeited. That fact alone tells me that the prosecution had NO case on the counterfeiting charge. He should not have been found guilty of counterfeiting.


This case really disturbed me. But Nothaus was an easy target. Who will TPTB go after for bitcoin, everyone!?!? I'd like to see that sh!tshow. Anyway, what happens when things are made illegal. Black market emerges and prices skyrocket. So it becomes even more valuable more quickly, and bitcoin, though it wants to be mainstream - and should be!, is tailor made for black market activity. Here's hoping it doesn't come to that, but the early adopters of BTC are ready for it, I'd say.

I don't understand why you

I don't understand why you say it "could never be called counterfeit". Video game tokens and WoW gold etc. can only be used within the business they are issued, "while bitcoin is good anywhere it is accepted and these places and people are increasing exponentially", that is a key difference between those. I not only think it to be possible for it to be called a counterfeit or illegitimate currency, I think it is probable.
The whole talk about not being able to shut down websites or whatever because of mirror sites and lack of central base to me doesn't make a difference, if it is declared illegal for whatever reason they state (and come on, you know they can come up with something) then the vast majority of legitimate businesses will not deal with it. And most people will not take the chance of using it anyway if there is ANY possibility of going to jail for using it. Not only that, there would be no way to ensure you receive whatever you purchase with them in that environment, it would be like calling the police and saying you paid for some weed and the drug dealer screwed you. So I don't think it matters if it technically can't be turned off or completely shut down, it can for all intents and purposes be made to be practically worthless by being declared illegal. And to think the bankers will just sit back and watch Bitcoin even begin to compete at any level with them is naive imo.

devils advocate..

Please allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment by simply asking, "How would you stop it?"

It is difficult to declare it counterfeit by itself. But if its perceived value was generated by manipulating exchanges with other coins and fraud-like devices or schemes, then Im sure popular support would rally behind government intervention.

Its much easier to validate the necessity of regulation to the public when there is a transparent ledger for the world to see. Every virtual currency transaction is 1 open-sourced project away from exposing transactions that have taken place between criminal and noncriminal entities. Investigations will CERTAINLY produce this information.

But what will be done with it?

I dunno, one could speculate that within a couple of years your virtual wallet will need to be federally, & or internationally registered to receive/send payments. Im sure some pretty stiff fines can be mustered up to fund the open sourced investigation hellbent on exposing the usage of NON-FIAT VIRTUAL CURRENCY.

In todays socio-political climate, I would imagine that there would be a very strong support to eliminate 'ALL' cheating through transparency & regulation by creating or validating a current virtual currency into international fiat status.

If granted fiat, BTC,Without a fixed transaction fee protocol, seems to be vulnerable to compulsory fines of extraordinary costs on transactions to/from 'unlicensed' btc addresses or wallets.

Im not in charge of controlling the world, but if I was... lets just say that I would value the potential of BTC just as much as anyone else.

In the mean time anyone can donate here: 16UL3xqtkPyLUuCAvoknQtWThJMPYuvHS2

Any BTC's donated will be held for my son until he is an adult.
As I seem to be limited by the barriers of entry thus far.

Had I not been Id just look around for stuff like this:

I think I already said how it

I think I already said how it could be stopped, by making it illegal to transact in Bitcoins. It is being advertised as an alternative to FRN's, it can be labeled counterfeit and declared illegal to use. Like I said, maybe that can't totally kill it but they can make it near worthless for use, and at a high risk for that worthless use.

The Powers That Be...

would expose themselves as quite inept (IMO) if they were to try such a move. They may try to co-opt it instead, which will also be quite transparent (thanks to bitcoin's wonderfully genius design)... it's going to get really interesting. :)

I don't think so. 99% of the

I don't think so. 99% of the population has no idea what Bitcoin is and could give a shit about what happens to it.

I used to think Denninger was smart

... arrogant and conceited, but smart.

Then I found out he is a Greenbacker.

I will read the article anyhow.

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln


below are some perfunctory commentary on Denninger's past blurbs on the Doc, and the Austrian School:

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

He loves big words and jargon

but he does not know what "entropy" means. I do not think seigniorage can be negative either.

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln


Just so you people are aware Tom Woods destroyed the "GreenBackers" and their utterly retarded logic on his Blog.

This article is pure comedy... His arguments are futile and display a complete lack of understanding of how Bitcoin functions.

Hey, If you don't like Bitcoins then thats fine, dont use it. and hey, if you want to use unsound logic and reasoning then it will be at your detriment. Will other digital currencies come about, I'm sure of it but right now as we speak Bitcoin is King and has stood up to all who have tested it's security.

Untill there are legitimate reasons not to transact in Bitcoins I see no reason why I shouldn't. Especially if the alternative is dollars. and I have plenty of Gold and Silver but remember if we transact in those we get thrown in Jail. Maybe the same will happen with Bitcoin but I feel pretty secure that I can maintain enough anonymity through Bitcoins. Plus, Bitcoins is world wide..... I see it impossible that all governments have the resources to stop this thing around the world.

End the Fed use Bitcoins

it is not illegal to transact

it is not illegal to transact in gold or silver

"Until there are legitimate

"Until there are legitimate reasons not to transact in Bitcoins I see no reason why I shouldn't. Especially if the alternative is dollars. and I have plenty of Gold and Silver but remember if we transact in those we get thrown in Jail. Maybe the same will happen with Bitcoin but I feel pretty secure that I can maintain enough anonymity through Bitcoins. Plus, Bitcoins is world wide..... I see it impossible that all governments have the resources to stop this thing around the world."

Here is one of the key reason I have not got involved with Bitcoins, the government involvement factor. I believe that if Bitcoin was to be seen as competing with the dollar as a means of transacting, then it will be called a counterfeit currency and declared illegal to use. Then what? Who cares if you technically don't lose your Bitcoins in that case, when you won't be able to use them hardly anywhere, and if you do you might go to jail for it. How can this be stopped from happening?

Thumbs up

I agree partially.
It IS a pyramid scheme type of structure, but it is not being used in traditional means. JUST LIKE THE DOLLAR. The dollar has perceived value and is used around the world as a mean of exchange. Well, Bitcoin is just like that. It works until it drastically looses value. Then it can still used, but more than likely it will die off into that good night (both of them).

Also, they can BOTH be inflated. The only thing stopping Bitcoin from being inflated is that there is an agreement that they will stop at 21 million. An agreement can be broken, even though I will give Bitcoin the benefit of the doubt on this on. That said, the viability of Bitcoin collapsing makes it look stout next to the dollar (by variable)

Government can write legislation to shut down exchanges and punish individual users. They can't catch everyone, but government IS a coercive force.

I read a story about how easily bitcoin could be co opted. I wasn't sure, but I think it said something along the lines that if you took up 51% of the network and had a long enough block chain, you could do it. It also said it would cause Millions of dollars in loses to do so, but our banks have plenty to invest.

I own one for speculation. If i loose it, so what. That is what phz Silver is for :)

Ron brought the Liberty movement together, Rand is expanding the crap out of it! :)

I remember when the Euro was first

talked about and the Euro started being traded before any country adopted it. My first thought that it was just another fiat currency destined to fail. I feel exactly the same about Bitcon. Oh sure, it may be able to sustain itself for however long, but in the end it will fail.
Steve, I agree with a comment you made below - better to invest in physical metals.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

Talk about a guy who makes predictions that

don't pan out...
Karl is just bashing something popular to get attention.

Karl is very often correct in theory. I give him that.

But if I had followed his advice and market timing I'd be in the streets.

Love these guys who sell news letters but don't get timing right.

Bump for an interesting read.

Bump for an interesting read.

But, Bitcoin uses a gold coin

But, Bitcoin uses a gold coin to represent itself. Its not gold? Not a coin? Its really an invisible string of ones and zeros?

ROFL. Karl Denninger Strikes again!

I love that guy. He's been fighting the good fight for a long time. He calls it as he sees it, a pyramid scam.

BitCon. lol.

who is this douche?

He doesn't even understand what currency is, let alone how BitCoin functions.

"All our words are but crumbs that fall down from the feast of the mind." - Khalil Gibran
"The Perfect Man has no self; the Holy Man has no merit; the Sage has no fame." - Chuang Tzu

Denninger is a 'greenbacker'

he's a statist who is free-market leaning.

he has on again off again critique of the Austrian School as well as the Doc.

He's totally misleading here:

Dr. Paul NEVER claimed that booms and busts will be eliminated without the Fed, he merely stated that the size and duration and frequency without the FED market intervention, wouldn't be as severe. Bursting of Mini-bubbles, mini-recessions, and other organic market adjustments are how the market naturally maintains its equilibrium. Thought that was like Econ101. But hey, suppose if you make a couple 100ks and a few mil from the market, you automatically believe you're an econ genius. The two can be mutually exclusive. Apparently no one told Karl that.

It's always the case with all these people: they NEVER read what Dr. Paul wrote, nor ever studied Austrian econ, nor read the relevant literature, yet delude what they can blurt out in a twitter sized blog rant, and repeat it often, automatically makes it true and real.

Awhile back, Karl also blurbed about how if nothing changes with the Fed after the Doc became the House Financial Services SubCommittee Chair, which is really ceremonial, that the Doc wasn't 'serious' about the Fed, or as he put it, he's "out of excuses:"

What a douchey thing to say! It'd be one thing if Karl Denninger was a one dimensional FauxNews/MSDNC caricature, but he's clearly not dumb; as with these things when people 'fcuk' up the obvious, one is really only left to gauge the statement as either dumb, or malicious.


Since Denniger's not dumb, he's being maliciously confusing his readers on purpose. Though, of course, a 'well intentioned' misguided guiding belief can be another factor behind such statements; suppose in the finality, those can actually be chalked up to stupidity.

Regardless, talk about a naive statist delusion; really, like Doc alone as a SubCommittee Chair, a ceremonial post at best, could single handedly end or audit the Fed, with Barney Barf as the illegitimate chair and later Spencer FACHus, not to mention a traitorous, bankster acquiescent majority in the CONgress?

Puhleez Karl.

Plus, Denninger DOESN'T think it's unConstitutional for the CONgress to "emit bills of credit," even though The Constitution FOR the United States of America specifically enumerates:

Article I, Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; ...


Section. 10.No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

It clearly states that the Fed Govt can borrow on the reputation of US, essentially. From whom? And for how long? It doesn't specify; suppose it can borrow from other nations, foreign nationals, and the US citizenry. So that's left unclear. But the Constitution, as an explicitly enumerated document, I wouldn't assume too broadly. And, since it NEVER delegated a central bank or that the Treasury can be a central bank, and NEVER enumerated the Fed. govt nor the State govts to be able to print currency, neither State nor Fed govt can print currency, ie "emit Bills of Credit," Period, End of Story!

(can't recall the title of his blurb where he went in depth about all that, but if you google long enough, I'm sure you can find it.)

That said, I wouldn't exactly call Karl Denninger an enemy of the Freedom Movement, a cautious friend perhaps, even despite this neoCon-ish knee-jerk rah-rah statist BS pandering 'I'm not pandering, if I'm pandering to the statist impulse of the masses'-pandering:

That's before he posted the likes of this one:

He's more freemarket than Krugman, quasi-interventionist than a neoCon isolationist (in the truest, non-RP sense), less neoCon than Kristol (though still buys into the 'terrorists everywhere are out to get us! now! now! now!'-nonsense:, more libertarian than GOP, more Constitutionalist than minarchist, more minarchist than AnCap, More Bill Still than Rothbard. So, c'est la vie, as far as I'm concerned. On many issues, he's spot on. On others, he's a douche. Still, compared to the run of the mill neoCons, oBUSHmaBots et al, he's a million times better.

On the other hand, a mixed bag on Karl's statement on BitCoins; many of his monetaryist's criticism of BitCoin are understandable: it would be wrong to say that BitCoin is "money." BitCoin, like the Fed. Reserve Notes, however is a currency.

But he doesn't believe or perhaps like the idea that BitCoin is "stateless"; is the fact that one MAY be arrested by the State that makes it 'bad'? So according to him, BitCoin is bad because it's designed to "evade" autho-ra-teh?? He is literally asking govt, our supposed servants, permission to accept the use of a certain type of currencies, backed up by govt protections:

I prefer instead to effort toward political recognition of the duties that come with the privilege that is bestowed on a sovereign currency issuer in the hope of solving the underlying problem rather than sniveling in the corner trying to evade it.

Which would be the dumbest reason to not exercise in the free market, as govt has been known to violate the Constitution, um like EVERY SECOND of the day? That's never gonna stop those govt terrorists from doing what they do best: lie, arrest, assault, steal, kidnap, rape, torture, and murder.

Specifically regarding the definition of what a real money is, in traditional economic sense, for anything to be real money it has to be a lasting store of value, divisible, fungible, portable, and of course, naturally, widely accepted organically by the marketplace.

Frankly, without electricity, internet, or a BitCoin 'reader,' it's useless.

Then again, as current state of currency is mostly digital (less than 3% of all dollars in circulation are actual physical cash, though if you include derivatives exposures, it's gotta be like 0.000000000000000003% cash), it's really no different from Federal Reserve Notes, other than its major attractors: BitCoin is stateless, mostly middleman-less and solely peer-to-peer.

Ah, but the fact that it's stateless, mostly middleman-less, and solely peer-to-peer IS what really defines it. So suppose that can be unfair to compare it to FRN's. Which is why the BitCoin can become the ideal CURRENCY for modern times.

But still, its number one detractor? The BitCoin, like Fiat Federal Reserve Notes, is backed by nothing other than faith. In BiCoin's case, a faith in an unknown, albeit 'open source,' computer algorithms.

And like all currencies AND money, BitCoin exists at the sole discretion at the faith and acceptance of the market. Lucky for commodity money, vs. the BitCoin? The former kinda has about a 6,000yr+ recorded human history of its usage to back it up.

And besides, it's not true when people say that you can't eat gold and silver: YES, you can, in tiny amounts. Also, you can use gold and silver as conductor, plating, and as water filter, not to mention as colloidal silver. BitCoin? Sorry, can't eat, conduct, plate, or filter with BitCoins! lol.

Essentially, what backs up the faith in BitCoin is the belief in its ease as a secure medium of exchange, and the belief in the security of the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto's computer algorithms and various server farms.

Now I'm not opposed to BitCoin or other currencies at all, as long as their nature is made transparent and the people and market actors know what they're dealing with, and simply let each voluntary market player decide for him/herself.

But BitCoin, will never be money, for the simple fact that it itself is a 'fiat' (not the dictionary literal 'dictated' or 'arbitrary command dictate' sense) currency in the sense that while it's not imposed as the current regime currency of FRN, but while opensource, no one has any clue who or whom Satoshi Nakamoto is, though AJ humored Max Keiser that Max is the real Satoshi; it originated out from a SINGLE SOURCE, of someone's, or a collective's computer.

Hey, the day you can buy a house, a car, rent, pay for hotel with BitCoins, we'd all have our answers by then. For now it's too early to tell. But for those interested in not being 'left behind' by the BitCoin momentum, to each his/her own, I'd say: let the market decide.

But ask the Cypriots if they'd rather have their own stolen ECB currency or BitCoin; well...there's your market answer. The market is deciding right now, in real time, what BitCoin means to the masses.

Living history.

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

This is an article

Defending fiat dollars. Classic. I wonder if the OP even read the entire thing. Probably just saw a little bitcoin bashing and immediately thought it was good. Here is the conclusion:

"For these reasons I do not now and never will support Bitcoin or its offshoots, nor will I accept and transact in it in commerce. I prefer instead to effort toward political recognition of the duties that come with the privilege that is bestowed on a sovereign currency issuer in the hope of solving the underlying problem rather than sniveling in the corner trying to evade it."

  • New Jersey's Premier Junk Removal Junk Service!
  • Accepts Bitcoin
    Check out my blog:

    I'm downvoting you for making

    unfounded accusations and I quote: "I wonder if the OP even read the entire thing. Probably just saw a little bitcoin bashing and immediately thought it was good."

    Those sentences were totally unneccesary and meant to belittle the poster. You lose your arguement when you begin with such an unwarranted attack.

    If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
    James Madison