The Rise And Fall Of Bitcoin... But Is It Really Over Yet?
from the not-quite dept
Back in April, just as Bitcoin was starting to get some mainstream attention, I questioned its ability to succeed long term. Too much about it felt like a fad, and there seemed to be significant questions about it. However, over the next few months, as the price of Bitcoins rose quickly, and there was more and more interest in it, I wondered if perhaps my natural skepticism got the best of me. Of course, since then, the Bitcoin market has come way back down, and the concept has definitely lost a lot of its "shiny new thing" appeal.Wired is running a detailed article on "The Rise and Fall of Bitcoin," which is a worthwhile read. Of course, it seems to be premised on the idea that Bitcoin is more or less dead -- a fad that came and went. Indeed, my initial post on Bitcoin questioned whether it would just be a fad. I still think it's likely... but I'm wondering if the big flare up over the past few months might be good for Bitcoin in the long run. Lots of speculators came and went, and Bitcoin gets to be ignored once more. Might that create a space to allow for a more sustainable ecosystem to be built, while the speculators and swindlers have moved on? Maybe. I'm still thinking that Bitcoin is most likely a fad that will die out. But sometimes a big flame out early on is a good way to obscure work that comes out of the ashes.
If I had to guess (and it's purely a guess), I'd say that the real legacy of Bitcoin may be in how it paved a path. The more interesting area to watch might not be what happens to Bitcoin specifically, but what the next attempt at such a currency brings around. There are lots of smart people looking at what happened to Bitcoin, and someone's going to come up with a better mousetrap.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
A Necessary Market Correction
The most important thing for Bitcoins is that the price stabilizes. It doesn't matter so much whether it stabilizes at 50 dollars or 5 cents, so long as it does, in fact, stabilize. Too much volatility due to speculation was discouraging vendors from adopting it, because they had no method of accurately gauging the price they should ask for their goods.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A Necessary Market Correction
That is the catch 22 of bitcoin. It will not catch on until the volatitlity stops, and the volatility will not stop until it has become much larger. Right now, bitcoin is like a penny stock and is easily manipulated by any sudden influx or removal of cash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hype Cycle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Value of currency is backed by real things
For virtual currencies, maintaining stable value is important. If you keep it's value stable for long enough, people might even willing to accept it as a form of real currency. The rise and fall earlier this year have squashed most of the trust people built to it.
Satoshi is right, inviting public entering the market prematurely has effectively killed the thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Value of currency is backed by real things
So do "real" currencies...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Value of currency is backed by real things
The correct amount of currency to have in circulation depends on how many people want to use it and how much each unit is valued. Bringing a new currency into circulation involves slowly releasing units at a rate that keeps each unit's value even. This requires adjusting the rate over time.
One problem with BitCoin was that the rate of release was mostly determined ahead of time and there was no way to significantly adjust the rate of release. When BitCoin was popular, there wasn't enough to go around and its value went up (too quickly). When BitCoin was unpopular, nobody wanted it and its value went down. This happens with real currencies, but with BitCoin the changes were far too wild to be absorbed by the BitCoin economy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Value of currency is backed by real things
No currency is backed by an organization, they are backed by the services other people(general public) are willing to trade for that currency.
The total currency in circulation is kind of managed by a central organization, but that has no direct relation to the currency's actual value, but is highly correlated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Value of currency is backed by real things
2. the "correct amount"? according to whom? is there some objective amount of currency that is the correct amount? are you the one that gets to decide that? or is there some metric that you arbitrarily decided would be best to maximize?
3. the more volatile something is, the more opportunity there is to make money off of it. stock brokers love volatile stocks, they make money off of them. if everything were steady, then stock brokers wouldnt exist.
4. there wasnt "enough to go around"? how much would be enough? do you decide that? do i? who decides that? is that decision objective? is that decision in the best interest of everyone? or just some people?
5. "too wild"? again, who decides this? is there some objective criteria that im not aware of? please let me know. i would love to attend these secret meetings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Value of currency is backed by real things
Perhaps there's another reason, such as excessive speculation (see also: Roulette Banking methods).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: boom and bust cycles
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, central banking has definitely maintained the stability of our currency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
State actors whom have the most to lose by the takeoff of bitcoin also have the most processing power. I cannot say whether they are actually going to use that power, but the system seems ripe for abuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Assumption:All the people mining bitcoin are trying to get a good value for their investment.
If your only goal is to undermine the currency and cost is not an object, you can put a disproportionate amount of processor power behind it all the time. The goal is not to get a good value for your mining activities, the goal is to hoard bitcoin until you reach a critical amount.
After you hoard enough, you can manufacture boom and bust cycles. If bitcoin doesn't act like a currency, it will not gain widespread adoption.
I'm not saying that this is actually happening. I don't know. It just seems like the system could easily be abused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You mean Namecoin?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This would be the case with ANY attempt at a new digital currency. The infrastructure for a new technology isn't built over-night, but in the case of bitcoin it's being worked on, and getting more useful every day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-checkmate-outsmart-intel-hdcp.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
held off, now i might just jump in
it looked good, and, from a consumer standpoint, i honestly was intrigued. the idea that i could pay, ANONYMOUSLY, was super-duper-awesome. via riaa/mpaa/fbi/nsa/timewarner and all that "watching" me.
now that things have settled? yeah, i think this morning i'll go to the site, get the client running on my two 5770's, and see "wahtz up".
#lolbbq
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's Think About Currency
Currency is a product that allows people and societies to avoid the transaction costs involved in barter. Some dimensions of currencies' utility include: liquidity/mass adoption, stable value/inflation resistance, surveillance resistance, seizure and theft resistance, convenience/speed/light weight, and a few other things I haven't thought of or remembered just now.
Bitcoin is better along some dimensions (e.g. highly inflation resistant, prospectively very convenient, and fairly surveillance and seizure resistant) and worse along other dimensions (highly illiquid as yet, and not very theft resistant - see 'cybersecurity,' including BitCoin7; MtGox was a close call, I guess). A lot of these things are technologically and socially determined, hence the "as yet"s and "propsectively," so I find the #Bitcoinfail meme at least premature. Status quo bias probably produced a #bottledwaterfail meme back in the day...
A notable theme here in the comments is that money requires central management. Study your history and you'll see that money came into existence spontaneously and without central management, and that fiat currency (i.e. centrally managed, with value established first by decree or law) always fails to maintain its value. The chart looks pretty much the same from the first fiat money issued in China thousands of years ago right up to Zimbabwe: a long slow decline, a hastening of the decline, sometimes a little recovery, then the value falls through the floor.
The value of money, just like everything else, rests on consensus. I think the question of where Bitcoin should be valued vis a vis other currencies and things will be socially and technologically determined by its "viscosity." If it's *only* used for transactions, it will have a low value compared to other things because it might be held for the hour or two it takes for a transaction to register and for the Bitcoin to be sold again. If it ends up sitting in people's wallet files (let's hope they know how to secure them), it will have a higher value compared to other things because there will be "less" of it around. Where it comes to rest doesn't matter. At scale, its value will be stable.
The alternative currency game is a long game that could take off incredibly quickly when the dollar and Euro make their way down the fiat money value curve. It's good to think ahead about what might happen in that event. Having a true online currency might be (and cause) a pretty cool shift in world history at that point.
So Bitcoin (and the underlying concept) are really interesting, important, and barely thought through yet. Here's hoping I get around to writing the definitive paper on it before the big monetary collapse!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's Think About Currency
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That answers your question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More Users Every Day
To me it doesn't seem like Bitcoin is failing. To me it just seems like the investors and speculators decided that they were done trying to make a quick buck off of a new currency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No need for a "next" Bitcoin, it can be extended.
If Bitcoin lives long enough for people to implement the most important additions, what could possibly stop it? The project is now already close to catching on in multiple markets; once critical mass is reached, there is absolutely no way back.
Note that bloggers declaring Bitcoin dead usually display extreme economic incompetence within the same post. Nobody can afford infinite volatility, and I don't remember a commodity that was killed by "hyperdeflation". Just nonsense by people who should think before they talk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
3: It's true that it might be a good commodity to speculate on, but that depends on why it's volatile. If you have better information and analysis than other short-term investors, you can outsmart them. High volatility is not a good thing for a currency though. Currency should have a mostly predictable value.
4: I think he means bitcoins were too scarce for people who wanted to enter the market. I don't really agree with that. Since Bitcoins are divisible to many decimal places, and are also inherently worthless, the whole demand could probably be satisfied with just a few coins in existence, split up among those who wanted to buy them.
5: Too wild for a currency.
What many gold hoarders and "end the fed" people don't realize is that the old gold and silver coins were actually worth more than metal they were printed on, because they were backed by fiat. The main value of money - beside being somewhat predictable in valuation and more convenient than barter - is that they are legal tender for all debts public and private. It's really the power of the government to tax and spend, and to enforce its policy through the executive branch and the courts, as well as its monetary policy, that gives money its value. The job of a good regulator, is to make sure that the value of money is kept in sync with the value of the economy of the country.
Once this is realized, you see how it's better to divorce the value of money from the value of a single commodity. Hence, fiat money.
Gold has industrial and artistic uses; by keeping it tied up in money you make it more expensive, thus artificially increasing the cost of electronics and avionics, impeding economic growth. Also, if large amounts of gold is found, or a cheap way to extract gold from sea water is invented, you would have massive inflation. Gold is better than bitcoin though, because gold is a very corrosion-resistant element, while bitcoin can be destroyed just by forgetting a password.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where did everyone go?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comments
the same high-grade web site post from you in the future also. Actually your
creative writing abilities has encouraged me to get my own web site going now.
Really blogging is spreading its wings and growing fast. Your write up is a great example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Entertainment Value
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hater's gonna hate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]