I thought I’d post an update. I haven’t posted for a couple of weeks, but for a good reason. As some of you might know, last month I decided to concentrate on research of Bitcoin full time and I left my job. Now I’m a full blown “Bitcoin economist”. What this means is that I read books all the time. Well, not entirely, I’ve also been spreading the word about Bitcoin among people, and trying to figure out how to earn money by doing research. I’ve also been working on my own book, which is an updated version of my master’s thesis with some enhancements and fixes. I’ve been invited to present at two other conferences this autumn (I’m not sure they have been announced yet by the organisers, one is in the USA being organised by Jeff Tucker, and one will be in Slovakia, organised by the F. A. Hayek foundation). If you want economic research or consulting about Bitcoin, let me know, I’m sure we can work something out.
I’m now at the airport in Vienna, waiting for a flight and hope to eventually arrive in San Jose, just in time for the Future of Payments Bitcoin conference, where I’ll be one of the panelists on the Economics panel on Saturday between 4pm and 5pm. Some of you might be at the conference too, so I’m looking forward to meeting you.
Earlier this week, I had the opportunity to meet one of the leading proponents of free market money, professor George Selgin. I corresponded with him before about economic aspects of Bitcoin and I quote him in my thesis, and after I found out he was going to have a lecture not very far from where I live, I registered and attended. I also briefly spoke to him, and it was very fruitful and helped me to understand some of his positions better. For example, on several occasions in the past as well as during the lecture, he claimed to have objections against Bitcoin. It wasn’t entirely clear to me, I though that he had both macroeconomic objections (the evolution of the money supply does not follow the ideal of the freebanking branch of the Austrian school) as well as objections to its future as a medium of exchange. It turns out that it was only the former. He now clarified that he does not know how Bitcoin will evolve as a medium of exchange (he made a joke that if he did, he wouldn’t be lecturing but rather talking to his broker). Just like me (and Rothbard in The Case for Genuine Gold Dollar) he thinks that people do not choose a medium of exchange based on price stability (or macroeconomic criteria in general), and that the analysis of macroeconomic features of media of exchange and their acceptance by the market are two separate questions. He also replied to some other things I asked him, but I’m not going to post it here yet, rather I want to integrate it into my book.
I have several draft posts related to Bitcoin, some are boring and abstract, some are new and interesting, I’ll update and post them as time progresses. Don’t worry, I haven’t forgot about the readers of my blog.
Congratulations on making the plunge, that must have been a hard choice. I'll be at the conference and look forward to the opportunity to meet in person.
Safe Travels!
Actually the choice wasn't that difficult since I can scarcely think about anything else than Bitcoin. Just ask my wife :-).
Now just to get some food and then I'll head for the conference.
I know that feeling… My wife probably thinks I've decided to never make money again. (Until I convince her that bitcoin IS money… Then she should be less worried.) 😉
Anyway, I'm really glad to have you on team Bitcoin and will be reading your thesis in-depth. I just so happened to write a post on my blog back in March called "Why Austrians are Wrong about Bitcoin."
Yours is better; but perhaps I ferreted out a few reasons you missed.
Thank you I will check it out.
bitcoinfinger,
I don't think it was ever about Austrians vs bitcoin. Some of the most raging supporters of bitcoin are Austrians. At the end of the day, we are all individuals with our own opinions. There are some Austrians that I have the utmost respect for, such as Mark Thornton. On the other hand, there are Austrians with terrible track records and sloppy reasoning. Overall, I think mises.org did the right thing in publishing my article. It allowed the real adherents to cash out before the devil took the hindmost, which was my original intention. I'd rather people buy low instead of buying high and hoping to sell higher. I saw a lot of Austrias get burned in silver during 2011 and didn't want the same thing to happen to them again.
Peter,
You once mentioned that it is not a good idea to put all your eggs in one basket. Are you not essentially doing just that by deciding to "concentrate on research of Bitcoin full time"?
If people bought Bitcoin the day you published your article on seekingalpha and sold when it was published on mises.org, they would make a profit of 435%. The price today is still 250% over what it was when the article first appeared. But most importantly, the theoretical analysis of Bitcoin and the investment strategy are two entirely separate strands of methodology.
That's an interesting point, but it's not like I need to forget all my other skills, burn all the bridges and liquidate all my assets in order to switch a career. Also, once again there is a dichotomy in methodology. My potential career as a researcher does not depend on Bitcoin being a good investment strategy. Rather it is a demonstration of entrepreneurship that Bitcoin triggers.
'If people bought Bitcoin the day you published your article on seekingalpha and sold when it was published on mises.org, they would make a profit of 435%'
Interestingly, I did just that but with litecoins during that stretch of time and made over ten times that amount of return.
In any case, I wasn't trying to catch the top with my seeking alpha article nor the mises.org one. I consider the fact that I was early to call the bubble a great thing. It means I saw the dynamics forming ahead of time. My most recent article is on a company called Planetary Resources, which I don't expect to turn into a bubble for years. That being said, I fully expect the price of bitcoin to retreat further.
The price of bitcoin certainly is relevant as far its viability is concerned. If interest had continued to grow at its pre-bubble stable rate, it would today be higher. Instead, interest went parabolic and utterly collapsed after the price had. I expect interest to keep shrinking until EOY, instead of continuing to grow which is what would have happened absent the bubble.
Your "counterargument" with litecoin is a non-sequitur. Instead of admitting that empirical data does not match your theory, you switch to a new one.
The price of Bitcoin goes up and down all the time. That particular two points in time have a particular ratio is meaningless and cannot be used to evaluate the validity of a theory.
The relevant factor for the perspective of Bitcoin, as well as an indicator of its utility isn't the price but liquidity.
But I already explained this to you. What you're doing is designing an investment strategy. It may or may not work out. You're not performing an economic analysis. You're not using the categories of human action developed by Menger or Mises.
This blog is named "Economics of Bitcoin". It's not named "Bitcoin investment strategy".
'The price of Bitcoin goes up and down all the time'
You can use a weekly or a monthly chart to smooth out the volatility. Better yet, simply look at google trends. There is hardly any volatility in the data at all, just two bubbles.
http://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=bitcoin#q=bitcoin&cmpt=q
The title 'bitcoin bubble 2.0' was more than appropriate according to the the empirical data. Moreover, I called the second bubble before interest really started taking off.
'Instead of admitting that empirical data does not match your theory, you switch to a new one'
Once again, look at the google trends chart. I predicted the batman formation before it even happened. My theory (and the article which you criticized) was that bitcoin will bubble for the second time. There are still people around who don't yet realize that bitcoin was in fact in a bubble, I just didn't think you were one of them. Your initial argument vs my article was that price is irrelevant. I would yet again invite you to look at google trends for a bit.
'The relevant factor for the perspective of Bitcoin, as well as an indicator of its utility isn't the price but liquidity'
When it comes to bitcoin, price is liquidity. The market cap has shrunk over 50% and still has a long way to shrink.
'This blog is named "Economics of Bitcoin". It's not named "Bitcoin investment strategy'
The economics of bitcoin is that it was viewed as an asset, not as a medium of exchange. Those which insist that this is not so are in contradiction with the vast majority of bitcoiners. The reason why interest has collapsed and continues to collapse is because price has. This is a matter of empirical record, one which I saw ex ante.
Your interpretation of volatility is arbitrary and assembled ex-post in oder to match your argument. If you look at what you actually said, you failed. The price of Bitcoin is still higher than when you claimed it was a bubble on seekingalpha, the price (or liquidity) of altcoins did not exceed that of Bitcoin, and Bitcoin is still evolving as a medium of exchange (into the direction of money).
Paradoxically, the "market capitalisation" of ripples is actually higher than that of Bitcoin (and has been for about 2 months now), but their most liquid market is against BTC, not against the dollar. In other words, ripple, similarly as most altcoins, piggyback on Bitcoin's liquidity. Many of them don't even trade against the dollar at all. They can't exceed the liquidity of Bitcoin until they can piggyback on the dollar instead of Bitcoin, i.e. shift their markets, irrespective of their price.
That you were able to make profitable investments does not fix any of the errors in your argument, or supplement for the lack of a theory.
I don't deny that particular interpretations of your "predictions" are consistent with empirical data. I rather question the economic relevance and scientific foundation of your approach.
Price is not liquidity. These are different phenomena, as explained above.
That some people view Bitcoin as an asset does contradict its economic analysis from the point of view as a medium of exchange.
‘The price of Bitcoin is still higher than when you claimed it was a bubble on seekingalpha, the price (or liquidity) of altcoins did not exceed that of Bitcoin, and Bitcoin is still evolving as a medium of exchange (into the direction of money)’
You are assuming that price, and therefore interest, aren’t going a lot lower going forward. The liquidity of altcoins is a separate and long-term argument against bitcoin. Once digital currencies start to gain traction again in a year or so, and I fully expect that they will, then this longer-term argument will come into play.
‘Paradoxically, the "market capitalisation" of ripples is actually higher than that of Bitcoin (and has been for about 2 months now), but their most liquid market is against BTC, not against the dollar. In other words, ripple, similarly as most altcoins, piggyback on Bitcoin's liquidity. Many of them don't even trade against the dollar at all. They can't exceed the liquidity of Bitcoin until they can piggyback on the dollar instead of Bitcoin, i.e. shift their markets, irrespective of their price’
Bitcoin vs Ripple is an insignificant argument. It is like trying to figure out whether mtgox or bitstamp will end up being the dominant exchange. I suspect that at the end of the day neither of them will end up being the blue chip. Instead, it will be something completely new that is not on the scene yet. Amazon coins, ripple, that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
‘That you were able to make profitable investments does not fix any of the errors in your argument, or supplement for the lack of a theory’
My argument was that bitcoin was forming a second bubble. I fully understand that it hasn’t sunk in yet for a lot of folks but it should be obvious at this point that it was in fact a bubble. My article wasn’t about trying to explain the underlying theory, which would turn into a book.
‘I don't deny that particular interpretations of your "predictions" are consistent with empirical data. I rather question the economic relevance and scientific foundation of your approach’
I predicted (1) a bubble in bitcoin, (2) a subsequent dead cat bounce, and (3) a phase of watching paint dry, which is a very slow, gradual, and boring decline in price. The charts show that I was right on all three counts. Moreover, I also predicted a batman formation to develop in google trends, with the second spike being somewhat higher. Some have accused me of being wrong because I was too early, but I wasn’t trying to catch the top with any of my articles. My decision to short at $49/btc was based on technical analysis, and it paid during the so-called fork. I haven’t shorted since because I saw the big time pump and dumpers like Max Keiser getting in. So I played the game via litecoins until my article on mises.org came out.
‘Price is not liquidity’
I’ve explained this before the data even justified my view. As far as bitcoin is concerned, price is liquidity. The reason is that falling prices lead to falling interest.
‘That some people view Bitcoin as an asset does contradict its economic analysis from the point of view as a medium of exchange’
Most people
Fact 1: the price is still higher than when you called a bubble
Fact 2: the price is still higher than when you called a dead cat bounce
Fact 3: both are irrelevant for economic analysis
I don't have time for your nonsense anymore. I already addressed those of your points that are related to economics step by step and refuted them.
F1/F2: So what happens if and when the price falls below that point? Will it be appropriate to call it a bubble then? Moreover, a bubble does not imply that prices must be lower afterwards than prior to the bubble, that is a strawman. US housing prices are higher today than they were a decade ago, but virtually no one will deny that we did in fact go through a housing bubble in between.
F3: Google trends says otherwise. Prices are very relevant.
Bitcoin is down on the week and down on the month. In May of 2014 it will be lower than in May of 2013. I knew interest would rapidly decline because I knew bitcoin was in a bubble. I knew bitcoin was a bubble because I do not neglect prices nor the movement of prices.
http://irights.info/bitcoin-jemand-wird-fur-die-spekulationen-bezahlen-mussen
If price falls below those two points, exactly nothing will happen, which is my whole point.
Actually, your initial beef with my article was that prices are irrelevant as far as adaptability is concerned. This is provably wrong. Falling prices = falling interest.
Interest is down over 90% over the past 3 months from the peak.
http://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=bitcoin#q=bitcoin&date=today%203-m&cmpt=q
The time to get involved in bitcoin is before a bubble inflates, and certainly not after it pops, and certainly not full time after it pops.
The companies that provide Bitcoin related services have received millions (USD) in venture capital to expand the quality of their service, the number of merchants accepting Bitcoin is skyrocketing and integration services such as Gyft, BitSpend or Foodler allow Bitcoin to be spent in your favourite place. There are millions of products and hundreds thousands of merchants that are reachable for those using Bitcoin. And this is accessible for anyone, anywhere. This is what is relevant for the future of Bitcoin.
All of this is a waste of money, energy, and especially time without a consumer at the end of the chain. There were plenty of people setting up shop after silver popped in early May of 2011 thinking it was a simple correction. One example would be Mike Maloney, who has been wasting time as a silver retailer ever since. The man even had to resort to selling jewellery (much higher margins above spot) to make ends meet. Interest in bitcoin has to stop collapsing in order for all these VC's and businesses to make money. In other words, the price of bitcoin must stop falling and start rising. The problem with this is that bitcoin is still technically overvalued.
Likewise but in reverse, there are literally billions (USD) pouring into natural gas related investments such as electrical generators, all predicated on the wrong assumption that US natural gas prices will stay low forever. All of these investments will turn out to be malinvestments once US natural gas prices return to world levels (they are already up over 100% since reaching a low last year).
Silver does not decrease transaction costs compared to existing systems or the fiat monetary base. So order for silver to replace existing payment systems, they would need to collapse first. Similarly as, for example, for a fax to replace the internet, the internet would need to collapse first. With cryptocurrencies this obstacle does not exist.
The investments into Bitcoin companies make Bitcoin more efficient, and efficiency is the relevant competitive factor. The already existing transaction cost advantage of Bitcoin thus grows even larger, opening up more potential market segments. None of this depends on the price of Bitcoin being "high" or growing. The internet is a better analogy than natural gas here. Internet access has become cheaper and at the same time more efficient, even though there was a dot com bubble and some business plans were not profitable (irrespenctive of malinvestments caused by credit expansion). Some internet companies are highly profitable and have high market share, such as google, facebook or apple. But without a common standard (which is colloquially called "the internet"), these companies could not even exist. If there was no "internet", there would be a different standard.
Bitcoin is such a standard. It is decentralised and open source. I couldn't find enough data, but I would hazard a guess that while internet access and services have gotten cheaper, at the same time, IP addresses have gotten more expensive, because they have built in scarcity, however NAT reduced the scarcity and price. The price of Bitcoin is better seen as the price of IP addresses, not as dot com stock.
Silver wasn't looked upon as money by actual participants, that was the PR being thrown around by those who were selling it. The participants bought silver because the price was going up and they hoped the price would keep going up. Same story with bitcoin. As a result of the price collapse, interest in bitcoin has collapsed.
Anthony Gallippi correctly mentions at 33:05 that the highest amount of bitcoin spending is during days when the price of bitcoin is going up due to the wealth effect.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNXZKwR6Lio
As I said, in order for bitcoin to thrive as a currency, interest in bitcoin must rise. In order for interest in bitcoin to rise, so must the price. Gold has a place in the international monetary system by virtue of its institutional role as a reserve asset for central banks, although it does not threaten the dollar as a reserve currency. Neither silver nor bitcoin are even on the map as far as the international monetary system is concerned. Amazon coins have a better chance of becoming a medium of exchange, but certainly won't threaten anything.
This whole peer-to-peer thing is way overblown. Just as an example, over a decade ago there was a company called BlastOff! BlastOff! was meant to get the first private mission to land on the moon. The company incorporated, or was meant to, a mix of entertainment, internet, and space exploration. Like PRI, BlastOff! consisted of some of the brightest minds from NASA, JPL, and Hollywood. BlastOff! was eventually spun off into Desktop.tv, which sought to provide a global peer-to-peer television network for broadcasting unique content. Television doesn't work peer-to-peer, neither does money.
First of all, you did not address any of the points that I made. Second of all, the market capitalisation of Bitcoin is already larger than money supply of several countries. So no, the causal connections you portray do not exist.
I think you meant to write the GDP of several countries.
(1) the market cap of bitcoin has shrunk over 60% since the bubble peak
(2) the market cap will continue to shrink until bitcoin is no longer technically overvalued
(3) there are literally thousands of companies with a market cap larger than 'several countries'
(4) a billion dollars on the forex market is not even a drop in the bucket
I would advise you to not put all your eggs into one basket. We are in the 5th year of a boom that will end by no later than mid 2014. One of the greatest assets one can have is a secure job. No point in wasting time on something for which interest is shrinking every day.
No I do not mean GDP, I mean money supply.
You still repeat your core error, the relevance of the price of Bitcoin for utility. It's nonsensical and I refuted it several times over. You still show no sign of comprehension of human action outside of the ream of conducting an investment strategy.
'No I do not mean GDP, I mean money supply'
Wonderful
'You still repeat your core error, the relevance of the price of Bitcoin for utility'
Falling prices = falling interest = falling utilization of bitcoin
Not all that complicated, certainly not complicated enough to research the thing full time after it has popped.
The use of Bitcoin as a medium of exchange has been growing ever since its price emerged almost four years ago. It grew when the price went up, it grew when the price went down, and it grew when the price was stable. There are more and more services and users, it's easier and cheaper to use. I have been researching these developments for over two years, communicated with probably hundreds of the people involved and tried many of these services myself. So no, you're wrong. The link you portray is absent. Your unwillingness to address human action outside of the scope of investment strategy planning is boring me, because it is outside of the scope of my research and my expertise.
'The use of Bitcoin as a medium of exchange has been growing ever since its price emerged almost four years ago'
(1) The use of bitcoin certainly shrunk from June 2011 until 2012. I saw it first hand, with actual stores stopping the acceptance of bitcoin. There is no coincidence that this was after bitcoin bubble 1.0 popped.
(2) Its price emerged as a result of a pizza trade, not as an industrial good. I'm not one to argue whether the regression theorem is valid or not, it may very well not be. However, by definition, bitcoin violates the regression theorem.
(3) You originally claimed that there was no link between price and interest, and even went so far as to claim that the relationship between those two was the opposite because of someone you knew who was doing "academic research". It should be blatantly obvious at this point that there in fact is a link between price and interest, and that interest follows price, and that interest has utterly collapsed.
(4) You don't need to communicate with "probably hundreds of the people involved", just take it from Anthony Gallippi himself: people spend the most when the price goes up. When bitcoin shrinks and stays under the $1 billion mark, which is psychologically important, I suspect the price decline will accelerate.
1. your claim of this trend is clearly contradicted by empirical data. One source is the list of merchants listed on the Bitcoin wiki compiled by Spekulatius and later bb113, available at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=35083. BitPay launched their system in July 2011, just after the bubble burst, and I recall Tony reporting at the Prague conference at the end of November 2011, shortly after the price reached a local minimum at shortly below 2USD/BTC, having about 100 customers. My memory might be hazy, but he definitely reported having some customers (which according to your theory would be impossible, because during this time the price was falling while the number of customers rose). He also provided the payment system for the restaurant where the conference kickoff was (it didn't work very well due to flaky wireless and I had to pay with a debit card, as did many if not most other participants). As one of the best Bitcoin journalists, Vitalik Buterin, reports in http://bitcoinmagazine.com/bitpay-breaks-daily-volume-record-with-butterfly-asic-mining-release/ , the amount BitPay processed rose between March and May 2012 by a factor of 15 and broke a daily record on June 26 as a result of Buttefly Labs opening preorders. However, during this period (in particular until May) the price of Bitcoin was unprecedentedly stable (I remember this because I analysed this period in my thesis). Also, some of the major announcements in accepting Bitcoin such as WordPress occurred around the end of 2012 when the price wasn't changing much either. In other words, your claim is a pure fabrication. That a particular company stops accepting Bitcoin is an anecdote, not data. Especially if said company does not fall into some of the categories that can reasonably expect a clear business advantage (a decrease in transaction costs) I am not surprised if they stop accepting Bitcoin when the publicity cools down. As is demonstrated by my own experience from said conference, this could very well be a malinvestment. Bitcoin POS solutions might not be mature enough for general use at this time (maybe they are now, I haven't looked at them in a long time), but online shop integration is a no-brainer.
2. price did not emerge as a result of a pizza trade (I suspect you mean the pizza ordered by Laszlo for 10.000 BTC in May 2010), rather the other way around, the pizza trade was only possible because Bitcoin at that time already had a market price and liquidity. Only because it was possible to regress the price and liquidity of Bitcoin through callactic phenomena from May 2010 backwards, it was logically possible to use it as a medium of exchange at that time. The regression theorem was addressed not only by me but also by Graf and Murphy. The claim that Bitcoin violates regression theorem is methodologically absurd, akin to arguing that GPS cannot work because the earth is flat. Adding "by definition" does not preempt an error in an argument.
3. what you ascribe to me bears little resemblance to what I actually said
4. if the price of Bitcoin rises, then the transaction volume processed by BitPay also rises even if there is no change in behaviour of users (velocity of circulation), because the Bitcoin holdings are worth more. This is elementary math and demonstrates the faulty logic. The velocity (or at least its in my opinion closest model) indeed rises during the highs, but it also rises at other times, and overall it seems to be comparable to broader monetary aggregates of dollar and euro, as I reported in my thesis. But whether the velocity changes or not, my main point here in (4) is that your logic is flawed: if the USD volume processed by BitPay rises when the Bitcoin price rises, it does not follow that the behaviour of the holders of Bitcoin changes. Despite your self proclaimed skill with logic, what you present here is a non-sequtur, one of basic logical fallacies.
‘One source is the list of merchants listed on the Bitcoin wiki compiled by Spekulatius and later bb113, available at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=35083’
Neither the graphs nor the data any longer exist. Moreover, acceptance of bitcoin is quite different from actual use of bitcoin. I would once again refer you to Anthony Gallippi, the CEO at BitPay. He makes it crystal clear that the most amount of spending happens on days when the price goes up due to the wealth effect, and that this logic works in reverse i.e., when the price is shrinking there is less and less spending.
‘As one of the best Bitcoin journalists, Vitalik Buterin, reports in http://bitcoinmagazine.com/bitpay-breaks-daily-volume-record-with-butterfly-asic-mining-release/ , the amount BitPay processed rose between March and May 2012 by a factor of 15 and broke a daily record on June 26 as a result of Buttefly Labs opening preorders. However, during this period (in particular until May) the price of Bitcoin was unprecedentedly stable (I remember this because I analysed this period in my thesis)’
The mining aspect of bitcoin is part of the gold-rush mechanism. People mine the stuff in hopes that the price will appreciate i.e., capital gains. The major profits have already been made in mining by those who mined for pennies on the dollar in 2010 and 2011. Everyone else is a later comer. The people getting into mining today are wasting money, time, and resources. Furthermore, I shop online everyday and so does virtually everyone at my company. Not a single person here would prefer to *use* bitcoins, although some of them here *held* bitcoins in the past for capital appreciation.
‘That a particular company stops accepting Bitcoin is an anecdote, not data’
Once again, acceptance and use are two different things. There can be no doubt that when prices fall, so does interest, and so does aggregate spending.
‘The claim that Bitcoin violates regression theorem is methodologically absurd, akin to arguing that GPS cannot work because the earth is flat. Adding "by definition" does not preempt an error in an argument’
Your analogy makes no sense. I trust the likes of Joe Salerno, who actually specializes in money from an Austrian perspective, far more than someone who is attempting to justify bitcoin ex post facto. Did bitcoin have any industrial-use value prior to becoming a pump and dump scheme / quasi-medium of exchange? The answer is no, it had no industrial-use value and still has none.
‘what you ascribe to me bears little resemblance to what I actually said’
You stated that price was an irrelevant factor. You also stated that you knew someone who was doing “academic research” and that they were under the impression that price follows interest. It should be crystal clear at this point that there is a relationship between price and interest. Moreover, it should also be crystal clear at this point that interest follows price, and not the other way around.
‘if the price of Bitcoin rises, then the transaction volume processed by BitPay also rises even if there is no change in behaviour of users (velocity of circulation), because the Bitcoin holdings are worth more”
Actually, Anthony Gallippi goes out of his way to point out that when bitcoin prices are rising there is increased spending in nominal bitcoin amounts. This is the classic wealth effect in action, which typically applies to stocks and real estate.
‘Despite your self proclaimed skill with logic, what you present here is a non-sequtur, one of basic logical fallacies’
Would there be more or less users of bitcoin today had interest kept rising instead of utterly collapsing? I don’t think anyone could honestly say that there would be LESS users if interest kept rising parabolically. Thus, it is de facto incorrect to claim that prices are irrelevant. You were wrong.
http://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=bitcoin#q=bitcoin&cmpt=q
I checked and both the charts and the data are right there, staring you in the face.
I provided data with respect to BitPay that contradicts your theory and you failed to address it.
While I agree regarding the spike due to Butterfly Labs preorders, kindly note that yet again you switched your argument in the middle instead of acknowledging the flaw in your original argument. You do this all the time and that is why I'm having trouble taking you seriously.
Regarding the regression theorem and other theoretical analysis of Bicoin I am sorry to say that in this case you're clueless about Austrian economic theory and epistemology. As Graf insightfully pointed out, rather than justify Bitcoin, the role of an economist must be to explain it. In order to understand why it is methodologically absurd to attempt to use theory to refute it, I kindly refer you to "Mises on Mind and Method" by Daniel Sanchez. With respect to Salerno, I read many of his publications, but I have no idea what he thinks about Bitcoin because he hasn't published anything about it and he ignored and ridiculed my attempts to discuss it with him. But at best your "argument" is an argument from authority, a fallacy.
My argument that price is irrelevant was mentioned in a specific context and you're attempting to apply it outside of this context. I have explained my position regarding the correlation of price and google trends in my thesis and provided an econometric analysis of it. A more thorough econometric analysis was performed by a group of students in a publicly downloadable paper "Bits and Bets – Information, Price Volatility, and Demand for Bitcoin". What have you done on the other hand is a couple of bets on the exchanges.
While the correlation between google trends and price might be relevant for an investor, for an economist not so much, because this principle underlies the whole concept of liquidity. All liquid goods, including money, are always partially overvalued over their long term equilibrium.
Your anecdote about online shopping is just that, an anecdote, and lacks both empirical and theoretical background. It is inductive reasoning, a hasty generalisation fallacy. Back around 1990, one of my classmates got excited in class how great it is to have books available on a computer, and the teacher asked "but what if I don't have a computer"? That's the same logical error, even though it might have been relevant for that person at that time. It's a context issue.
I'm calling a bluff on your empirical claims and will ignore them until you provide proper quantitative research, gather the data and calculate correlations. Your theory is nonexistent and so is your data. What you have is anecdotes and an overinflated ego that you parade outside of your area of expertise.
‘I checked and both the charts and the data are right there, staring you in the face’
All I see is a chart that shows July 2011 @ 640 and October 2012 @ 571. Just in case you may not know this, 571 is a lower number than 640. In other words, there was a decline in the rate of growth within that 15 month range of btc accepting merchants. Moreover, acceptance and actual use are very different things.
‘I provided data with respect to BitPay that contradicts your theory and you failed to address it’
Not sure what exactly you are referring to. However, my theory was that bitcoin was in a second bubble. Moreover, I made the assertion that interest follows price. I get my stuff regarding BitPay from the CEO himself.
‘While I agree regarding the spike due to Butterfly Labs preorders, kindly note that yet again you switched your argument in the middle instead of acknowledging the flaw in your original argument. You do this all the time and that is why I'm having trouble taking you seriously’
(1) I didn’t mention Butterfly Labs preorders once, so you are agreeing with yourself / ignoratio elenchi.
(2) My argument was that acceptance and actual use of bitcoin are two different things.
‘I kindly refer you to "Mises on Mind and Method" by Daniel Sanchez. With respect to Salerno, I read many of his publications, but I have no idea what he thinks about Bitcoin because he hasn't published anything about it and he ignored and ridiculed my attempts to discuss it with him. But at best your "argument" is an argument from authority, a fallacy’
Daniel Sanchez is the one who approached me to publish my piece on mises.org. Neither myself, Salerno, nor Sanchez think bitcoin is an actual money. There have been numerous experiments during halloween where a particular candy becomes the medium of exchange amongst the kids. However, this fleeting medium of exchange is more or less a temporary fad, like bitcoin amongst lowlives. Unlike Salerno and Sanchez, I actually believe digital currencies are the wave of the future. Yet, I hardly think bitcoin will come out as the victor. I suspect Amazon coin will have a larger market cap than bitcoin by the end of the year, and Amazon coin is just the tip of the iceberg.
* I find it peculiar how you once again dodge my question regarding the regression theorem and instead call me clueless. What industrial-use value has bitcoin ever had? The regression theorem refers to commodity money, bitcoin is neither a commodity nor money proper.
‘My argument that price is irrelevant was mentioned in a specific context and you're attempting to apply it outside of this context’
The “specific context” was that the price-bubble was irrelevant. It obviously wasn’t, both you and the other clown (if he/she exists) doing “academic research” trying to claim that price follows interest were proven wrong: interest didn’t start collapsing until AFTER the price started collapsing.
http://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=bitcoin#q=bitcoin&cmpt=q
‘What have you done on the other hand is a couple of bets on the exchanges’
Unlike someone else, I have a full-time job and like to submerge myself in all sorts of topics. I follow numerous markets, economists, economies, and asset classes. I wrote about a bubble in bitcoin which turned out to happen, a subsequent dead cat bounce which also turned out to happen, a subsequent paint-dry phase which is also turning out to happen, and also called the batman formation in google trends which also turned out to happen. As far as bitcoin forecasts are concerned, I certainly did better than 99% of the bitcoiners out there. Just because I dedicated a fraction of my time to bitcoin does not make my analysis inferior. The labor theory of value is invalid, and so is that whole nonsense about prices being irrelevant. I suggest you give Socialism by Ludwig von Mises a read.
‘While the correlation between google trends and price might be relevant for an investor, for an economist not so much, because this principle underlies the whole concept of liquidity’
Actually, at first you were questioning whether or not there was in fact a correlation (there is). Moreover, a falling price implies a lower market cap, which inevitably means less liquidity. I know of no asset, be it a stock, a bond, a futures market, an ETF, or an ETN that was more liquid with a smaller market cap. This time is not different.
‘Back around 1990, one of my classmates got excited in class how great it is to have books available on a computer, and the teacher asked "but what if I don't have a computer"? That's the same logical error, even though it might have been relevant for that person at that time. It's a context issue’
I actually agree with the implication that you are making. The reason why people aren’t using digital currencies yet is the same reason people weren’t using e-mail as much 15 years ago, because they weren’t looking forward. As I said, I believe digital currencies are the wave of the future. However, one has to realize that AoL may very well go bankrupt while e-mailing in general rises exponentially. Bitcoin is not e-mailing itself, it is simply one of many (to come) digital currencies. In the greater scheme of things, mtgox and bitcoin will be irrelevant.
‘I'm calling a bluff on your empirical claims and will ignore them until you provide proper quantitative research, gather the data and calculate correlations’
You accuse me of induction and yet ignore an important question based on reason: Would there be more or less users of bitcoin today had interest kept rising instead of utterly collapsing?
If the answer is more, then you are de facto admitting that interest (and therefore price) is relevant towards usability.
Spekulatius stopped updating the chart, but bb113 continued updating his. The source for this data is publicly available. Additions appear to happen gradually, but deletions abruptly. The page was at one time edited due to a policy change and now excludes services and goods which are illegal anywhere, which would explain an apparent drop. The chart by bb113 shows the upward trends clearer than the one by Spekulatius.
If your mention of mining was unrelated to Butterfly Lab preorders, then your argument is a non-sequitur.
I do not think that I ever claimed that Bitcoin is money. I have been accused of holding this position quite often and it just shows the clueless my opponent is. I don't know what Sanchez thinks about Bitcoin either, other than he just like Salerno ridiculed my attempt to discuss it with him. If Sanchez or Salerno argue however that the regression theorem is about sustainability, they are wrong and I addressed this point in my thesis. Which apparently you still haven't read and continue wasting my time instead.
Amazon coin is just a money substitute and it's a centralised system belonging to one company. It provides no advantage over Bitcoin. You already can buy Amazon vouchers with Bitcoin, and BitPay integrates "Fulfillment by Amazon" with their system. XBox live points are being discontinued and facebook credits don't exist anymore.
Regression theorem I addressed several times, on mises.org forums, in a comment thread with you and in my thesis. Stop lying.
I'm not commenting on your empirical arguments anymore and instead ask you to provide proper scientific data gathering and correlation analysis.
I have no problem with you making predictions or that they can sometimes be interpreted as being consistent with data, or that you were able to earn money or your predictions. It's your reasoning that is nonsensical, and your attempt to apply your arguments outside of the areas they are meaningful, and that you still maintain nonsensical and incoherent positions despite clear refutations. And that you refuse to address points when you're cornered.
I do not recall questioning whether there is a correlation between google trends and the price of bitcoin, indeed I analyse this in my thesis.
With respect to the number of Bitcoin users, I'll instead point out that the velocity of Bitcoin, which I analyse in my thesis, is similar to that of broader monetary aggregates of US dollar and Euro. While there are issues with the model that I'm using, I hazard a claim that it's more representative and scientific than looking at what is essentially a forex chart.
‚If your mention of mining was unrelated to Butterfly Lab preorders, then your argument is a non-sequitur.‘
So anything related to mining that is not about Butterfly Lab preorders automatically becomes a non-sequitur. Interesting. People mine the stuff in hopes of getting rich. The early birds did, the late comers will not.
‚I do not think that I ever claimed that Bitcoin is money.‘
but you also wrote:
‚But unlike freebanking and IP, Bitcoin does not give a f*** what the Misesians thinks about it, because it already works‘
Works as what? If the answer is as a medium of exchange, then the stuff is not even on par with token money. In fact, the regression theorem is completely irrelevant since it applies to commodity money, bitcoin is neither a commodity nor money. In fact, it is hardly a medium of exchange.
‚If Sanchez or Salerno argue however that the regression theorem is about sustainability‘
Are you kidding me? In every single one of our exchanges I mention that the regression theorem states that a commodity must first have industrial-use value prior to attaining exchange-value. They simply argue that bitcoin is not money, and can never be classified as a commodity money.
‚Amazon coin is just a money substitute and it's a centralised system belonging to one company. It provides no advantage over Bitcoin‘
Sure it does, the same way Amazon prime provides an advantage if you use Amazon frequently. In any case, you are looking at the leaves instead of the forest as a whole. Digital currencies, centralized, decentralized, or what I believe will eventually win out: hybrids, all fall into the same category of modern day alchemy.
‚Regression theorem I addressed several times, on mises.org forums, in a comment thread with you and in my thesis. Stop lying‘
Feel free to answer the question that I have not gotten an answer to as of yet: What industrial use value has bitcoin ever had?
‘I'm not commenting on your empirical arguments anymore and instead ask you to provide proper scientific data gathering and correlation analysis.‘
This is the 90 day chart of bitcoin on google trends. Notice how the price collapses BEFORE interest does. Thus, interest follows price. Contrary to that someone you know who was doing „academic research“. Further notice how interest has utterly collapsed since the price stopped rising parabolically. It is down over 90% since the peak over the past 90 day period. Ouch.
http://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=bitcoin#q=bitcoin&date=today%203-m&cmpt=q
‘I do not recall questioning whether there is a correlation between google trends and the price of bitcoin, indeed I analyse this in my thesis‘
I pointed to your thesis during our exchanges and wondered in amazement how you could consider price as irrelevant, considering there in fact is a correlation. And yes, you did state that price was irrelevant. In fact, you stated that it was „completely irrelevant“ in your initial blog about my bitcoin piece. Considering interest is down over 90% over the past 3 months, maybe, just maybe, price isn’t completely irrelevant. If bitcoin infrastructure keeps growing but interest does not, then you have a major malinvestment on your hands. We can only know if interest will grow by looking at the price and doing technical analysis. I know the answer.
Mining: you're avoiding the core issue with is the lack of coherence in your argument flow.
Works as what: read my thesis rather than expect me to supplement your lazyness.
Regression theorem: that's not what regression theorem says. That's an alleged corollary often confused with the theorem itself. But the problem is the suddenly when Bitcoin appears, people forget all the work that Menger and Mises did on the monetary theory and magically chant "regression theorem" as some sort of spell to protect against the devil. It's unscientific. But others appear to handle it genuinly, like Murphy or Graf. I attempt to handle it deeply and thoroughly and if other don't like it, that's their problem.
Amazon coins are not a disruptive improvement, but a sustaining improvement, to use Christensen's terminology. And I'm not even sure about that. What's interesting for an economist is that they are a money substitute (and most Austrians would question even that because there's no redeemability). I mean just look at their T&C:
"Coins cannot be resold, transferred for value, redeemed for cash or applied to any other account, except to the extent required by law. We may limit the number of Coins you can purchase or receive within certain periods of time, or implement other restrictions on the receipt or use of Coins."
"Limited to U.S."
"Any dispute or claim arising from or relating to the Agreement or the Program is subject to the binding arbitration, governing law, disclaimer of warranties and all other terms in the Amazon.com Conditions of Use"
This is supposed to be a competitor to Bitcoin? Now it's my time to ridicule. Ha Ha Ha.
Bitcoin had the industrial value of making morons angry and make them expose their stupidity, and it clearly still works.
‘Works as what: read my thesis rather than expect me to supplement your lazyness’
Laziness*
‘It's unscientific. But others appear to handle it genuinly, like Murphy or Graf. I attempt to handle it deeply and thoroughly and if other don't like it, that's their problem’
Genuinely*
So the people who are sympathetic towards bitcoin happen to be the deeper thinkers, how convenient. Let us not forget that Murphy questioned Schiff and Thornton about the housing bubble, or that Murphy claimed there would be a hyperinflation by 2010. At least the more upfront pro-bitcoin Austrians claim that the theorem is irrelevant or invalid, instead of trying all sorts of mental gymnastics in order to make it fit. Your reluctance to answer the question regarding industrial use value despite all of our exchanges is proof enough. The reason why that question cannot be answered is because bitcoin never had any industrial use value. Exchange values and industrial use values are objective observations, as opposed to value itself, which is determined subjectively.
‘This is supposed to be a competitor to Bitcoin? Now it's my time to ridicule. Ha Ha Ha.’
I agree, Amazon coins are a joke as far as money is concerned. However, they are a competitor to bitcoin. It is very likely that the market cap for Amazon coins will exceed that of bitcoin by EOY, with the former rising and the latter shrinking. I am not a proponent of Amazon coins in any way, and while I may end up using them in the future, I seriously doubt they will amount to anything serious, as is the case with bitcoin.
‘Bitcoin had the industrial value of making morons angry and make them expose their stupidity, and it clearly still works’
Industrial use value*
and I agree
Thank you for fixing my typos.
I would argue that it's the opposite, that the emotional obsession with disproving Bitcoin's future leads to absurd unscientific constructs. The implication that if we do not understand something, that somehow disproves its existence is ridiculous, and you don't even have to agree with Taleb to recognise this.
My approach is entirely different than yours. My goal is to understand the fundamental principles of human action and how they relate to Bitcoin. My goal is not to justify a particular prediction about Bitcoin's future. One of the core original motivators for my research was when in a thread on the mises.org website, my question "If Bitcoin is not money, what is it?" was answered with "You're an idiot".
But regardless of this, as Jeff Tucker insightfully noted, you can now buy a wider variety of goods with Bitcoin than you could buy with fiat money 30 years ago. Several people showed that you can survive on Bitcoin as your only liquid asset for prolonged periods of time. There aren't many assets other than fiat money that can match this. Maybe you could do that with precious metals, but an attempt to do it with Amazon coins would fail due to technological, legal and practical obstacles.
I can even take the radical position and claim that the way Bitcoin behaves is not only consistent with the Austrian theory of catallactic origin of money, but actually its empirical factors were predictable. Consumer or producer goods cannot compete on transaction costs with virtual protocols, so if a new money is to emerge, it must have a virtual base. But that's probably too much to handle for people obsessed with using theory to refute reality so I'm not going to say that.
‘I would argue that it's the opposite, that the emotional obsession with disproving Bitcoin's future leads to absurd unscientific constructs’
I have been far from emotional in my bitcoin exchanges. I have seldom thrown around any ad hominems or curse words. Part of the reason why I knew this thing was in a bubble again is precisely because of the emotional feedback I would get. In fact, part of the reason why I know silver is finally reaching a bottom is because there is very little emotion left in the market. I am short TSLA for the same reasons I was bearish on bitcoin, and there is still a ton of emotion remaining in the bitcoin market. Despite of the fact that bitcoin has lost 60% of its peak market cap, there is still a lot of liquidity that needs to be sucked out before we hit a technical bottom.
‘If Bitcoin is not money, what is it?’
We have both already established that it isn’t money. Only a few ultra-bears that know hardly anything about economics would go so far as to maintain that bitcoin is money. As for what it is, there are various views. I took the sober approach of looking at why the vast majority of people actually got into bitcoin in the first place: rising prices. Therefore, my assertion was the rather objective one of claiming that it was a speculative vehicle. That being said, I believe bitcoin is just the tip of the iceberg and that this new industry of modern day alchemy is here to stay.
‘But regardless of this, as Jeff Tucker insightfully noted, you can now buy a wider variety of goods with Bitcoin than you could buy with fiat money 30 years ago’
This is a weak argument and I am not surprised it is something that Tucker would like to point out. I can buy a wider variety of goods today with a Mexican peso than I could with a Deutsche Mark 60 years ago. Or better yet, the average person in the US has a much wider variety of goods and services available to him today than was the case 100 years ago, thus fiat money and a mixed economy is far better than the gold standard and capitalism.
‘Several people showed that you can survive on Bitcoin as your only liquid asset for prolonged periods of time’
This is another weak argument. There are plenty of people that can survive without money altogether for prolonged periods of time. Not sure what this has to do with anything.
‘Maybe you could do that with precious metals, but an attempt to do it with Amazon coins would fail due to technological, legal and practical obstacles’
The people who bought gold in 2001 at rock bottom after a 20 year bear market didn’t do it because they expected to one day go down to the store and trade in a few grains of gold for goods or services. The people who bought gold in 2001 did it because they understood the international monetary system, the triffin dilemma, and peak cheap oil. Amazon coins pose absolutely zero threat to the IMS. However, they are a competitor to bitcoin.
‘I can even take the radical position and claim that the way Bitcoin behaves is not only consistent with the Austrian theory of catallactic origin of money, but actually its empirical factors were predictable. Consumer or producer goods cannot compete on transaction costs with virtual protocols, so if a new money is to emerge, it must have a virtual base. But that's probably too much to handle for people obsessed with using theory to refute reality so I'm not going to say that’
Bitcoin can never satisfy the regression theorem for the same reason that Amazon coins, or icoins, or any of the future digital currencies cannot ever satisfy it. The regression theorem applies to original money i.e., industrial commodities. Bitcoins are neither a commodity nor a money, they are at best a quasi-medium of exchange. The proof is in the pudding: bitcoins never at any point had industrial use value.
Your initial argument against my bitcoin piece was not that the second bubble was irrelevant because one day prices will resume to rise, which is quite possible and which I never denied. Your initial argument against my bitcoin piece was that prices were “completely irrelevant”. It is not a matter of opinion but a matter of observable fact that prices are relevant. Interest will not resume to increase until prices do. You sir, were wrong, and so was that person you know who was (still is?) doing “academic research”
http://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=bitcoin#q=bitcoin&cmpt=q
Emotion can manifest itself also in different ways than strong language. For example by avoiding logical reasoning, inventing new stories to reach a predetermined conclusion or cognitive dissonance. You have demonstrated all of these.
I have come to the conclusion that whether Bitcoin is or isn't money is not relevant, because money is not a category of human action. It does not have a consistent definition in the Austrian writings (it rather has several approximate ones) and they are all quantitative rather than qualitative. But even if, since Menger explains that speculation is a subset of demand for a medium of exchange, the argument that speculation somehow precludes Bitcoin from becoming money is logically invalid.
In the section about using Bitcoin to buy stuff and survive, you were supposed to address the catalactics. Instead, you retort that this is not a unique property of Bitcoin, and that Bitcoin is used for price speculation, which are both both irrelevant and red herrings.
The claim that Bitcoin can never satisfy the regression theorem is an example of cognitive dissonance I mentioned earlier. It is methodologically absurd.
Your claim that my claim was that the price of Bitcoin is completely irrelevant (i.e. regardless of context) is erroneous and can be recognised as such by looking at the original article.
You appear to resort to outright erroneous claims about data in an increasing fashion (like the prior claim that neither the charts nor the data used by Spekulatius and bb113 was not there). I would appreciate if you choose to debate that you take it seriously, if you expect to be taken seriously.
‘I have come to the conclusion that whether Bitcoin is or isn't money is not relevant, because money is not a category of human action’
So bitcoin being or not being money is irrelevant. Shocking coming from someone who maintained that prices are irrelevant.
‘But even if, since Menger explains that speculation is a subset of demand for a medium of exchange, the argument that speculation somehow precludes Bitcoin from becoming money is logically invalid’
Same goes for penny stocks or Halloween candy. There is nothing in theory that prevents them from circulating as a medium of exchange, and they do on occasion.
‘In the section about using Bitcoin to buy stuff and survive, you were supposed to address the catalactics’
Catallactics
‘The claim that Bitcoin can never satisfy the regression theorem is an example of cognitive dissonance I mentioned earlier. It is methodologically absurd’
I’m not sure if you’re familiar with what cognitive dissonance actually means, but I think you are looking for a different term. Bitcoin never displayed any industrial use value, which is objectively observable, as are exchange values. While we can certainly say that bitcoin has an exchange value ($100/btc currently), but we cannot find it ever being used as an industrial commodity, thus we cannot potentially qualify it as a commodity money (if it ever were to become money). Industrial use value is different from value itself, which is derived subjectively. Thus, the claim that bitcoin satisfies the RT because someone thought it was cool and really liked the bitcoin code is invalid.
‘Your claim that my claim was that the price of Bitcoin is completely irrelevant (i.e. regardless of context) is erroneous and can be recognised as such by looking at the original article’
http://www.economicsofbitcoin.com/2013/03/re-bitcoin-bubble-20-by-patrik-korda.html
ctrl + f irrelevant
‘I would appreciate if you choose to debate that you take it seriously, if you expect to be taken seriously’
I’m not looking for a debate, I am merely trying to get you to realize that you were wrong. Prices are relevant for bitcoin because interest follows them. If prices keep crashing, so does interest, and therefore the use (not acceptance) of bitcoin keeps shrinking. I know, it takes a few logical steps forward to grasp this, but it isn’t all that complicated.
Since all the stores that accept bitcoin directly are more or less random, check out BitPay:
http://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=bitpay#q=bitpay&cmpt=q
Yea, that’s bad.
Thank you for fixing my typos, that is the level relevance and substance of your posts.
Whereas your proclaimed goal is to allegedly "trying to get you to realize that you were wrong" underscores why your claims are nonsensical. Repeating erroneous and fallacious claims does not make them true, rather it makes them into propaganda. My goal on the other hand is to find the truth. I debate because I allow for the possibility that I am wrong and my opponent is correct. But irrespective of whether you are correct or not, you are not engaging in an actual debate. You are not addressing the claims that I make, rather you present a wide repertoire of logical fallacies.
And when pushed, you resort to blatant lies like the one about the lack of context in my claim about prices, despite a refutation staring you in the face in bold typeface. And even if for some reason you missed it, I already explained you the context several times.
You're an intellectual fraud and exhausted my patience.
'I debate because I allow for the possibility that I am wrong and my opponent is correct. But irrespective of whether you are correct or not, you are not engaging in an actual debate'
The debate ended when the price of bitcoin started collapsing and interest along with it. Quod erat demonstrandum prices aren't "completely irrelevant", neither are they "entirely irrelevant". I figured you would eventually resort to stating that I took your claim about prices being irrelevant out of context, but the text is there for all to see.
Thank you for confirming my arguments.