Source: Original Site Post

My criticisms of BTC are technical. In other words, it’s not with the idea, it’s with the money claims and the execution. If you ask david, I’ve gone into any number of applications of the technology for civic purposes. Title registries, fractional shares of credit streams, fractional shares of new business issues, replacement of check cashing services by issuing payroll that bypasses the need for redemption of checks at banks. My problems are with BTC are: (a) the limitations of the technology are unavoidable. The empirical evidence is that the user interface problem has been a failure, particularly for businesses, the processing time has been a failure, the scale problem has not been solved, the repeated thefts have not been solved, and the benefit is less than the cost of transition. The world will only accept an escrow-release model. (b) it’s dishonest if not fraudulent to present it as ‘money’ just as it’s dishonest to represent fiat money as monetary notes or commodity money, when it is nothing more than shares in the economy. (c) there is zero chance of any form of money substitute outside of the central bank system, because it would destroy the world order, and nations would go to war over it. The opposite is true: digital share development is serving as off book R&D for future government application. The future of taxation depends upon it. And the future of liquidity distribution depends upon it. Because the financial system, which evolved to distribute hard currency is now an impediment to demand generation that reorganizes the economy in response to demand changes and shocks. (d) it is fine as a speculation vehicle but it is a ponzi scheme where late players will be destroyed UNLESS a superior network ‘buys’ or ‘merges’ with BTC trading BTC (customers and their inventory) for replacement currency on a superior network. That is what will happen I’m certain. Since the BTC tech is simply … amateurish. ie: tulip bulbs. I will absolutely not fail to win any argument on these grounds. So someone needs to provide some counter to these arguments, or an alternative path that will provide it. In fact, I kind of doubt (because I have been thru the literature) that there is anyone who will put up much of an argument. IMHO the optimum use of BTC is fractional shares of highly stable assets, thereby making them available to consumers rather than institutions. Propertarianism has taught me that artificially priced debts must not be transferrable (escapable). Ergo, I would prefer banks bring in capital, and sell fractional shares in the income streams, but hold the assets. And the public would also.

My criticisms of BTC are technical. In other words, it’s not with the idea, it’s with the money claims and the execution. If you ask david, I’ve gone into any number of applications of the technology for civic purposes. Title registries, fractional shares of credit streams, fractional shares of new business issues, replacement of check cashing services by issuing payroll that bypasses the need for redemption of checks at banks. My problems are with BTC are: (a) the limitations of the technology are unavoidable. The empirical evidence is that the user interface problem has been a failure, particularly for businesses, the processing time has been a failure, the scale problem has not been solved, the repeated thefts have not been solved, and the benefit is less than the cost of transition. The world will only accept an escrow-release model. (b) it’s dishonest if not fraudulent to present it as ‘money’ just as it’s dishonest to represent fiat money as monetary notes or commodity money, when it is nothing more than shares in the economy. (c) there is zero chance of any form of money substitute outside of the central bank system, because it would destroy the world order, and nations would go to war over it. The opposite is true: digital share development is serving as off book R&D for future government application. The future of taxation depends upon it. And the future of liquidity distribution depends upon it. Because the financial system, which evolved to distribute hard currency is now an impediment to demand generation that reorganizes the economy in response to demand changes and shocks. (d) it is fine as a speculation vehicle but it is a ponzi scheme where late players will be destroyed UNLESS a superior network ‘buys’ or ‘merges’ with BTC trading BTC (customers and their inventory) for replacement currency on a superior network. That is what will happen I’m certain. Since the BTC tech is simply … amateurish. ie: tulip bulbs. I will absolutely not fail to win any argument on these grounds. So someone needs to provide some counter to these arguments, or an alternative path that will provide it. In fact, I kind of doubt (because I have been thru the literature) that there is anyone who will put up much of an argument. IMHO the optimum use of BTC is fractional shares of highly stable assets, thereby making them available to consumers rather than institutions. Propertarianism has taught me that artificially priced debts must not be transferrable (escapable). Ergo, I would prefer banks bring in capital, and sell fractional shares in the income streams, but hold the assets. And the public would also.