On 12/11/12 10:44, David Gerard wrote: > On 12 November 2012 09:29, Daniel Pocock <[email protected]> wrote: > >> - people seem to be crying out for a clarification of the legal and >> policy issues - and as usual, vested interests are creating FUD that >> needs to have a balanced response > > > This creates the impression that it's only vested interests who > consider the whole idea a pump-and-dump scam. And that's not the case > at all.
Actually, as a long term investment, it could be argued that anything is a pump-and-dump scam. Even gold has had `bubbles', although the counter argument is that buying gold in a bubble is better than having your money evaporate in a bad bank (`bad bank' should be an oxymoron or contradiction of course, but just Google for `bad bank' and see how many times it comes up in the news these days) However, if you put aside the `investment' arguments and look at it as a means of payment, how does it stack up? In the long run, is it better to pay 6-7% in a combination of fees and exchange rate commission when using a credit card for foreign currency purchases, or is it better to use something like Bitcoin? > As Richard Dawkins says to creationists, "debating me would look good > on your CV, debating you would not look good on mine." Bitcoin would > love an FSF-related imprimatur (and FSFE counts); feeding the vested > interests of the early Bitcoin adopters and their wish to con people > into buying their coins may not be in FSFE's best interests. I don't want to belittle your point of view - it is always good to look at any new inventions with a critical eye, especially when money is involved. But what do you see as safer alternatives to Bitcoin? _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
