These posts are entirely the result of authors who didn't buy bitcoins when they were cheap. They want it to fail, and try to find any flaws in it that they can, because if it succeeds then they'll really feel like shit because they missed out.

There is extreme bias in the news community (on both sides) because of their investment (or lack thereof)... And possibly a certain amount of attempted market manipulation as well.

In other words, almost everyone writing about bitcoins is full of shit. Take everything you read, on all sides of the issue with a grain of salt.

"These posts are entirely the result of authors who didn't buy bitcoins when they were cheap."

That's nonsense. The post is a result of applying a particular economic theory of how money works to something that is apparently trying to be a form of money. This theory of money might be wrong in general, or it might for some reason not apply to bitcoin specifically. But to dismiss it simply as "bias" is willed stupidity - it is a way of avoiding addressing the actual arguments put forward in the post.

(The specific theory being drawn on in that post is called Modern Monetary Theory; it isn't generally accepted by mainstream economists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Monetary_Theory )

Furthermore, theories in economics are descriptive. One should not expect with certainty an innovative currency to succeed or fail based on how well it matches a particular theory. When we are in new territory, we should expect a few surprises.

Scientific theories are falsifiable: they make testable predictions.

Austrian Economic theory comes closest to this ideal.

And now you've discovered why economics is a social science. It builds models of human behavior. Humans are non-deterministic at this scale. As soon as you build an economic model, it's possible it stops working because its existence influences the behavior of the humans its modeling.

The best model I've found that explains Bitcoin is Moldbug's Monetary theory.

If you had to read just one article I'd recommend http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.in/2011/04/on-monet...

But if you have the time you could read all his articles on economics conveniently collected at moldbuggery.blogspot.com (under economics)

> These posts are entirely the result of authors who didn't buy bitcoins when they were cheap. They want it to fail, and try to find any flaws in it that they can, because if it succeeds then they'll really feel like shit because they missed out.

I see it every day. One of my coworkers used to be into Bitcoin and owned a fair number and then decided to donate them away when they were still a few dollars a pop. These days he can't stop making predictions about how Bitcoin is going to fail and how it's all a bubble and ponzi.

It's unbelievable how some people are unable to deal with their cognitive biases.

This is how they deal with their cognitive dissonance.

http://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/01560339...

There's only been one rational post on Bitcoin in the last fortnight:

http://blog.samaltman.com/thoughts-on-bitcoin

... on HN

Things are worth what people are willing to pay (or trade) for them. What's a dollar worth? How about a Linden dollar, or WoW gold? What about rare stamps, or collectible coins, or baseball cards? All of those things are objectively worthless, yet they have value because humans imbue them with value.

Economics is like quantum physics: if you claim to understand it, you don't understand it. Let the experiment play out, and caveat emptor.

> Let those of us who are interested in furthering the Bitcoin economy do so unencumbered by pundits.

Bitcoin would be much more encumbered if it wasn't relevant enough for the pundits to pontificate on it.

I'm tired of every Tom, Dick and Harry taking that Bitcoins are worth $BIGDOLLARS as self evident and the idea of having to provide justification is repulsive.

That should read "as repulsive"