The Instigator
john.vandivier
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
medv4380
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Bitcoin is fundamentally sound

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
medv4380
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/21/2013 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,230 times Debate No: 31535
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

john.vandivier

Pro

I believe Bitcoin is fundamentally sound and I invite anyone to prove otherwise. I will argue this in 2 ways:
1) Bitcoin meets the definition of money
2) Bitcoin is superior to its competitors which are widely recognized as fundamentally sound

1: Bitcoin is a store of value, a unit of account and a medium of exchange. These are the historical requirements of a "sound money." See the source below for evidence that Bitcoin can be (and has been) used in such ways:

https://www.bitcoinstore.com...

2: At the above source you also may have noticed that the bitcoin prices various goods are sold at, even after considering exchange rates and fees, are below prices in Euro or USD. USD and Euro are considered widely as the world's most fundamentally strong currencies. Lower prices in Bitcoin is an economic market indicator of a fundamentally stronger currency.

Reasons for Bitcoin's superiority include:
A) Bitcoin creates a free market. This is due to its pseudonymous power. When used correctly, it can be used anonymously, allowing nullification of market-corrupting government law and taxation.
B) Bitcoin reduces transaction costs. Its fees are lower than credit cards, paypal, western union, etc. Lower transaction costs means better money.
C) Bitcoin is fundamentally deflationary in the long run. After a set amount is created no more can be created. This prevents inflation and ensures a strong currency in the long run, unlike the USD, Euro, or pretty much any currency out there.

I could go on. Now bring the debate. I don't want to play all my cards at once.
medv4380

Con

Bitcoin is a fundamentally flawed currency.

If I understand the use of sound currency correctly, then it is being used in reference to hard currency that is backed by a commodity like gold. If I'm not mistaken, and feel free to correct me, but the concept behind calling it "sound" is that an ounce of gold would buy the same today as it would during the Great Depression, or a hundred years in the future.

On the surface, bitcoins share many of the features of a hard currency such as a Gold Certificate. It even shares many of the strengths, and weaknesses of its gold counterpart. However, by its very design, it is fundamentally flawed, and will be unlike any hard currency in existence. Bitcoins are bad because they follow a deflationary model,they are unstable, favor black market transactions, and do not provide market stability necessary for a free market, or a real economy.

Maybe it's todays world where we're so fearful of inflation that some people equate deflation with being good. However, deflation is infinitely worse. Lets say I'm a retailer, and I need to purchase a Nex-7 to stock my store. I spend on February 23rd 35.7 bitcoins, or the equivalent 1000 USD. The camera doesn"t get to me until the 2nd, and now will only sell for 29.5 bitcoins. If the camera doesn"t sell until today at noon it"ll only sell for 15.5 bitcoins. As a retailer, if I used bitcoins, I would have lost 20.2 bitcoins. You can look up the prices over the last month on mtgox.com

This is the textbook definition of deflation, and this is feared because it hurts everyone that participates in the supply chain, from manufacturers to consumers. In a deflationary model, you're only rewarded for being a miser, and refusing to participate in the economy. The last time the US had any deflation at or near -10% was the Great Depression, and the last major economy to be hurt by deflation was Japan in their Lost Decade. It is no wonder why people familiar with deflation will move Heaven and Earth to keep it in the box.

Unlike any other hard currency model, bitcoins will have a permanent money supply choke. In all of human history, we've never run out of minable gold. Also, with asteroid mining a few centuries away, it's hard to say we ever will. With gold, we can very slowly increase the money supply to have it grow with an ever larger economy. Bitcoins, on the other hand, have a maximum of 21 million coins that can ever be made, and can't be modified to generate more bitcoins after that. Taking the worse aspect of the gold standard, the slow growth of the money supply, and magnifying it to create hyper deflation is hardly an advantage.

Other issues arise when you compare it to the current fiat banking systems, because it is uniquely vulnerable to loss, and presents no options for recovery of stolen coins. On the one hand, if I used a bank and my account is hacked, I have options to recover my funds. However, if some hacker steals my bitcoin wallet, then they have free reign over my funds, and I have no options for recovery. The ultimate transaction cost is currently unknown, and will increase as the burden of maintaining the transactional database grows beyond the capabilities of your average user. In a way, it has married the weaknesses of physical currency to the actual banking system, and vise-versa.

The anonymous nature of bitcoins only enhances the black market. They can be used for corporate bribes, money laundering, and deprives local governments from taxes that help build our roads, and schools. It presents no added benefit for the legitimate free market that the current system does not already address.

As bad as inflation may seem, deflation is infinitely worse because it encourages hoarding, and prolongs the recovery period from even the simplest economic recessions. When controlled properly, inflation encourages spending, and discourages hoarding. The current system controlling the USD, the Federal Reserve, can even change monetary policy if it's prudent. If any of the policies controlling bitcoins are determined to be bad at a future date, they cannot be changed, or adjusted, by anyone. By its very nature, bitcoins lack the ability to evolve that has made our current economic system strong.
Debate Round No. 1
john.vandivier

Pro

I respectfully disagree with my opponent but let me first thank him for stepping up to the challenge, having a polite tone, and raising some good points, despite the fact that said points do not sufficiently invalidate my stance which is that Bitcoin is a fundamentally sound money.
My opponent has created a straw man argument by using a false definition of sound money. He has invited me to correct him and so I will. "Sound money" has been traditionally defined as being a store of value, a unit of account and a medium of exchange. There are also lesser qualities which are preferred, but not necessary, in sound money. Such fringe qualities include divisibility, lowered transaction costs, intrinsic value, and others.
My opponent has not argued that Bitcoin is incapable of any of these. He has tried to malign Bitcoin due to its deflationary nature but has unknowingly strengthened the case in doing so.
I also argued that Bitcoin is better than the competition. My opponent has advised that the competition would include gold or a Gold Certificate. Certainly these would qualify as "commodity money" as any economist knows. However commodity money is rarely used as money anymore. Nearly all money in the world is fiat money such as the USD or Euro. Nonetheless I will address commodities as though they were a competitor although they really aren"t and most of my opponent"s argument is therefore moot.
Gold has extreme transaction costs which make it unworthy as money. Gold does have some intrinsic value which makes it a good store of value, but I would argue that such intrinsic value is very minimal indeed. I would argue that water has a higher intrinsic value than Gold does. Water is necessary to life whereas Gold is not. It is worth noting that these days the market prefers fiat to Gold or commodity for transaction purposes. The primary drivers of this preference are transaction costs and law. The primary reason for Gold"s use as a store of value is that it is rare, not that it has intrinsic value, although both are contributing factors.
Bitcoin is rare as well. For that reason it has already far surpassed the market value of silver and I believe it will far surpass the market value of Gold over time as well. Bitcoin, however, has negligible transaction fees. For this reason carrying and using Bitcoin in transactions is preferable to using gold. Bitcoin also has intrinsic value. A series of unrealized features in Bitcoin lay dormant and they are called "contracts." See the following video: https://www.youtube.com...
The abilities inside of contracts, as well as the ability to transact with less cost than the competition, give Bitcoin an intrinsic value. Just as the service of lawyers and such establishing contracts has a value, Bitcoin can act as an automatically self-enforcing contract service and that has value to people.
Bitcoin has no central bank which can print money, giving it a store of value advantage over fiat. The recent incident in Cyprus reveals other ways in which this is beneficial.
Law prevents people from using Gold certificates as money. If people started using Gold or certificates as money the government could simply cease the Gold, rendering the certificates mere fiat anyway. Bitcoin"s anonymity allows that the government cannot tell who is using it or who to punish. Additionally, even if they could tell, Bitcoin"s distributed nature makes it impossible for seizure to occur. If you take my computer away there is still a distributed record across the internet which holds the same data my computer did, that is the Bitcoin block chain.
Bitcoins are still moderately unstable but the instability decreases as its use, and therefore market liquidity, increases. Additionally, Bitcoin instability is mostly unidirectional. In other words while its price may change it is mostly just appreciation. Business can still be transacted in such an environment.

Bitcoin does favor tax evasion and black market transactions, but what is the effect of that? Weakening of government, which is an economically destructive entity to begin with. The black market which is simply the economy outside of the law is a fundamentally freer and therefore more productive economy.

Bitcoin already has a "real economy." There are people getting paid in Bitcoin. There are producers and consumers in Bitcoin.
Deflation is an essentially good thing as any Austrian knows. I will not address his specific examples, but the general point he made is that deflation is bad because it encourages "being a miser" and "hoarding." Many Keynesian economists would agree with my opponent. However a Keynesian economist is an oxymoron anyway. "Being a miser" and "hoarding" are simply malignant words for "saving money." According to Austrian economics economies grow better through saving than through monetary injection, which my opponent seems to support by complaining about Bitcoin"s "monetary choke."
My opponent claims that Bitcoin is uniquely vulnerable to loss. Actually the loss due to theft, etc pale in comparison to the credit fraud, money counterfeiting and other costs of the traditional money system. This is strength of Bitcoin not a weakness. Yes there is some exposure to theft, just like there is with regular fiat but such exposure is minimal and easily avoided. I will look up data if I have to but this is a well known fact on any Bitcoin reddit or forum.
My opponent also claims that the average user will be burdened by maintaining the transactional database of Bitcoin. Such a thing would already be burdensome. However it is automated by the software. No such point is valid.

My opponent has attempted to argue that black markets are less efficient or legitimate than the Market Overt. That is an easy point to break if he wants to push it.
My opponent has argued that the Federal Reserve is a good thing. This is disturbingly wrong. The decentralized nature of Bitcoin makes it superior, not inferior, to fiat. The Fed, like most other central banks, has been making bad decisions for most of their history.
medv4380

Con

I’d like to thank the pro for their response.

I would hardly call giving the standard definition of sound money, and a paraphrased anecdote, from libertarians, a strawman argument. You’ve insisted that your definition is following the historical definition of sound money. What sound money is, or is supposed to be, is integral to this debate so allow me to enlighten you on the historic, and current definition.

Historically

“At the same time it must be an equally complete presentation of the arguments in favor of what we believe, under present conditions, to be the only sound money - gold, and a currency based upon that most stable of all values.” [1]

Currently

“ money not liable to sudden appreciation or depreciation in value :stable money; specif : a currency based on or redeemable in gold — compare paper money, soft”[2]

The definition of Sound Money hasn’t changed much over the years. It’s easy to see that to be sound money only has to have one property. It must retain its value. What it means for a currency to retain its value is revealed in why Gold is prefered as backing.

“An ounce of gold would have bought you a nice suit 100 years ago and it will still buy you a nice suit today.”[3]

In other words, gold is chosen because it is believed to be immune to inflation, and deflation. The definition that you’ve chosen is only that of currency. Since anything can be used as a currency, even sea shells, it would be pointless to contest bitcoins use as a currency, but you singled out sound money. Are bitcoins resistant to deflation? By your own admission they are a deflationary currency, and thus cannot meet the historic, or current, definition of sound money.

Do you honestly believe that I’m arguing the Black Markets are less efficient than the Market? I don’t care about its efficiency, or inefficiency. The Government intrusion that you’re complaining about is the Currency Transaction Report that’s triggered anytime someone does a transaction for $10,000 or more[4]. The Government doesn’t care about your purchase of some cheap camera, and never did. Human trafficking, on the other hand, is a serious issue, and can easily hit that $10,000 trigger[5]. If you want to defend the right of sickos to purchase virgin slaves without the prying eyes of law enforcement that’s your own business, but the public would hardly see this as an advantage over a government controlled currency.

Austrian Economists are hardly embracing of deflation. It is, perhaps, the only thing that can convince the laissez-faire that maybe, just maybe, government intervention is necessary[6], and that’s from an Austrian Economics Journal. Maybe the opinion of Austrian Economist John M. Keynes would be a better source.

“Thus inflation is unjust and deflation is inexpedient. Of the two perhaps deflation is, if we rule out exaggerated inflations such as that of Germany, the worse; because it is worse, in an impoverished world, to provoke unemployment than to disappoint the rentier. But it is necessary that we should weigh one evil against the other. It is easier to agree that both are evils to be shunned.”[7]

There is a good form of deflation which the tech industry is familiar with. Prices falling because your efficiency in production has improved is good deflation. Lowering prices because you’re able to produce more food with the same work is good deflation. Lowering prices because there is fewer people per coin is money supply deflation, and is the destructive form of deflation. Bitcoins have nothing to do with the good form of deflation, and is only deflation of the money supply.

Just because people are foolish enough to accept bitcoins now is hardly evidence that they are a superior currency, or even sound money. In the 1630s there was a commodity that the Dutch thought would never lose its value, and could only gain value. Speculative pressure began a form of Hyper-Deflation. This continued for years until February 1637 when this commodity, a tulip bulb, failed to sell[8]. You could no longer use a single tulip bulb to buy a house, and instead couldn’t even trade it for a loaf of bread.

You believe that the value of a bitcoin mostly appreciates. Unfortunately, that’s not a property of a deflationary commodity or currency. They only appear to increase in value until enough people catch onto the con and panic causing its value to rapidly collapse. On June 8th 2011 bitcoins were trading at a high of 32$, but by August they were trading for as little as 7$[9]. That alone, makes it look more like a highly volatile commodity, and less like a stable currency.

In the real economy if I transfer money to another bank, and the place I transferred it to says “I’m sorry we don’t see the 1000$ you say you sent”. I can call up my bank, and request a trace. They will either confirm that the money was received, that there was a problem and correct it, or roll the transaction back so that I have the money back in my account. This is all possible thanks to the roll the Federal Reserve plays in our banking system. On July 26th 2011 Biomate, a bitcoin exchange, announced that their wallet.dat file had become corrupted. What this means is that Biomate had effectively lost 17,000 bitcoins. These coins are unusable, and there is no backup or rollback option to recover them.

As bad as the Madoff Ponzi Scheme was, Madoff is in jail. Some people who made money off of the scam have returned it to lessen the blow to the victims at the end of the scam. Instead of being a total loss over 5 Billion Dollars have been recovered[11]. This is all thanks to our banking system. We know who received the money, and can trace where it was sent to. There have been a number of Ponzi Schemes with bitcoins, and because of the anonymous nature of bitcoins no one knows who received the money for Bitcoin Savings & Trust, and no one ever will[12]. All thanks to the miracle of bitcoins.

The biggest advantage the USD has over Bitcoin is the ability to evolve and change. If it becomes too easy to counterfeit then the Government can update it. If a mathematical breakthrough happens, or computers get powerful enough to break the security on Bitcoin who is going to be able to shut it down long enough to update the system? No one, because it has no way of changing the algorithms governing its use.

Since I am nearing the end of my character limit I will have to elaborate further in the final round.

[1]Fraser, John Arthur., Charles H. Sergel, and W. H. Harvey. Sound Money. 1895. Print.
books.google.com/books?id=Xy05AAAAMAAJ&dq=Sound%20Money%20%201895.&pg=PA7#v=onepage&q&f=false
[2]"Sound Money" Merriam-Webster
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sound%20money
[3]"Gold Investing."
contrarian-investor.com/gold-investing.html
[4]"Currency Transaction Reporting."
www.ffiec.gov/bsa_aml_infobase/pages_manual/olm_017.htm
[5]"Human Traffickers Prices." Havocscope Black Market RSS
havocscope.com/black-market-prices/human-trafficking-prices
[6]Bagus, Philipp. "Deflation: When Austrians Become Interventionists." The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 6.4 (2003): 19-35. Print.
mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae6_4_3.pdf
[7]Keynes, John Maynard. Essays in Persuasion. New York: Norton, 1963. Print.
[8]Farrell, Chris. Deflation: What Happens When Prices Fall. 2004. Print. pg 57
[9]Lee, Timothy B. "The Bitcoin Crash." Forbes
forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2011/08/07/the-bitcoin-crash/
[10] "Third Largest Bitcoin Exchange Bitomat Lost Their Wallet, Over 17,000 Bitcoins Missing." SiliconANGLE.
siliconangle.com/blog/2011/08/01/third-largest-bitcoin-exchange-bitomat-lost-their-wallet-over-17000-bitcoins-missing/
[11] "Money to Be Returned to Madoff Investors Tops $5 Billion." CNBC.com
cnbc.com/id/100454360
[12]Mott, Nathaniel. "Bitcoin: How a Virtual Currency Became Real with a $5.6M Fraud."PandoDaily.
pandodaily.com/2012/08/31/bitcoin-how-a-virtual-currency-became-real-with-a-5-6m-fraud/

Debate Round No. 2
john.vandivier

Pro

I am defending the contention that Bitcoin is fundamentally sound as money. I have defended two statements in order to prove such contention. I have stated:

1) Bitcoin meets the definition of money
2) Bitcoin is superior to its competition (ie other monies).

My opponent has either gotten confused or decided to play semantic games. Bitcoin being fundamentally sound as money is not necessarily the same as Bitcoin being "sound money" according to some obscure book from the late 1800s. The following characteristics are necessary traits, fundamentals, of money:

1) It operates as a store of value (1 & 2 from leading academic Mankiw as well as basically all economists. Mankiw, N. Gregory. Principles of Macroeconomics. Mason, OH: Southwestern Cengage Learning, 2008. 338-39. Print. )
2) " unit of account
3) " medium of exchange (Adam Smith http://geolib.com... also from Mankiw, etc, but Adam Smith shows historicity of defintion.)

My opponent has said that John M. Keynes is an Austrian Economist. All his points are now rendered completely invalid.

My opponent has said that Gold is stable because its value doesn't change. This is crazy. The value of gold fluctuates wildly in both real and nominal terms over time. Looking at the above Adam Smith reference you may find the real reason gold is a preferred money: According to Smith it is because of their durability, divisibility intrinsic value and universal acceptance as a medium of exchange. Bitcoin possesses all of those properties and does so with reduced transaction costs relative to gold, as well as the benefit of being impossible to cease or regulate.

My opponent has called Bitcoin a ponzi scheme. It is not. Bitcoin.org addresses this idea in their FAQ ( https://en.bitcoin.it... ). As stated there, Bitcoin is not a ponzi scheme because:
1 In a Ponzi Scheme, the founders persuade investors that they"ll profit. Bitcoin does not make such a guarantee. There is no central entity, just individuals building an economy.
2 A ponzi scheme is a zero sum game. Early adopters can only profit at the expense of late adopters. Bitcoin has possible win-win outcomes.
3 The fact that early adopters benefit more doesn't alone make anything a Ponzi scheme. All good investments in successful companies have this quality.

Finally my opponent has suggested that the USD has an advantage to Bitcoin because it "has the ability to evolve and change." My opponent must not realize that Bitcoin has this ability as well, and in superior fashion. Bitcoin is open source, allowing extreme adaptation in a very fair way. Already several projects have spun off including Litecoin, Namecoin, Freicoin and others. Many of these are addressed in the following article: http://thegenerallifeblog.blogspot.com...

In fact the USD cannot evolve or change except in value. Its intrinsic properties cannot change, whereas Bitcoin may intrinsically change through reprogramming. Bitcoin can be currency and it can also be other things, the USD can only be a currency, and a poor one which is predisposed to all the corruptions of centralized authority as well.

In conclusion Bitcoin my opponent has still failed to uncover any weakness in Bitcoin. While we can debate semantics about "sound money" vs "money which is fundamentally sound," the idea should be relatively clear. Bitcoin functions as money very well and very well is defined as better than the competition. From the last round of debate to this one Bitcoin has already appreciated from about 75 USD to about 88 USD. The market itself agrees in the soundness of Bitcoin.
medv4380

Con

I would like to thank the Pro for their rebuttal, and I would like to apologize to the audience for goading my opponent by calling Keynes an Austrian. I swear I was only trying to anger my opponent into denouncing the Austrian Journal I also sited. I had no idea it would destroy his reading comprehension as well.

I never once referred to bitcoins as being a Ponzi Scheme. That would be slander against Ponzi’s good name. I referred to it as a con, but did not directly give the details about which type of con it is. Maybe the Pro believes that it being able to be used in a Ponzi Scheme would make it a Ponzi Scheme. Perhaps, the pro put their bitcoins into Bitcoin Saving and Loan. Knowingly transferred to a pirateat40, aka BitBeard, and is unaware that his bitcoins are, in fact, “Lost and gone for ever. Oh my darling Clementine.” If Madoff had used bitcoins instead of our financial system nothing would have been recoverable. It is clear that the ability to try, convict, and recover funds from the Madoff Scam is an advantage of the USD, and the lack of that kind of control is a disadvantage for bitcoins.

As for the definition of Sound Money the Pro has not once given a direct reference to it. Adam Smith's “The Wealth of Nations” never uses the term Sound Money. Perhaps, to you the reader, Merriam-Webster isn’t authoritative enough for the definition of an English word or phrase. I submit to you every digitized book in the English language. Thanks to Google's NGram viewer we can do a search for “Sound Money”, and see just when it started being used.
http://books.google.com...=
The phrase doesn’t enter into common usage until the 1850’s, and would be unlikely that Adam Smith would even have used the term Sound Money given that it’s not even used in his book. Lets use the unreputable Urban Dictionary's definition since I find it more enlightening to the Pros usage.

“something that is cool, awesome, etc. comes from Ron Paul's awesome idea of bringing back the gold standard, which is sound money”

When talking about Gold I choose my words carefully. It’s only that people “Believe” that gold is stable that they choose it for backing “Sound Money”. A belief doesn’t need to be a true belief after all, and you must be naive enough to believe gold is stable to believe in the ideal of Sound Money. Sound Money is an ideal that sounds good, but has yet to exist.

In round 2, the Pro claimed that they could prove black markets are better, and more legitimate than the Legal Market if I pushed. I pushed with Human Trafficking. Since the Pro failed to even mention black markets in their rebuttal they must have conceded that the anonymity Bitcoins gives to the Black Market is one of its greatest weaknesses.

The Pro asserts that the US Dollar can Evolve or Change, but only in value. It has gone from being controlled by individual states to being controlled by the federal government. It has gone from being based on Silver to being based on Gold. Its gone from being based on Gold to being based on Faith. We established the Second Bank of the United States as a Central Bank. When Andrew Jackson had enough of it he destroyed it. We’ve established the Federal Reserve, and allow them to control Inflation and Deflation with interest rates. Bitcoins have no controls to adjust Inflation or Deflation. If anything needs to change for bitcoins the controls to do so do not exist. The value of a bitcoin cannot be controlled when irrational actors are pushing prices up or down. The free hand of the market only works when the actors are rational, and does not address mania like Tulip Bulbs. The Federal Reserve changes with each new Chairman, and that Chairman is appointed, and approved by the President and Congress who the people appointed. The system surrounding and supporting the USD can change in more ways than can be imagined.

Can bitcoin change? Can their be more than 21 Million Bitcoins? No, because of early choices in the Bitcoin protocol you cannot add more than the maximum. It’s an unfortunate drawback in Computer Science that you cannot define units with unlimited bits. My opponent is under the impression that Bitcoins can change into Litecoins. This is not the case. Both are a separate currency, and are forever married to early design decisions. Unlike the USD that could, if we go mad, go back to the gold standard.

Bitcoins can’t even fit the World GDP of 70 Trillion Dollars in the address space of 21 Million Bitcoins. Even segmented down to its smallest unit given 2.1 Quadrillion you could not account for the 7 Quadrillion pennies. If you had to account for the smallest unit of the dollar, the mill, it would be 70 Quadrillion. That smallest bitcoin unit would be worth nearly 30 cents, and you couldn’t go smaller. At that point, because it's deflationary, the buying power of that tiny segment will only grow. What will you do when it has the buying power of a dollar, or 10 dollars? You’re stuck with something too valuable to spend anything on. It can’t even meet the long term demands as a “medium of exchange”.

That assumes that people keep buying in until all money becomes Bitcoins. But like Tulip Bulbs it will keep going up until its eaten every penny suckers are willing to sink into it. It could take years just like the Tulip craze did. The faster it grows, and the longer it take the worse it will actually be. There is no free lunch. There is no win-win scenario. No way to know when the crash will occur. Only suckers willing to throw their money away. This is the best type of con. A con where the con-man can become the victim too.

If you side with the Pro take your money, and buy your bitcoins now. If you side with the Con sit back, and enjoy the show. I would love to see what happens when a cultural niche sends itself into a depression like the Dutch did with Bulbs. The opportunity to collect data on this kind of phenomena is priceless.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Sleezehead 1 year ago
Sleezehead
Not sure why that posted twice
Posted by Sleezehead 1 year ago
Sleezehead
The only 4 reason why bit pins aren't sound is because the largest way their used is for the deep web (buying illegal wants; assassinations, drugs, child pornagrpahy, assault weapons, bombs, et cetera), its another currency depended on the dollar currency based on gold, bitcoin's worth fluctuates & and has crashed many times I'm sure, and at this point I think it's still unreliable and based on a trust system.
Posted by Sleezehead 1 year ago
Sleezehead
The only 4 reason why bit pins aren't sound is because the largest way their used is for the deep web (buying illegal wants; assassinations, drugs, child pornagrpahy, assault weapons, bombs, et cetera), its another currency depended on the dollar currency based on gold, bitcoin's worth fluctuates & and has crashed many times I'm sure, and at this point I think it's still unreliable and based on a trust system.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by drhead 1 year ago
drhead
john.vandiviermedv4380Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: I have supported bitcoins historically, but Con raised some good points about the segmentation of bitcoins putting a limit on potential growth.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 1 year ago
KingDebater
john.vandiviermedv4380Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering ZakYoungTheLibertarian's vote until he can come up with a better RFD.
Vote Placed by ZakYoungTheLibertarian 1 year ago
ZakYoungTheLibertarian
john.vandiviermedv4380Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con is right, gold is the only reasonable form of money. He had better arguments and Pro's case was very weak.