The Future of Bitcoin

The virtual currency is more resilient than its critics suggest.

Mercatus Center

When the world's largest Bitcoin exchange, Tokyo-based Mt. Gox, went offline, critics of the cryptocurrency called for greater regulation. But Mercatus Center researcher Andrea Castillo (pictured) says the worries are premature. In March, she told reason three things the Mt. Gox collapse reveals about the future of Bitcoin.

1. The Bitcoin ecosystem is growing up. Originally a digital bazaar for trading playing cards for the game Magic: The Gathering, Mt. Gox epitomized the first wave of scrappy Bitcoin businesses. But what worked in 2009 for hobbyists trading Bitcoins worth pennies simply does not cut it for our modern $7 billion Bitcoin economy.
2. Haters gonna hate. An embarrassing number of smug "skeptics" shared the news of Mt. Gox's collapse as if it were a death knell for Bitcoin. Regulators, too, smelled blood in the water. Never mind that the price quickly recovered and that the Bitcoin community had expected this for years. For some people, bad news about Bitcoin is always good news.
3. Bitcoin is anti-fragile. Bad actors like Mt. Gox that cannot compete must exit the Bitcoin market-period. Rather than regulating uncertainty out of existence, Bitcoin embraces these kinds of stressors and disorders to the long-term benefit of its users. Bitcoin not only resists shocks like the Mt. Gox collapse, it's made stronger by them.

Comments

[Fist of Etiquette]

There can be no future until Chuck Schumer gets his mantitty hands on bitcoin and constructs a regulatory environment around it like a warm blanket smothering a newborn child.

Now, a word to reason. I believe we've seen about as much auto-starting video ads as the market can bear.

[Corning]

Now, a word to reason. I believe we've seen about as much auto-starting video ads as the market can bear.

More then few have crashed my browser.

[Mike M.]

Jesus fucking Christ, not only is the Asshole-in-Chief now negotiating with terrorists and doing it without notifying congress, he's doing a five-for-one prisoner swap? That's his idea of a good deal??

Just another item to add to the long and ever-growing list of items that he deserves to be impeached for.

[american socialist]

Yes, nothing should be closer to a libertarian's heart than keeping a person in a 21st century gulag and holding them there without charge in perpetuity. Is there anyone here that doesn't let their ODS override their "libertarianism?"

[R C Dean]

Well, there's doing illegal/immoral shit like keeping people detained indefinitely.

And then there's doing illegal/immoral shit stupidly, like negotiating prisoner swaps with the Taliban.

SCOTUS handed the Bush administration a blueprint for doing military tribunals that would meet Constitutional muster, but Obama threw that away and decided to carry on with indefinite detention.

As a libertarian, I think everyone in Gitmo should have been tried within a few months of being detained. If they weren't convicted, then drop them off at the exact spot they were arrested, with some cash compensation in their pocket for their trouble.

If they were convicted, firing squad on the beach at sunrise.

[american socialist]

Libertarians are for the death penalty?

[robc]

Libertarians are for the death penalty?

Some are, some arent.

Its robc's 2nd rule.

Some (like me) are hypothetically in favor, but in practice dont trust any governments I know of with that much power. But I think the concept of death as just punishment is fine.

[The Late P Brooks]

Jesus, what a sleazy sheepfucker Gangrinich is.

9/11 museum! 9/11!

SNOWDEN IS A TRAITOR!

Holy fuck.

[The Late P Brooks]

Obama is an al quaida plant! Today, negotiating with teh terrahists, tomorrow, SHARIA LAWZ!

[The Late P Brooks]

"Please update to a modern browser."

Fuck you, Los Angeles Times.

[Christophe]

What the hell are you using?

[The Late P Brooks]

First they (Meet the Press) talk about Hillary's disdain for those who would use dead Americans to further their political goals.

"After the break, we'll speak with Michael Bloomberg about the Isla Vista shootings."

[The Late P Brooks]

"It's not about gun control. We just want to make sure we can keep guns out of the hands of people we disapprove of."

[PantsTheEmperor]

I agree with your comments, but why don't you add them to a story to which they're relevant?

[robc]

But Mt Gox was too big to fail!

The dollar would have recovered from the crash of big banks too. There is no such thing as too big to fail. Ask the Romans, if you can find one.

[The Late P Brooks]

Wow. Some guy on CNN just said there would be no spree killings if the media simply refused to cover them.

If anybody needs to be involuntarily evaluated, it's him.

[Illocust]

Obviously that is a false statement. There is no way to completely eliminate spree killings, but a lot of spree killings are motivated by the desire for attention. A lot of these nutjobs want to go down in history for their killings of innocents. If the media only covered victims of the killings and not the killers, some of these guys would find another way to get the attention they so desperately desire (also, the media's ratings would tank). Short of killing the first amendment there is no way to do that though, and there is no telling if whatever new way they figured out to get attention wouldn't be worse.

[Harun]

Streaking has been shown to decrease when its not televised. Same thing would happen to mass killing. Yes, it would happen, but much less.

Essentially, now we have a system where a troubled soul is told by the media "we are willing to air your grievances, but we need a big PR stunt to do it...can you supply one?"

Also, if the choice is to limit 2nd amendment rights for all or limit 1st amendment rights for the press on mass killings...are we so sure we should take the 2nd amendment limits?

(Of course we should have none, but you get the idea.)

[gaoxiaen]

I, for one, am in favor of televised streaking. First amendment, etc...

[The Late P Brooks]

Uh-oh

But for the young soldier ? 23 when he became a prisoner of war, now 28 ? those debriefings also will include difficult questions about how and why he happened to be in a position where he fell into the hands of Taliban fighters.

There have been no reports that he was captured during direct combat, that the "fog of war" had put him involuntarily in a vulnerable location.

At this point in the developing narrative, Sgt. Bergdahl seems to have grown disillusioned with the mission, bitter about the Army and especially higher ranking enlisted men and officers, and simply walked off ? gone "outside the wire" or protective base limits ? and disappeared.

Maybe they want him back so they can shoot him. Fucking traitor.

[GILMORE]

not Naomi?

I has sad.

[gaoxiaen]

Naomi, I moan.

[GILMORE]

nicely done

[Haritis]

Uh, I don't know. I just can trust it. It seems that it will fall apart eventually, don't know why...

[Frozen Costume]

Apple Policy Update May Open Door for Bitcoin Transactions

[fhgerfvdswe]

playing cards for the game Magic: The Gathering, Mt.