Bitcoin malware count soars

I don't even know where to begin with this article but I think it's a joke. Caveat emptor. This article is misleading and wants people to "act as a bank" buy buying a worthless crypto currency that's constantly under attack from hackers and governments alike. Well since the central banks are net buyers of gold. I'd say yeah, people should act like a central bank and buy AU & AG and forget about worthless Bitcoins which central bankers see as competiton to their fiat systems that are coming unglued all over the world. I'm taking this as Bitcoins will be dead and forgotten about real soon. I seriously doubt they will become a trend that people will see in a casino. 99% of Americans don't even know what Bitcoins are. What people do not understand they will not use.

Mt. Cox? How about Mt. Cocks! Investors must feel like their gonna get the shaft over Bitcoin. Or is it Mt. Gox? This article is misleading and I would deem it as propaganda. Mt. Gox is finished!

This isn't an investment newsletter. It's one of the early technology newspapers and is only looking at it from a technology viewpoint.

Norm, know doubt you may be a God in the world of BJ card counting but I'm starting to question your integrity as a man.

No idea what you mean by that. On ZZ, they have stated dozens of times that I said Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme. You seem to be claiming that I am saying the exact opposite. In fact, I have never said either. It is an experiment. In no way would I advise anyone to use it. But, I will not take a hard line either way.

The problem these days is that taking a neutral position on anything causes both sides to say you are an extremist in the other direction.

Originally Posted by Blitzkrieg

Norm, know doubt you may be a God in the world of BJ card counting but I'm starting to question your integrity as a man.

Norm has not been a fan of bitcoin on this site and the website that the article is on is called Computerworld. I guess you are one of those that only respects the opinions of those that agree with you. If that is your definition of a man, I have sympathy for your close minded world. It is pretty simple. Bitcoin values jumped so cyber thieves went after the "currency". That is the main point of the article. Like Norm I wouldn't "invest" in bitcoin. The article never said you should act as the bank but merely pointed out that is what you are doing when you invest in bitcoin. This means your funds are not insured by the government and the government doesn't have the motivation to pursue thieves that they do when the money is essentially stolen from the government as it is with banks since the government insures the safety of the banks by providing insurance, FDIC. It sounds to me like the article is a warning against investing in bitcoin, at least until the security issues are ironed out, not suggesting that you should act as a bank. It merely points out that is what you are doing at this time. The end of the article even points out how the cyber thieves have the upper hand over the cyber security. I am not sure how you got any of your conclusions about Norm or the article.

The article is pure garbage IMO. I don't care who the hell agrees with me or not. "Essentially acting as your own bank!" LMAO! All from people and entities trying to escape an unfair system that they deem in their own eyes.

They are warning you that you are acting as your own bank not advocating it. The article is factual and the facts presented does not paint a promising picture of bitcoin as a currency at this time. It sounds like you agree with that so I am not sure why you have the attitude you have..

Originally Posted by Blitzkrieg

"Essentially acting as your own bank!"

As Tthree is saying, the article is warning you that bitcoins do not have the protections that a bank has -- so you are acting as your own bank. Just as if you don't buy home insurance, you are acting as your own insurance company.

I retract what I said about your integrity since I do not know you, but I do not like the article you posted and I'll leave it at that.

If bitcoin is to survive they must address both the security of their system and the security of your "money" if stolen. It doesn't look promising right now for this to occur before the scheme collapses but anything is possible. I never bank online for the same reason I would never use bitcoin. No matter how secure the home site is I don't trust the security of my hardware.

Blitz, what's with the offense taken, article seems innocuous to me. Oh well, I liked this Op-Ed on the topic.


The Bitcoin Collective Delusion

FEB 25, 2014 7:24 AM ETBy Barry Ritholtz

When I first started traveling for work, I was surprised and amused by the various currencies I saw. Pre-euro, one would encounter a multitude of paper bills of different sizes and colors, each imprinted with a famous man or woman I probably hadn't heard of.
Imagine that: The locals actually believed these silly pieces of colored paper had value. Sure, paper currency worked as a medium of exchange, and it allowed you to buy goods and services within that society. But how far off was it to observe that this shared belief system was little more than a collective delusion? Take the paper to another land that didn't share that belief system -- they had their own, different delusion -- and the paper seemed to be worthless.
That is the simplified version of paper currencies. The real world is obviously more complex. Banks exist, and foreign delusions (currencies if you will) can be exchanged for a fee for the local paper delusion. There is also a nation behind the “worthless” paper, with a standing army, the power to tax and an enormous enforcement mechanism. Perhaps that is the authority that makes our collective delusion seem to be somewhat less deluded.
This brings me to the digital currency, Bitcoin.
Like paper, it too represents a collective delusion. Only instead of paper, it is an open source software, peer-to-peer payment system. It was developed anonymously (by the pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto) and is limited to 21 million virtual “coins.” Its value is determined by the beliefs of its adherents, reflected in trading on the Bitcoin index.
A small but vocal group of crypto-anarchists so strongly disapproves of paper money that the Bitcoins in circulation now are valued at $6.2 billion, up from almost nothing just a few years ago. Indeed, in the Q&A portion of almost every speech I have given since the financial crisis, invariably a question arises about “worthless” fiat currencies. My response has always been the same: ``Please send me your worthless fiat currency, be it euros or dollars, for proper disposal. Contact me at the e-mail below and I will assist in freeing you from this troublesome paper.'' “Worthless” fiat currency works well within the collective delusion to which I belong.
Bitcoin is in the news because of the collapse of Mt. Gox, one of the largest Bitcoin trading exchanges, after hackers managed to steal 6 percent of all the Bitcoin in circulation.
What makes this so intriguing is that all currencies have vulnerabilities. Paper money can be counterfeited, credit-card databases can be breached, bank vaults are far from impregnable. The long list of retailers who have been hacked over the past year shows that every currency or payment system has weaknesses that can be exploited.
All of which only serves to bring me back to our original observation: Perhaps with the exception of barter, any system that relies on a medium of exchange is a form of collective delusion. How we interact with it, and what we do in the face of this collective delusion’s strengths and weaknesses will determine the way we make future financial plans.

I only trade in purple berries. If their "value" drops to zero, I can still eat them. Probably keep us both alive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O69L2mO9y-4

Six days ago, bitcoin bank Flexcoin said that they were unscathed by the Mt. Gox failure. Flexcoin closed its doors yesterday after a hacker attack on Sunday bankrupted the company.