They aren’t “right wing” by the way. They were against Trump, support gay marriage, liberal immigration, and drug legalization.
Even John Oliver and Bill Maher cite Cato and Reason frequently. I’m not a fan of Krugman but have the ability to know when he’s making a good argument.
So what’s not accurate? You think Reason is inventing people getting food and basic supplies using bitcoin? Fake people in the video?
If the information you believe is accurate is indeed accurate, it should be very easy to find another source for that information. That’s all you have to do. Find another legitimate news source reporting on this story. If you’re having a hard time finding such reporting, why is that?
It’s a video report that Reason created dealing with real people using bitcoin in shitty countries. It itself is the news source. I get hating Reason but anyone should be able to make a reasonable concluding based on the videos (agree or disagree). Why is this hard to to believe? Bitcoin has value and can be used to acquire stuff. Where is the stretch of imagination occurring?
Ah yes, they ran a pro-holocaust denial issue, hosted writers who supported apartheid(Including attacking anti-apartheid protesters and sanctions), supported wingnut republicans like Ron “Subscribe to my newsletter” Paul and Rand Paul, plus other tea-partiers, among other things, from the left.
I’ll give them credit, they weren’t ALL in on trump(More kinda…anti-anti trump while still being somewhat anti-trump themselves), and (Much to the rage of their readership) encouraged, with some reluctance, people to vote for the Dems.
But have you ever heard the expression, Lie down with the dogs, wake up with fleas?
Churba- there’s stuff that is BS everywhere including NY Times, etc. There’s a lot of stuff I disagree with on Reason and Cato but that doesn’t make them wrong especially in a piece like that is showing how people are using bitcoin to survive. Are you so partisan to blind yourself to facts?
We can move on and discuss the specifics of the issue if you can cite a reliable and legitimate news source. That’s all there is to it. Just go Google and find a link. That’s all you have to do.
You’ve joined our community, which is happy to welcome new people, but you immediately violated our code of conduct. When warned, you proceeded to argue rather than comply. I’m not seeing a lot of options other than banning if this continues.
Like this?
What exactly are you asking for that you find disagreeable in the video?
No. There’s stuff that’s BS in the New York times. BS is BS, Holocaust denial is outright hate speech, targeted at an ethnic group. If you’re making the case that the NYT’s mistakes are the equivalent of outright denying, and in some cases encouraging genocide, I cannot express to you how deeply that you will not find a place for yourself in this community.
Sure, you disagree with the NYT, we all do. But Disagreements are for ice-cream flavors, movie opinions, and even more serious stuff like electoral politics in America, so on, not well-proven genocides and the encouragement thereof, or supporting racist or genocidal regimes. Trying to whitewash that tells us more than I think you want it to about you.
No, but you are. The people you’re talking about are a manipulated fiction - the people using Bitcoin in Latin America are largely people who already had money, because due to (largely American and European) speculation markets, the price is high enough that the people who are most hurt by their national economic issues are the ones who can’t afford to buy in to bitcoin. The same in Argentina, where bitcoin isn’t used by regular people on the whole, aside from the huge problems that made it impossible to use as a currency at the national scale anyway. Yeah, sure, they tried - and for all but the already wealthy and a few small outliers, it failed.
You can’t get around the rule of not spreading information from them by transcribing the contents of the video.
Let’s discuss the NY Times article you linked.
It’s from 2015. It tells a story about a very small number of people using Bitcoin. It provides no evidence that its use is widespread, and merely speculates about a possible future. The potential benefits of Bitcoin in Argentina it presents are merely hypotheticals.
In the time since 2015 the price of the Argentinian Peso has fallen by more than half, relative to the US dollar. At the same time the value of a Bitcoin has skyrocketed from close to nothing to tens of thousands of dollars.
I’m sure someone would much rather be holding bitcons than pesos, given the change in price. But a currency that goes up doesn’t get spent. You’re not using a bitcoin for groceries if its price could jump tomorrow. The Argentinian peso may be tanking, but the rate at which it is doing so is drastically more stable than Bitcoin and is more usable as an actual currency.
Not to mention that the peso doesn’t have a side effect of environmental devastation.
Churba. The NY Times & Reason pieces are about bitcoin being used in Argentina for basic supplies. What does the holocaust have to do with anything? Now you’re moving the goalpost about with how it is used and who is using it.
Did anybody tell you about the tax for being a miner apologist on these forums?
You have to mail me a 1080 Ti.
I’ll PM you my address.
You seem to be confused. There are two discussions here.
Linking or citing Reason, and many other sources, is a violation of our code of conduct. The holocaust denial is an example of one of the reasons (lol) why they are unacceptable.
The actual topic at hand, for which the information cited in the reason video will not be considered because it comes from a source that is untrusted.
Apreche- the rule seems to be that you moderate political stuff you don’t like, which is fine, your site. 
I posted three straightforward pieces on bitcoin that demonstrate its utility and helping people. I agree it’s speculative but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have any value and can’t be a stronger currency one day if some stability emerges. I think your episode would have been more informative if you defined what a currency is and why bitcoin doesn’t meet that definition. Or what properties would a stateless digital currencies have to have to be stable.
Welcome to the community.
A limited-scope experiment in an already-volatile country is not an actual experiment from which one can conclude the viability of cryptocurrency for a developed economy. The experiment is subject to considerable bias from existing economic instability - in other words, the experiment is fundamentally flawed because one cannot adequately control for background economic instability. The instability from cryptocurrency will essentially be masked by the existing economic issues.
This limits the applicability of the experiment to an actual stable economy.
Unless you can post an actual scientifically controlled experiment that demonstrates the viability of cryptocurrency, the claims here are specious at best.
I’m a professional scientist with 16 years of experience in actual experimental design and research. I am more than willing to be convinced by facts and truthful analysis which controls variables. Reason.com does not do such a thing.
It’s five years out of date. I’m telling you what happened after five years ago.
Not at all, friend, it’s very relevant. You’re the one who brought up reason magazine, and I simply pointed out some of the many valid reasons why they’re not to be trusted, which also combines well into an example of how they’ll happily publish false information to support an ideological position. The point was they’d lie about much weightier shit than bitcoin. I have to admit, whitewashing holocaust denial and supporting apartheid as just a difference of opinion is not the direction I expected you to go, but hey, you’re the captain of your ship, as it were - I’m not the one who decided you should tell on yourself like that.
I know why it can look this way, but I assure you, that is not the case. Many people here disagree on many things. Just look around. The code of conduct is very clear on what is and what is not allowed. I suggest you read it carefully or your stay here will be very short-lived.
Only a 1080? Aim higher.
Also, TBH I kind of foresaw this and it’s why I didn’t even want to do an episode on stupid coins. Talking about them, even negatively, still increases their mindshare. The old “any attention is good attention.” And secondarily, I knew coin bros would find the episode, and us, when searching once the words “cryptocurrency” or “bitcoin” appeared on the site.
Yeah but coiners are almost exclusively white libertarian dudes, so I don’t expect much of them.
Ironically, PR people HATE that expression, because it often allows clients to talk themselves into doing really dumb shit and assuming it will be fine. Turns out, that’s really not the case, and entire firms exist with their primary function being to kill and correct for bad attention.
Not to disagree, you do still have to be careful when giving things negative attention, it’s just an interesting note.
