Canadian Lawyer Magazine: "Bitcoin has jumped the shark."

Canadian Lawyer Magazine's IT Girl has Bitcoin on her Christmas wish list, but I think she's being sarcastic:

"This nifty technology looks to have jumped the shark, but it sparked a lot of interest, not to mention controversy, and the future may yet be in virtual e-currency. I wouldn’t go spending a lot of time or money trying to mine Bitcoin any time soon though; you would probably be better off alongside the stock brokers of late, selling Bre-X shares on Bay Street for $1 apiece as novelty items. Actually, that might not be such a bad idea."

Ms. Harris, you do realize that your words are now immortalized on the Internet, don't you? I think you may have just joined the rarefied company of the Slashdot commenter that dismissed the iPod in 2001. Don't worry, you also get to hang out with Forbes and Wired. I hear they throw awesome parties.

Speaking of being immortalized on the Internet, let's see what you had to say about Bitcoin back in August:

"In the case of Bitcoin, its value appears to be based upon scarcity in much the same way that commodities like oil and coal might be."

I'm not sure where to start with that one. Personally, I think oil and coal get their value from being sources of stored energy that we can convert to useful work and heat, but that's just me. Please, go on...

"Scarcity in the case of Bitcoin exists because the process of mining becomes exponentially more onerous as doing so becomes more popular. At the same time, it is said that there’s an intention for there to be a cap on the number of Bitcoins in circulation."

Yes, you could say there is an intention to cap the number of Bitcoins in circulation. In fact, it is hard-coded, and the number is 21 million, in case you're wondering.

"In some ways, the notion of scarcity makes sense given that the more Bitcoins that are in circulation, the lower its value will be assuming that the law of supply and demand applies. If there is a low ceiling on how many Bitcoins can be created and they have value based on scarcity and demand, its existence as a form of currency — except in very limited circumstances — may ultimately be extinguished."

I think that paragraph just jumped the shark, or maybe a dog ate some of it, because it cannot be deciphered.

"Do you remember the days when you could go to the corner store and pay 25 cents for a pack of sports cards that came with a cheap piece of gum? I’m sure if my brother dug around, he could probably mine some really valuable hockey and baseball cards. O-Pee-Chee, for instance, issued Wayne Gretzky cards in 1979 that are now worth about $50,000. So at the risk of antagonizing a number of people, are Bitcoins really that different from the situation of trading cards where only a limited number are issued, they’re accessible only to a narrowly defined market, and they’re very much subject to trends?"

Gahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Okay, I'm better now. I'm going to focus on the part of your statement that I've highlighted in bold.

Let's stop for a second and discuss how Bitcoins are different from trading cards.

Actually, nevermind, I will leave that to the reader as an exercise.

Ms. Harris, my Christmas wish list consists of two things: 1) a lump of scarce coal; and 2) that you stop writing IT articles for Canadian Lawyer Magazine. Thanks.

Posted in: inaccuracies,media,skepticism