Probably not unless you think that they are more likely to lose value than to gain value. I suppose one could buy insurance though if one wants to eliminate that risk, and the reasonable surcharge would be equal to the insurance premium.
Why don't you try making an actual argument instead of bald-assertions? It would make you look less like you're making things up to suit a sub-rational bias.
The best way to satisfy one's curiosity is to actually look for things with your own eyes. It's also the best way to learn. This very issue was addressed very recently in this thread. You clearly haven't paid even the slightest bit of attention.
remirol said:
EGarrett said:
...(must)...(not)...(ask)...(who's)...(eyes)...(to)...(trust)...
Yes, that would be interesting but could you trust anybody who responds in the affirmative any more than you trust mhaze or EGarrett?
So far nothing but bald assertions...and psionl doesn't share your views. So keep going.
If you were following the discussion, you would understand that in fact, the speculative volatility of Bitcoin is the primary and possibly the only thing hindering its utility right now. You would have seen the conversation between myself, psionl0, and a couple others with regard to just what the practical problems are with starting a business around Bitcoin, or trying to adapt an existing business to use Bitcoin on the side.
You don't "get into Bitcoin," speculation does not create real growth in a product or service, utility does, and the long-term viability of Bitcoin is not from exchanging money for it, it's from its ability to facilitate trades of goods and services...to which the volatility is a negligible factor due to the divisibility and the presence of instant speed middleman-style processors.
Good because you sure aren't.
If you don't pay attention then I will tell you that you didn't, that's what happens when you make people repeat themselves endlessly.
Really? So what am I referencing then, and why didn't you just address it instead of asking that question as though it wasn't there?
And how will you embark on that process when you don't use those eyes to begin with?
Filling a paragraph with buzzwords is a red flag of a different kind; not to mention that it doesn't address the original point, which is that the volatility _is_ the obstacle... which is being demonstrated as we speak by the number of common things you _cannot_ do with bitcoin, because the people who provide those goods and services will not _accept_ bitcoin... because of the volatility.
Other than "it's doing so right now?". Hence my l'il straw poll about "is anyone doing anything OTHER than speculating in Bitcoin right now?" Which is producing mostly the expected answers -- even the people who have run businesses aren't jumping on board the Bitcoin train in any other way, and there's an extensive pile of very obvious reasons why. See actual discussion.
And what does the speculation have to do with its long-term viability?
Yes, that you aren't following the meaning of actual terms and would rather handwave them away then pay attention. Address what I just told you.
Do you even know what my argument is?
Yup, you just confirmed that you haven't paid any attention. So don't complain when I tell you that you haven't.
And how do you view that data and those numbers?
If you are asking someone who runs a "non-internet business" for its "web presence" you might just draw a few blanks.I could, indeed, because I could ask them "Where's its web presence so we can go all have a look at it?" and get an actual answer.
Are you ignoring some responses of mine that deal with that question?
Hmmmm
remirol said:
As I just noted, you didn't say anything; you just filled a paragraph with buzzwords.
If you are asking someone who runs a "non-internet business" for its "web presence" you might just draw a few blanks.
remirol said:
Question, issue, whatever? It seems to me that you are restating a position of yours without acknowledging that I had some input on the ...er, words.