I have no idea why his thoughts on Bitcoin would be worth spreading on HN. He has no particular authority regarding economics (he's not a trained economist so far as I know) an the reasoning in this post seems to be of the typical working- backwards- from- foregone- conclusion attempted- first- principles stuff you can get on any HN thread arguing about Bitcoin.
I really dislike Bitcoin, but can think of much better devil's advocates than Denninger.
Ad hominem attacks are somehow better? One would hope the crowd on HN is mature enough not to be swayed by those...
It's popular because he made valid, well-supported points. If you disagree with his points, why not attack those instead of Denninger himself?
So far as I can tell, all the points Denninger has made here are supported only by Denninger's bare assertions. It reads like a message board post. Here's an article critical of Bitcoin that does better than recasting opinions as facts:
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2013/04/03/1425292/the-problem-wi...
If you think he's misusing a concept, then say so. He clearly names the concepts and describes what he believes them to mean, so you can plug those into Google and see if you agree.
If you think the logic he's using to support his arguments is faulty, then you can simply point out the logical flaws in his arguments. This again does not require any citations or particular outside authority.
Finally, the entire post is clearly presented as his opinion on Bitcoin and in response to people asking for his thoughts. Given this, what is wrong with him expressing his opinion based on logic and his understanding of concepts. Why does his opinion require citations?
Next, if you look carefully at the post, you'll find, I think, that it's a mix of two basic rhetorical approaches:
1. Recapitulating shopworn arguments about Bitcoin as if they were fresh points, sometimes using jargon that conceals their banality, such as the "privilege of Seigniorage" that boils down to Bitcoin having no central bank.
2. Idiosyncratic attempts at first-principles arguments, like the "entropy" (helpfully defined in the article) in comparison to gold coins lost off the side of a ship.
There's nothing wrong with writing a post like this. Denninger didn't ask for his post to be nailed to the top of HN. I just don't find the post particularly credible.
From that author's biography:
> Everything she knows about economics stems from a childhood fascination with ancient economies. . .
> She studied Ancient History at UCL, and has a masters in Journalism from what was then the London College of Printing.
I hope this is just an elaborate troll, since this was your criticism of Denninger:
> He has no particular authority regarding economics (he's not a trained economist so far as I know)
(55 minutes pass)
I'll take that as a 'no'.
> Bitcoin’s programming ensures there can never be more than 21m coins in existence. Part of the “bubble” effect, no doubt, is linked to a realisation that we are quickly approaching that limit. According to the latest data from Bitcoin charts, for example, there are currently 10,986,175 bitcoins in issuance. Yes, we still have some room to go, but given exponential dynamics, the fact that we’ve reached the “half-way point” in supply is no doubt meaningful.
The article is formatted a bit strangely, and the author is strange, sure, but neither of those are legitimate reasons to discard the actual content without consideration. The article does go to quite significant lengths to try and establish a foundation for what he's arguing so that the reader can decide whether they agree with the logical steps he's taking to reach his conclusion, which I think is a good thing.
'Well, I don't agree or disagree with what you're saying, I just think YOU shouldn't be able to say it' doesn't seem to be different from an ad hominem attack in practice in this case. It's refusing to engage with the actual content on quality or validity grounds and instead engaging with some unrelated point.
The original post is not arguing 'you should agree with what I'm saying because I'M saying it' and it's also not saying 'these are facts because I say they are'.
I would further argue that the HN voting system can be relied on to determine what is interesting instead of credibility. Certainly, I believe just because 37Signals or Dustin Caldwell posts something doesn't make it interesting, but the voting seems to disagree with me. At any rate, we have an existing system to determine what should be relevant comment, so there's no need to invoke credibility here.
"Denninger ran an ISP in Chicago in the mid-90s and is an infamous curmudgeon. He sold the ISP in the late '90s and, as I understand it, retired to Florida to curmudge professionally." Author attack
"I have no idea why his thoughts on Bitcoin would be worth spreading on HN. He has no particular authority regarding economics" Author attack.
"I really dislike Bitcoin, but can think of much better devil's advocates than Denninger." Author attack
Notice the pattern? not a single rebuttal of the content provided in this article All comments directed at the author. That's an Ad hominem attack.
This is another example of the ad hominem fallacy fallacy, wherein any assessment of a person making an argument is judged out-of-bounds because of the existence of the ad hominem fallacy. Here is an example of an actual ad hominem fallacy:
Arguer: "Bitcoin is doomed to fail because it lacks a central banking authority."
Opponent: "That's bullcrap because you're not a trained economist."
Here is an example of the ad hominem fallacy fallacy:
Arguer: "I looked up Karl Denninger and it says he's the founder of the Tea Party."
Opponent: "Also he's a professional curmudgeon who sold an ISP once and has no economics training."
Arguer: Ad hominem!
I am not too invested in this particular thread, but the ad hominem fallacy fallacy drives me up a wall a little bit.
What? I'm astonished you said that. How many people who have created the companies of today were "trained" to do them. Show me Jeff Bezos' bookselling training. Steve Jobs' design training and programming degree. The Google team's former analog advertising agency and their degrees in those fields. Just stop.
When the wacko founds a fortune 500 company, I'll pay attention.
> However, Denninger later expressed concern with the Tea Party movement, stating in an October 20, 2010 blog post that Republicans had hijacked the movement and perverted its original goals to the standard Republican concerns of "guns, gays and God".