To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we do not use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyses reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Reading this book critically, it is, on the whole well-structured and provides explanations of complex ideas. However, the author has a tendency to rely on long metaphors and drawing conclusions from his own statements (using his own conclusions as objective truth. Valid as they may be, he does not provide the core evidence at key points in the book). With that in mind, it is still an interesting exploration of the history of money, the lessons we can draw from that and how that applies to the current economic climate and takes a critical look at commonly spouted economic theory (e.g. Keynesian economics).
1. The forward was far too heavy and put me off, but when I got to the book it was a much better introduction, teaching me well.
2. It becomes a bit anti left and polemic, which is not a problem itself, I just wanted a book about bitcoin.
3. It went off on an anti modern art tangent, as a sign of the age of leftist big government socialist decay of lost (?protestant?) work ethic values. Kind of fun to read, bit of a mish mash of political opinion, but I wanted a book about bitcoin.
4. Excellent discussion about what is money, why fait is being abused, how this will hurt us, why we got here, why we are still doing it, and what the fix is likely to be.
5. I think it could have been much better if it made some attempt to win over critics, rather than bash them. The economics (I'm numerate but not an economist) seem pretty well demonstrated, but the politics (should there be any in a book about bitcoin?) is opinionated.
Boring and long. About 60% of the book is the history of money, the other 40% touches on Bitcoin and its case uses which is interesting but save yourself the time, it’s a difficult book to read and I found myself wandering off, I do that if I don’t really enjoy a book. It wasn’t really a good insight for me to be honest. There are better cryptocurrency books out there
The author has very extreme opinions. He claimed that abandoning the gold standard was the root cause of all problems including the number of death of the 1st and 2nd world war. He portraits Keynes as an ignorant wannabe economist with questionable moral values and sexual preferences. And he does not save Milton Friedman too. He calls Mark Rothko's work "trash" because it takes few hours to paint his works but they are valued millions on the market. So be ready to frown an eyebrow every couple of pages. Other than that the book is thought-provoking so it worth the reading. Even if it could have been at least 50% shorter since he repeats the same concept for 9 chapters out of 10.
Das Buch ist sehr anspruchsvoll geschrieben. Wer ein Buch über Bitcoin erwartet, wird hier enttäuscht werden. Die ersten 2/3 handelt über Geldtheorie, lediglich das letzte drittel nimmt Bezug auf Cryptowährungen. Also ich fand es interessant aber aufgrund der Sprache hatte ich teilweise schon Verständnisschwierigkeiten.
It’s great to sound as if you know what you are talking about, but the section on early use of objects for currencies reads wrong. It assumes that there is only a monetary value when discussing stones and seashells. Writing carefully here, anthropologists assume that ancient cultures practiced different conceptions of valued goods by analogy of recent non westernised societies.. phew. OK. So. You obtain flashy things and give goods away to raise your status above other people (a watch worth thousands of pounds tells the time as accurately as one costing a tenner for most purposes). You also give things to create a social obligation in others...think Xmas gifts and pub rounds and Hrothgar in the Anglo Saxon poem Beowulf dispensing gifts (he didn't pay to get rid of a horrible monster, he distributed stuff). As the author chants on about you can’t monetise copper...well the Kwakiutl of the North West US coast used to accumulate big copper cauldrons and ritually destroy them to show their status. I can’t trust a book where incorrect assumptions are made about the stuff I know. So I depart.
I'm half way through the book. So far I'm really appreciating the history of money and monetary theory. The thing is, prior to this I did not know the difference between Austrian and Keynesian monetary theory. And as I write this confession I fear the author will send a hitman to kill me for my ignorance and for the audacity of suggesting "Keynesian" is worthy of being called "theory". As one uninitiated in the conflict, when I find there is a conflict, I assume biases and one-sided presentations will be employed. The author reinforces this assumption by hurreling pages and pages of vitriol at the Keynesians, confirming that I should be wary of anything he has to say.
Dear author, if you wish your work to have maximal persuasive impact, re-edit your book to disguise your disgust of the Keynesians. Let your arguments and evidence lead readers to develop their own disgust. Do not inocculate your audience by giving them occasion to suspect you of biased argument. Just a thought. :)
UPDATE - PG 131: This guy is raging on and on about monetary manipulation...I GET IT! State your position, present your evidence, let the reader develope their own opinion. You are like a grandpa, endlessly raging at the world for all the wrongs you have suffered. Thank you for sharing your wisdom. Thank you for exposing the hazards of Keynesian monetary policy. Please edit your book so I can send a copy to all my friends and family AND THEY WILL READ IT. 0_0