Obama is a Nobel Laureate and this is a man who hates liberty and peace. So I would not trust Nobel Laureates!

I think some Nobel Prizes hold more weight than others, but obviously giving a Nobel Peace Prize to a mass murderer is some kind of joke, or perhaps they were trying to make an ironic statement. Or maybe like most awards they mean very little in the real world. Let's measure weight by merit and actions, not awards on somebodies mantelpiece.

Is he aware what it takes to creat a single bitcoin now? Sooner it will be easier to dig for gold at the bottom of sea than mining a single coin 

The question has always been,
"But how much better is it than what exists today?"
Well, "How do you qualify the answer?"
"With economic value, derived from utility and exchange-ability."
"What about the Meta aspect of this? the underlying structure and speed of change? Can we not see it's patterns and change them?"
"That is the role of Central Planning to decide, no one can have perfect information, individuals would have to be all focused on the events as they happened
adding extra complexity to the system would hinder planners from applying specific changes, and the fact that no individual can perfectly know the whole truth
would create dissonance within the system. It is better to let the best informed decide."
"The best informed are those who see all the events at the most detailed levels and from the most perspectives; No matter from where one perceives reality
It all starts from the One, each individual deciding what is correct, it is simply a matter of learning what everyone knows to be correct to become the best
informed; One can even observe the observer, turning the awareness within into a infinite loop, a hall of mirrors rewarding or deceiving those willing to look.
The individual might get lost but the collective will learn from every vision perceived, even with imperfect communication, every path will be known, making all
change predictable and only a matter of choice."

  I see Bitcoin as providing the same benefits as the legacy banking system with a few technical improvements, shortcuts to do the same work with
extra choice thrown in. The economists sticking so closely to their data can't see the aspects they are not trained to perceive, specifically the Technological,
Psychological, Social and Informational effects of this, The idea is stronger, the network effect applies as more learn, they discover what lies ahead, opening
their horizons to new possibilities. Is their any value to it, of course some people may find value in modifying the tempo of the monetary system, changing
larger aspects like those mentioned, above and beyond it's network, the meta Version of the Meta. What I'm saying is, " They got so caught up in observing
and controlling the flow of money they forgot about what it's good for," sometimes limiting the good to stop the bad is done without understanding the impact it
will have.
  I know the change Bitcoin will make, it increases the market share of participants in the a market by giving the un-banked a chance to impact the world
beyond their current horizons, It simply does not have that impediment imposed on it by any entity or organization, it doesn't have a lot of their limitations.
It's network is small now but it can move into niches other monetary systems avoid; Uncertainty of size with a risky demographic population, are bad for returns.
  It's speed, creates change faster, bypassing all monetary restrictions, reaffirming ones reach and power of change, You simply have to ask someone who does
regular remittances or has done a large bank transfer... there is so much red tape to cut just to transfer ones accumulated financial power from one zone to the next.
I think the system that had regional monetary controls was called Mercantilism, I thought Adam Smith proved such controls are just wrong.
  To say it is a bubble is to completely forget that we are watching this from it's inception, beyond the simple idea of promissory notes of 300 years ago, and the
current fiat backed guard; You look at history and it is a tradition of incorporation of new ideas to an age old one, that of money, It's never changed, just the way
it's denominated.

> 3. Ask him when he ever in his life invented something or had a vision about any technological disruption that changed the world.

Ever heard of the Case-Schiller index?  This guy also made it possible to insure against rapidly falling housing prices.  Robert Schiller is a great economist, with a proven track record of predictions in the real world, and also more innovation that the neckbeards posting shit about him.  No question.  He's also a decent human being.

I hope he is wrong about bitcoin.  The thing about Schiller is, he thinks everything is a bubble, so this is not terribly surprising.  Yes, he called the housing bubble and the tech bubble.  But he pretty much thinks everything is overvalued. 

I wonder what criteria need to be met to convince people that this isn't a bubble. I mean when does something stop being considered a bubble.

Will it no longer be considered a bubble when a certain handful of companies take BTC payments successfully? Or when x number of people use BTC? Or is it when the value stabilises (not for a long while)?

+1
absolutely great economist, very boring technical writing style though--- he doesn't think everything is bubble, just recently he said he is buying US stocks, for instance. He is very good at statistical analysis, perhaps he is not that familiar with the whole bitcoin phenomenon yet and will likely have to revise his opinion. Don't get angry folks, BTC is so disruptive to the whole value system of most economists, that it is very difficult for them not to fight the concept...

Sure, I mean anything revolution must be considered a bubble under some estimation during its initial time. Whether it continues to develop or simply fizzles out would make people say "ah it wasn't a bubble after all" or "told you, it was a bubble all along" lol. During the potential "bubble" period it can only be speculated. All about hindsight I suppose.

cryptocurrencies are here to stay. no question about it. and  some technology aspect of bitcoin will live on forever (blockchain/ledger/opensourcemoney etc these concepts will live on)
but bitcoin which is now just one "brand" of cryptocurrency (although the first one ) is a total bubble.  bitcoins growth has  been  exactly the "bubbly ride" traders love..there's been at least 3 bubble pops where traders have been able to easily double up their stash. and big payout days on dumb money are still to come as more sheeples jump on board. rinse and repeat till there's no more sheeples to bleed dry.
baid were the first company to make television...other brands brought more innovation and took over ....the technology of television still lived ......
ibm was the first personal computer......other brands entered the market with more innovation and took over ..personal computers sdtill lived on...
myspace was the first social media....then other brands brought more innovation and took over (twitter/facebook)....social media still lives on....and myspace now is dead.
bitcoin was first cryptocurrency.....other cryptos are bringing innovation (PoS) and will take over (not saying which ones).....cryptocurrency will live on.....