[2019-03-28] The Economist: Bitcoin revival unlikely....

Betwrong

legendary

Activity: 3374

Merit: 2198

I stand with Ukraine.

Quote from: bbc.reporter on April 08, 2019, 06:54:06 PM

~
@Betwrong. In your fictional example no one wants to hold the other coin. That is not what occurs in our world, however.
~

If you want to say that there are people who don't mind holding other than Bitcoin cryptos, of course you are right in that, but I'm talking about the vast majority of business people. The reality is that the vast majority wouldn't accept any crypto as payment for their goods or services, and those of them who would, surely would prioritize Bitcoin over all other cryptos. I'm not talking about crypto oriented folks, I'm talking about all people in general, because I think we should pay more attention to them if we want wider adoption.

webtricks

legendary

Activity: 1918

Merit: 1728

Quote from: kano on April 04, 2019, 03:38:05 AM

The Bitcoin price has had bubbles and crashes many times over the last 8.5 years and will continue to do that over the next 100 years.

True! It isn't limited to Bitcoin only but everything in the world when attracts attention of large number of people end up worse when interest of people is over. Bitcoin if we compare over the period of 9 years has been the highest grown investment. But when everyone tried to step on ship, ship first sailed wonderfully and gave more than expected returns but as the number kept growing, ship started deteriorating. But it isn't one time. The interest of public keep coming and going. This is the main reason of bullish and bearish run! So it isn't over for btc yet but at the same time it doesn't mean that btc won't collapse again like 2018.

bbc.reporter

legendary

Activity: 3010

Merit: 1460

Quote from: figmentofmyass on April 09, 2019, 12:12:38 AM

Quote from: bbc.reporter on April 08, 2019, 06:54:06 PM

Quote from: figmentofmyass on April 07, 2019, 02:50:49 AM

Quote from: bbc.reporter on April 06, 2019, 07:50:30 PM

It is the fee market argument. It will work if there was only one coin. However, the people who argue for it refuse to acknowledge that there are other cryptcoins that are competing for lower fees in the fee market.

lower fees doesn't equate to equal security. if people want to opt for shitcoin security then they'll keep getting 51% attacked as we often see today. bitcoin's level of reliability is unparalleled and i think history shows there is a steady and growing demand for it, even within a sea of altcoins that are cheaper to use.

I reckon you should read my thread and try to understand the issue. This is not about the low fees. It is about the opposite. If fees are very high, there might be less people using bitcoin.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49375019

"lower fees" refers to "lower fees to use altcoins". that's precisely what you're discussing, is it not?

your argument is that high fees will deter usage of bitcoin (in favor of altcoins). i think all evidence so far---such as the positive correlation between price and fees---disagrees with you. i also think your argument doesn't account for the fact that no altcoin can measure up to bitcoin's security and reliability. that's what people are willing to pay much higher fees for.

i read your thread and responded there ages ago: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49493642

It disagrees with me right now, yes, however if all the coins have been mined, I reckon it would be time to revisit this issue.

Also, I am not questioning bitcoin's reliability. I am discussing bitcoin's monetary policy and how it can sustain its security from fees alone.

@BitHodler. I reckon the Lightning Network would be similar to altcoins competing versus bitcoin for transactions.

In any case, I would like everyone to read grin's monetary policy.

https://github.com/mimblewimble/docs/wiki/Monetary-Policy

BitHodler

legendary

Activity: 1526

Merit: 1179

Quote from: bbc.reporter on April 08, 2019, 06:54:06 PM

However the Lightning Network also competes versus the miners for fees.

I doubt it's going to have much of an impact at all. LN will cause the hop fees to decline because of the competitive nature of the fee market. If you charge too much in fees, you'll be ignored so you have to offer super low fees.

If we look at the main chain fees, there is a very limited amount of block space available with a continuously increasing demand. In other words, people and services will up bid their fees to get that 1-3 block confirmation priority.

Big block miners shouldn't complain about anything with how high the fees are, and deep down I am sure they actually like it. Their only incentive is to make money, and that's exactly what they are doing with Bitcoin.

figmentofmyass

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1483

Quote from: bbc.reporter on April 08, 2019, 06:54:06 PM

Quote from: figmentofmyass on April 07, 2019, 02:50:49 AM

Quote from: bbc.reporter on April 06, 2019, 07:50:30 PM

It is the fee market argument. It will work if there was only one coin. However, the people who argue for it refuse to acknowledge that there are other cryptcoins that are competing for lower fees in the fee market.

lower fees doesn't equate to equal security. if people want to opt for shitcoin security then they'll keep getting 51% attacked as we often see today. bitcoin's level of reliability is unparalleled and i think history shows there is a steady and growing demand for it, even within a sea of altcoins that are cheaper to use.

I reckon you should read my thread and try to understand the issue. This is not about the low fees. It is about the opposite. If fees are very high, there might be less people using bitcoin.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49375019

"lower fees" refers to "lower fees to use altcoins". that's precisely what you're discussing, is it not?

your argument is that high fees will deter usage of bitcoin (in favor of altcoins). i think all evidence so far---such as the positive correlation between price and fees---disagrees with you. i also think your argument doesn't account for the fact that no altcoin can measure up to bitcoin's security and reliability. that's what people are willing to pay much higher fees for.

i read your thread and responded there ages ago: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49493642

bbc.reporter

legendary

Activity: 3010

Merit: 1460

Quote from: Kakmakr on April 07, 2019, 02:42:25 AM

Quote from: bbc.reporter on April 06, 2019, 07:50:30 PM

Is the basic research knowing that the miners will be paid 100% in transaction fees when all the coins eventually are mined? Some argue that it is sustainable because miners can choose which transactions they want to include in the block.

It is the fee market argument. It will work if there was only one coin. However, the people who argue for it refuse to acknowledge that there are other cryptcoins that are competing for lower fees in the fee market.

Bitcoin also have a second layer solution that competes with other Alt coins with lower fees and it is called the Lightning Network. Tongue

Bitcoin developers are not sitting on their hands, waiting for other Alt coins to take it's crown, they are constantly adding new features to compete with these coins. Wink

Bitcoin miners have two options to generate a income now, 1. Mining for the Block rewards and also transaction fees, 2. Hosting a LN node and gaining some small income from that too. Cheesy

However the Lightning Network also competes versus the miners for fees.

Quote from: figmentofmyass on April 07, 2019, 02:50:49 AM

Quote from: bbc.reporter on April 06, 2019, 07:50:30 PM

It is the fee market argument. It will work if there was only one coin. However, the people who argue for it refuse to acknowledge that there are other cryptcoins that are competing for lower fees in the fee market.

lower fees doesn't equate to equal security. if people want to opt for shitcoin security then they'll keep getting 51% attacked as we often see today. bitcoin's level of reliability is unparalleled and i think history shows there is a steady and growing demand for it, even within a sea of altcoins that are cheaper to use.

I reckon you should read my thread and try to understand the issue. This is not about the low fees. It is about the opposite. If fees are very high, there might be less people using bitcoin.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49375019

@Betwrong. In your fictional example no one wants to hold the other coin. That is not what occurs in our world, however.

In any case, part of why I am asking and arguing is because of grin's monetary policy.

Tail emission may be required for long term stability

Currencies with set supply are extremely experimental. Miners likely need incentives to secure the chain beyond only fees. Note: currency deflation is historically not a good thing.

Sound money has more to do with transparent emission than a capped supply

One of the pitfalls of monetary inflation in fiat currencies is governments can inflate the monetary supply on a whim. This has been used to disastrous effect throughout history. A non-sovereign, open source, consensus based currency solves this issue by making the emission policy well known ahead of time, and makes it difficult if not impossible to change. Based on this definition of soundness, Grin is just as much "sound money" as Bitcoin. Removing central authorities with arbitrary control is much more what makes Bitcoin important than the arbitrary amount of its capped supply.

Nick Szabo commented on Bitcoin's fixed supply that "a wide variety of supply algos would have worked, as long as they are predictable. […] Security/trust min[imization] is responsible for more of the value".

https://github.com/mimblewimble/docs/wiki/Monetary-Policy

Betwrong

legendary

Activity: 3374

Merit: 2198

I stand with Ukraine.

Quote from: bbc.reporter on April 06, 2019, 07:50:30 PM

~It will work if there was only one coin. However, the people who argue for it refuse to acknowledge that there are other cryptcoins that are competing for lower fees in the fee market.

Let's imagine a close to real life situation. Businessman1 wants to transfer $1,000 to Businessman2, and in order to save $3, the amount sufficient for your transaction to be confirmed in less than 35 minutes(but most likely in 15 minutes), he buys an altcoin, ALT888, convinces Businessman2 to accept $1,000 worth of that altcoin, transfers the money in 30 seconds instead of 15 minutes and pays $0.00001 as transaction fee instead of $3. Now, of course, as @1Referee rightly pointed out, no one wants to hold an ALT888, they want to convert it to BTC right away. I may be wrong but I think the process of conversion can take more than 15 minutes in time and more than $3 in money.

1Referee

legendary

Activity: 2170

Merit: 1427

Quote from: Kakmakr on April 07, 2019, 02:42:25 AM

Bitcoin also have a second layer solution that competes with other Alt coins with lower fees and it is called the Lightning Network.

I don't see it as competition at all because altcoins by default don't stand a chance against Bitcoin in that regard. The only thing altcoins have going for them is that they pump harder than Bitcoin. No one cares about their lower fees. People's end game is to convert back to Bitcoin and build their way up to being an elite holder of the future.

Quote from: Kakmakr on April 07, 2019, 02:42:25 AM

Bitcoin miners have two options to generate a income now, 1. Mining for the Block rewards and also transaction fees, 2. Hosting a LN node and gaining some small income from that too. Cheesy

If miners end up dedicating their block rewards to Lightning it will even further reduce the availability of spot supply and inflate the price organically. I however don't think the largest farms (e.g. Bitmain, ViaBTC, BTC.TOP) will add liquidity to a layer that will combat their own business model.

figmentofmyass

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1483

Quote from: bbc.reporter on April 06, 2019, 07:50:30 PM

It is the fee market argument. It will work if there was only one coin. However, the people who argue for it refuse to acknowledge that there are other cryptcoins that are competing for lower fees in the fee market.

lower fees doesn't equate to equal security. if people want to opt for shitcoin security then they'll keep getting 51% attacked as we often see today. bitcoin's level of reliability is unparalleled and i think history shows there is a steady and growing demand for it, even within a sea of altcoins that are cheaper to use.

Kakmakr

legendary

Activity: 3542

Merit: 1965

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: bbc.reporter on April 06, 2019, 07:50:30 PM

Is the basic research knowing that the miners will be paid 100% in transaction fees when all the coins eventually are mined? Some argue that it is sustainable because miners can choose which transactions they want to include in the block.

It is the fee market argument. It will work if there was only one coin. However, the people who argue for it refuse to acknowledge that there are other cryptcoins that are competing for lower fees in the fee market.

Bitcoin also have a second layer solution that competes with other Alt coins with lower fees and it is called the Lightning Network. Tongue

Bitcoin developers are not sitting on their hands, waiting for other Alt coins to take it's crown, they are constantly adding new features to compete with these coins. Wink

Bitcoin miners have two options to generate a income now, 1. Mining for the Block rewards and also transaction fees, 2. Hosting a LN node and gaining some small income from that too. Cheesy

bbc.reporter

legendary

Activity: 3010

Merit: 1460

Is the basic research knowing that the miners will be paid 100% in transaction fees when all the coins eventually are mined? Some argue that it is sustainable because miners can choose which transactions they want to include in the block.

It is the fee market argument. It will work if there was only one coin. However, the people who argue for it refuse to acknowledge that there are other cryptcoins that are competing for lower fees in the fee market.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: bbc.reporter on April 05, 2019, 07:10:34 PM

Your answer does not matter because it will be arguably wrong or arguably correct. But arguable nonetheless.

That's true. And I've already said I'm not arguing with someone who refuses to do even some basic research, so quit trying to draw me into one

bbc.reporter

legendary

Activity: 3010

Merit: 1460

@Carlton Banks. For the reason that bitcoin's security being sustained by the fee market alone is still arguable and will continue to be arguable.

Do you reckon that bitcoin can sustain itself from fees alone forever? Your answer does not matter because it will be arguably wrong or arguably correct. But arguable nonetheless.

That is why you did good by escaping and refusing to answer a question that has riddled everyone.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: bbc.reporter on April 04, 2019, 09:37:53 PM

However, it is an issue that has never found a solution and the questions about its sustainability will certainly return.

And how do you know that? From not reading previous threads about it? Roll Eyes

bbc.reporter

legendary

Activity: 3010

Merit: 1460

Quote from: Carlton Banks on April 04, 2019, 03:41:48 AM

Quote from: 1Referee on April 04, 2019, 01:52:51 AM

Why don't you explain him what your perspective on this matter is?

Because I know from experience that it's a long discussion, and I don't want to have the same conversation again

Why not ask the 'what if someone starts guessing private keys? why can't they just do that?' question. same category IMO

Agreed, I also understand why you do not want to go on another deep discussion on an old issue. However, it is an issue that has never found a solution and the questions about its sustainability will certainly return.

Also, the issue is not in the same category as asking what if someone starts guessing private keys. That is a silly comparison.

Slow death

legendary

Activity: 3164

Merit: 1127

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Why the hell would anyone care what they say? this is only their opinion, if we look at the world we will realize that everything has a good and bad side. The banks spend a lot of energy with several agencies that have in many corners, the extraction of gold destroy the nature and has men that intoxicate in this process, but little is spoken of that bad side of the gold. That's why we have to ignore news like these

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: 1Referee on April 04, 2019, 01:52:51 AM

Why don't you explain him what your perspective on this matter is?

Because I know from experience that it's a long discussion, and I don't want to have the same conversation again

Why not ask the 'what if someone starts guessing private keys? why can't they just do that?' question. same category IMO

kano

legendary

Activity: 4592

Merit: 1851

Linux since 1997 RedHat 4

The Bitcoin price has had bubbles and crashes many times over the last 8.5 years and will continue to do that over the next 100 years.

Nothing new here, just a typical journalist, copying many others over the past 6 or 7 years, trying to make a name by posting useless crap about Bitcoin.

Move along, nothing new to see here.

1Referee

legendary

Activity: 2170

Merit: 1427

Quote from: Carlton Banks on April 02, 2019, 04:01:09 AM

Quote from: bbc.reporter on April 01, 2019, 08:19:05 PM

I know the question is not original, however, was there a satisfying and final solution?

You could judge that for yourself, I can't tell you your opinion on something you haven't looked for (and because you're so interested, you'll be really motivated to look, I'm rather confused as to why you've not done so yet)

Why don't you explain him what your perspective on this matter is? We're here to help each other out and share knowledge, which you are definitely capable of and could have done already. It might not be an original question in your book, but what is an original question that we see pop up on this forum nowadays? On top of that, opinions can change the further we see Bitcoin progress, so it's still a valid question in the end.

He somewhat shared his concern, which you think is not valid, so what's your vision when it comes to the fees and the sustainability of the POW aspect of Bitcoin in the long run?

bbc.reporter

legendary

Activity: 3010

Merit: 1460

@Carlton Banks. I have my opinion, however, it's another matter.

I was asking what the other people's opinions are on if fees alone can sustain bitcoin's security. To some of the people who might say yes, I reckon they might not be completely honest with themselves.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: bbc.reporter on April 01, 2019, 08:19:05 PM

I know the question is not original, however, was there a satisfying and final solution?

You could judge that for yourself, I can't tell you your opinion on something you haven't looked for (and because you're so interested, you'll be really motivated to look, I'm rather confused as to why you've not done so yet)

bbc.reporter

legendary

Activity: 3010

Merit: 1460

@Carlton Banks. I know the question is not original, however, was there a satisfying and final solution? I reckon none and the approach accepted by many, because there might be no solution, is to wait and see on how the fee market works which is not very satisfying.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: bbc.reporter on March 31, 2019, 08:26:34 PM

Can you tell me what solutions were found from those debates years ago?

so, let me see:

you're interested in economics
you asked the first question that occured to you
you opened a thread about that question
you didn't do any research
you want me to do the research for you

focusing on point 2; what makes you think that the first question you thought of was so original? did you really believe that no-one has ever asked that question, and that no attempt has been made to answer it?

bbc.reporter

legendary

Activity: 3010

Merit: 1460

Quote from: Carlton Banks on March 31, 2019, 10:00:30 AM

Quote from: bbc.reporter on March 30, 2019, 07:56:41 PM

I was not implying only the units. I was also talking about distribution. A cap on supply encourages hoarding, it also opens bitcoin to the problem of sustainability of security on fees alone. I predict that this might become another major crisis in bitcoin.

this was all debated years ago, you're only demonstrating that you've not done any research

you're exaggerating the issue using hyperbole too, "another major crisis" (what previous "major" crisises have there even been? Bitcoin is one big largly unmitigated success story)

Why are you making exaggerated claims about issues you have not researched?

However, intiutively is it not going to be a bigger problem considering that there are other cryptocoins competing for cheaper transactions on the blockchain? Is it not why grin is trying a new tactic in its monetary policy?

I might have not done deep research into this issue, but I want to know more. Can you tell me what solutions were found from those debates years ago? The fee market argument leaves the issue with some open questions, I reckon.

1Referee

legendary

Activity: 2170

Merit: 1427

Quote from: bbc.reporter on March 30, 2019, 07:56:41 PM

A cap on supply encourages hoarding, it also opens bitcoin to the problem of sustainability of security on fees alone. I predict that this might become another major crisis in bitcoin.

I don't see that as a problem at all. Miners will become way more efficient with how technology continues to improve, and they will eventually generate their own energy, which decreases operational cost even further.

Side chains aren't of much importance right now, but they will be as time goes by. Miners can merge mine side chains and scoop up the fees of these side chains too, so that's one more income stream for them. I strongly believe that side chain fees due to their volumes may potentially be way more rewarding than the main chain fees in the future.

As for the hoarding part; hoarding makes Bitcoin more valuable and makes satoshi fees become more valuable too, so more income for the miners.

cryptofonia

jr. member

Activity: 111

Merit: 1

The analyst proves that Bitcoin will survive all https://vk.com/wall-147244562_1337

Betwrong

legendary

Activity: 3374

Merit: 2198

I stand with Ukraine.

Bitcoin may never reach mass adoption, but it doesn't mean it can't become a valuable currency. Take Japanese Yen for example. How many people, or rather what percentage of the world population, are actually using this currency? I may be wrong in my estimations, but I think we can divide the population of Japan (126,440,000) by the population of the world (7,530,000,000 ) to answer that question:

126,440,000 : 7,530,000,000 = 0.016791501

It turns out that less than 2% of the world population use JPY as currency, and yet it is regarded by many experts as one of the best currencies around.

Source: https://www.investopedia.com/trading/most-tradable-currencies/

Btw, JPY is not that stable either. Look at the chart below:

The Y-axis: Yen for 1 USD.

coolcoinz

legendary

Activity: 2814

Merit: 1192

It always amazes me that they claim that something is world's best or worst based on a timespan of one year. Is one year the timeframe we want to base our investments on? Overall bitcoin has been, and still is, one of the best, if not the best performing assets of the decade. It has its ups and down but is still outperforming everything including gold, oil, government bonds, you name it. Calling it one of the world's worst performing assets proves that this anonymous author did not do his research, or was paid to bash BTC.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: bbc.reporter on March 30, 2019, 07:56:41 PM

I was not implying only the units. I was also talking about distribution. A cap on supply encourages hoarding, it also opens bitcoin to the problem of sustainability of security on fees alone. I predict that this might become another major crisis in bitcoin.

this was all debated years ago, you're only demonstrating that you've not done any research

you're exaggerating the issue using hyperbole too, "another major crisis" (what previous "major" crisises have there even been? Bitcoin is one big largly unmitigated success story)

Why are you making exaggerated claims about issues you have not researched?

DooMAD

legendary

Activity: 3948

Merit: 3191

Leave no FUD unchallenged

"Revival" implies Bitcoin is dead or unconscious, which clearly isn't the case. It yet another article that can only measure success and failure in terms of price, which completely misses the entire point of Bitcoin. Each and every time I send or receive a transaction and no one manages to challenge, block or reverse it and I didn't need anyone's permission to do it, that's justification for Bitcoin's existence. Multiply that by the number of transactions Bitcoin handles every day and I'd say it's fighting fit and doesn't require any "revival" whatsoever. Who cares if it's not meeting The Economist's skewed criteria of how it needs to be performing?

bbc.reporter

legendary

Activity: 3010

Merit: 1460

Quote from: 1Referee on March 30, 2019, 04:32:35 AM

Quote from: bbc.reporter on March 29, 2019, 09:10:37 PM

One that limits bitcoin from mainstream adoption is the 21 million cap on supply.

It really doesn't. The more valuable Bitcoin becomes, the more people start paying attention to satoshi units, and there is plenty enough of that to serve people in every corner of the world. On top of that, Lightning makes even satoshi units divisible, so there is even less unit scarcity than people think.

I have been playing with Lightning for over a month now due to all the new features mobile wallets added, and it's way easier to work with satoshi units than with 0.0000 whatever part of a Bitcoin. By the time Bitcoin has risen so much in value, we won't be saying 1BTC is worth $1 million for example, but a penny per satoshi.

I was not implying only the units. I was also talking about distribution. A cap on supply encourages hoarding, it also opens bitcoin to the problem of sustainability of security on fees alone. I predict that this might become another major crisis in bitcoin.

I also made a thread about it. None of the replies had the answer.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/can-bitcoin-sustain-itself-on-fees-alone-5101017

Lucius

legendary

Activity: 3234

Merit: 5637

Blackjack.fun-Free Raffle-Join&Win $50🎲

Not surprising that the media who is backed by banks&fiat society is have such a point of view when it comes to a decentralized currency. If something can not be controlled it is not good, it is something that only criminals use and it will collapse over time. In fact, it's just about profit, and since we are in bear market and there is low volatility, it's easy to see where their story goes. People who bought it at the top were not smart, but if they hold until next ATH they will make profit for sure, but this is something that The Economist will not mentioned.

Bitcoin is crashed hard few times in its short history, but each time it came back stronger. These are facts that can easily be checked, only if someone is interested in that. There is no doubt that bitcoin is expecting a long and demanding road ahead, but there is also no doubt that we can hope for a great success, it's just a matter of time.

buwaytress

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 3684

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

It is accurate in some sense, within some context, and certainly for the medium term. Those who invested near the ATH are clutching at anything these days just to see some recovery (because they're not the holders, they're the ones who got in at the hype, with wholly unrealistic expectations). The article probably fails to mention that the bust is only the latest in several cycles... though of course because of the volumes and values associated, it's the one glaring back at you every time you see that chart.

It's still the best-performing asset by far, compared to anything in the past decade. But only if you got in before mid-2017.

1Referee

legendary

Activity: 2170

Merit: 1427

Quote from: bbc.reporter on March 29, 2019, 09:10:37 PM

One that limits bitcoin from mainstream adoption is the 21 million cap on supply.

It really doesn't. The more valuable Bitcoin becomes, the more people start paying attention to satoshi units, and there is plenty enough of that to serve people in every corner of the world. On top of that, Lightning makes even satoshi units divisible, so there is even less unit scarcity than people think.

I have been playing with Lightning for over a month now due to all the new features mobile wallets added, and it's way easier to work with satoshi units than with 0.0000 whatever part of a Bitcoin. By the time Bitcoin has risen so much in value, we won't be saying 1BTC is worth $1 million for example, but a penny per satoshi.

Thekool1s

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1218

Change is in your hands

Do people actually take them seriously? Anyway, Bitcoin will always adapt to market requirements. Just look at Lightning network, It's the best example of Bitcoin adapting to the needs of its community. If Bitcoin was rigid and couldn't be expanded upon we would have already seen a collapse of the *internet money*. Anything which evolves will never be out of the picture iyam. It's the survival of the fittest, Its actually the Fait which is failing to adapt to new social values. Bitcoin's success doesn't need to be an overnight one, The more time bitcoin gets the better it will become as a currency.

Kakmakr

legendary

Activity: 3542

Merit: 1965

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Total Bullshit. How can Bitcoin be the worst-performing asset, when it was the best performing commodity and currencies in 2016 and 2017? They are looking at Bitcoin as a short-term investment and this is a flawed argument. If you bought bitcoins as a long-term investment back in 2014, it would have increased in value from a $600 average price to just over $4000 today. < I am obviously cherry picking dates now, to show it's long-term growth and profit > Wink

All commodities and assets has good and bad years, but you have to look at the long-term performance average to get a better picture of it's actual performance. Roll Eyes

bbc.reporter

legendary

Activity: 3010

Merit: 1460

Quote from: figmentofmyass on March 29, 2019, 06:36:32 PM

Quote from: stmar on March 29, 2019, 04:12:55 PM

Is Bitcoin Fundamentally Incapable of Mass Adoption? The Economist Thinks So.

An article out today in the Economist lists several reasons why Bitcoin may never have a “long-lasting” recovery. The unnamed author writes, in part:

Quote

“The bust has been correspondingly brutal. Those who bought near the top were left with one of the world’s worst-performing assets. Cryptocurrency startups fired employees; banks shelved their products. On March 14th the CBOE said it would soon stop offering Bitcoin futures.”

so the Economist is basically declaring bitcoin dead? that's great news! this is the type of sentiment we need to put in a real long term bottom. at the top, everyone is interested. at the bottom, not so much. Wink

this all happened in 2014-15 too. merchants were dropping bitcoin, miners were liquidating operations, banks (like citibank) were shelving their crypto plans, exchanges were shutting down or exit scamming left and right. we've seen this before.

the CBOE futures listing never gained ground against CME. they marketed and packaged it badly and a re-tooling was necessary. i'm not sure it's just the crypto winter that caused them not to re-list the contract. CME is going full steam ahead as expected.

The title is clickbait, however, the article is not declaring that bitcoin is dead. I reckon we should face it, bitcoin has limitiations.

One that limits bitcoin from mainstream adoption is the 21 million cap on supply. Grin however might have a solution. I know that it is open to disagreement, but we are only in the early days of cryptoeconomics.

https://github.com/mimblewimble/docs/wiki/Monetary-Policy

joniboini

legendary

Activity: 2170

Merit: 1789

Is this the sign of a new cycle? Looks like it. So sad that I can't read the full article (it says I need to register).

Quote from: d5000 on March 29, 2019, 05:13:57 PM

- Volatility: this is maybe the most difficult one to tackle. As an example for a stablecoin the Economist mentions Tether, which is a centralized stablecoin and thus its "flaw" (to be not completely backed) has to be expected. It would be more serious if the article also mentioned coins like Dai. And I think there are also other ideas worth trying, even if they wouldn't achieve fiat-like stability in the short term, they may do so in the long term.
- Scams: This cannot be viewed as a "flaw". Or is fiat flawed because there are fiat scams?

These two points showed us that there's a bias from their side. How can you fix a scam from development side?

figmentofmyass

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1483

Quote from: stmar on March 29, 2019, 04:12:55 PM

Is Bitcoin Fundamentally Incapable of Mass Adoption? The Economist Thinks So.

An article out today in the Economist lists several reasons why Bitcoin may never have a “long-lasting” recovery. The unnamed author writes, in part:

Quote

“The bust has been correspondingly brutal. Those who bought near the top were left with one of the world’s worst-performing assets. Cryptocurrency startups fired employees; banks shelved their products. On March 14th the CBOE said it would soon stop offering Bitcoin futures.”

so the Economist is basically declaring bitcoin dead? that's great news! this is the type of sentiment we need to put in a real long term bottom. at the top, everyone is interested. at the bottom, not so much. Wink

this all happened in 2014-15 too. merchants were dropping bitcoin, miners were liquidating operations, banks (like citibank) were shelving their crypto plans, exchanges were shutting down or exit scamming left and right. we've seen this before.

the CBOE futures listing never gained ground against CME. they marketed and packaged it badly and a re-tooling was necessary. i'm not sure it's just the crypto winter that caused them not to re-list the contract. CME is going full steam ahead as expected.

magneto

hero member

Activity: 1666

Merit: 753

Quote

“The bust has been correspondingly brutal. Those who bought near the top were left with one of the world’s worst-performing assets. Cryptocurrency startups fired employees; banks shelved their products. On March 14th the CBOE said it would soon stop offering Bitcoin futures.”

Prices of bitcoin has absolutely no correlation to what the network actually does. In fact, improvements have been made during the bear market stretch.

The central bank of Italy is really stretching their arguments here. Everyone knows that the value of bitcoin fluctuates greatly on a cyclical basis, and it just so happens that the scale of the past bull market was so great that the correction was just as large in magnitude. Although it could be true that bitcoin never gets mainstream adoption on a mass scale, I don't agree with the fact that this possibility is discounted simply because of pricing reasons, and because certain institutions have halted their progress with developing products.

If we're judging something solely based on its value, then are all companies a bust whenever there is an overall bearish sentiment in the stock market? Also, a bull market is likely to emerge now that the bearish stretch seems to be done, and also due to the halving. Does that mean that bitcoin is somehow fundamentally better?

d5000

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 6249

Decentralization Maximalist

The "flaws" the Economist claims to have found in Bitcoins are not really flaws, I think. There are challenges, but they're not unsolvable as the article seems to claim.

And among the "flaws" mentioned there is nothing new:
- Scalability: Is a real problem, but LN isn't the only idea to solve it; LN may work great for small transactions, and for middle-to-large sized ones other ideas like sidechains could be used.
- Energy use: Is currently a problem but renewables-based mining will probably very soon predominate (in all countries where grid parity for solar/wind energy has been reached, which make already a nice number). Renewables-based mining could even become a driving force for innovations in solar/wind energy.
- Volatility: this is maybe the most difficult one to tackle. As an example for a stablecoin the Economist mentions Tether, which is a centralized stablecoin and thus its "flaw" (to be not completely backed) has to be expected. It would be more serious if the article also mentioned coins like Dai. And I think there are also other ideas worth trying, even if they wouldn't achieve fiat-like stability in the short term, they may do so in the long term.
- Scams: This cannot be viewed as a "flaw". Or is fiat flawed because there are fiat scams?

stmar

member

Activity: 196

Merit: 52

Is Bitcoin Fundamentally Incapable of Mass Adoption? The Economist Thinks So.

An article out today in the Economist lists several reasons why Bitcoin may never have a “long-lasting” recovery. The unnamed author writes, in part:

Quote

“The bust has been correspondingly brutal. Those who bought near the top were left with one of the world’s worst-performing assets. Cryptocurrency startups fired employees; banks shelved their products. On March 14th the CBOE said it would soon stop offering Bitcoin futures.”

He or she neglects to mention that Bitcoin has previously been one of the best performing assets as well. An interesting point to make: Bitcoin over the past three years has been the best and worst performing asset to hold. Those who called the bubble and jumped ship at the top have laughed all the way to the bank, while long-term philosophical hodlers remain unfazed.

The article makes a legitimate argument that mass adoption of Bitcoin may never be forthcoming. If we view Bitcoin as a “currency,” intended for making payments of all sizes, the technology to do so hasn’t arrived yet. Bitcoin Core supporters believe expanding block size is unreasonably burdensome on miners and full nodes, while Bitcoin Cash supporters point out that even Lightning Network may not be best suited for making micro-payments.

The Economist speaks to the nature of Bitcoin’s actual transaction volume and notes a recent falsified report about the amount of value actually processed by the Bitcoin blockchain in 2018.

<....>

Read:
https://www.ccn.com/is-bitcoin-fundamentally-incapable-of-mass-adoption-the-economist-thinks-so

The Economist:
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2019/03/28/flaws-in-bitcoin-make-a-lasting-revival-unlikely

Topic: [2019-03-28] The Economist: Bitcoin revival unlikely.... (Read 643 times)