Topic: Bitcoin is Still Economically Useless = Economist - page 3. (Read 1239 times)

Absolutely correct Sir, Bitcoin renders Swift and remote access to our funds anywhere without restrictions and performs 24/7 on the clock ⌚,secures your wealth from thief and no one will even know how wealthy you are not even your spouse, it stabilizes you regardless of inflation rates even though there is a fall in price the numbers you are holding are still in tact and when there is a big rise in price you ain't gonna loose rather you may have double or multiple of your initial investment, I love transacting with BTC and cryptos and I also prefer it to transacting with banks except for reference purposes or in filing a suit or court cases when there is dispute between customers.

People like this when you respect them better when you see them from afar. That way you'll continue to rate based on what they have done and the views you see than portray, but when you go deeper and see where they stand you might get disappointed.
We have a noble prize winner from my country too whom the whole country looked up to. Growing up he was used as the SI unit of intelligence (if you know what I mean). Fast forward to now, he's a strong supporter of our current government which is a disgrace. The government is so bad that whoever defends it sounds stupid and that's what this noble prize winner has turned to.

Another thing is these men are pretty old school and have refused to evolve. They believe in the traditional way of things. I read through the article and he makes sense to a certain degree and that's what I've come to conclude that it's just his opinion. I strongly always say that we shouldn't give people too much relevance in the Bitcoin space, not politicians like Trump. not Tech billionaires like Elon Musk, not Financial sector billions like Jamie Dimon, and certainly not noble prize winners like Paul Krugman.
Each of these people has their own opinions and their opinions are shaped by different things but its just their opinion, they're not bitcoin.

Calling Bitcoin "useless" is a means to scare people away from it. After all, big banks and governments don't want to lose their cut. They want the corrupt Fiat monetary system to keep chugging along as usual. If the aforementioned entities talked positively about Bitcoin, the masses would abandon Fiat. And that's something they don't want.

Economists saying that BTC is useless, are none other than "government puppets". Eventually, all of the world's governments will recognize BTC as an alternative currency the more it grows in popularity and mainstream adoption. They wouldn't want to miss the taxation benefits BTC provides, would they? Rich people already recognized Bitcoin's potential. So it should only be a matter of time before prices skyrocket. Are you ready for the next "pump"?

Wow, seriously? You've never used a credit card before? Because if you had, you'd know a transaction takes a few seconds typically, not "months".

I really didn't think it was possible to exist in our modern world without using a credit card. Congratulations .


Because in terms of what it accomplishes, Bitcoin does, roughly, what Visa does--in terms of a single transaction.

In other words, Bitcoin could have been described (before the understanding of chain analysis) as, "like a Visa transaction that is resistant to government interference". That is just one narrow context though. You could describe anything like that, e.g. a bicycle is like a motorcycle you power yourself--but that doesn't mean its the same thing or has the same capabilities--and anybody, say, like Satoshi, using that analogy would assume you knew that...

Let's see: https://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2008-November/014815.html
If he didn't think about billions of users, then why he used those comparisons with Visa?

What does it even mean that he calls these people "Tech-bro's" that's mocking and IMO is unbecoming of a Nobel Prize winner. So is tech investment a bad thing according to this man? Is it worse than buying bonds?
So, another guy claims that bitcoin is useless. I remember people saying the same thing about The Internet. I can tell you a story. My father used to be like that. I remember when I started going to the gym as a teenager, he found out and said that it's a useless activity. It will only make me tired, cost me time, I'll have health issues and I could be doing some house work instead. A few years later he could no longer carry heavy objects, so he'd ask me to do the lifting, but it evolved into literally every other thing that required strength. I'd unscrew rusty bolts for him and take doors of the hinges.
Bottom line, we often don't see uses of certain items and activities for a long time, until we actually get into a situation where they're needed. You think you don't need a fire extinguisher until something catches fire. Krugman has lived his whole life without bitcoin so he doesn't see the need for it, but nowadays we live in a different world than people in the 20th century.

There is no way to measure that, so that number is purely your guess.

FYI credit card transactions take months to become finalized. Bitcoin's transactions take on average 10 minutes to become finalized (aka irreversible).
As for the cost, nobody ever claimed that Bitcoin is a "perfect" payment system. It has its shortcomings but it still is a payment system that works. The only decentralized payment system in fact. That's not to mention that credit card fees are percentage wise so unless you are paying for peanuts, it is going to cost a lot more than a bitcoin transaction that with current fee rates barely surpasses half a dollar.

Only if you live in a dictatorship without certain fundamental rights

You might think that, but 99% of Bitcoin holders just see it as an investment instrument.

As a payment system, Bitcoin is terrible, costing up to $30 per transaction and taking up to 30 minutes. That's insane compared to an ordinary credit card transaction. That's why almost nobody uses it that way.

And Bitcoin isn't even private, and using Bitcoin for a payment is much more dangerous than using a credit card since your transaction is publicly viewable forever.

So Bitcoin does not have any unique practical use, thus it's only useful (and very useful at that) as an investment instrument. People buy "Bitcoin" because they thing "Bitcoin" will go up in value--and for almost no other reason.

And you are wrong as well.
Bitcoin is not for speculation. It is also not a "meme investment".

Bitcoin is a currency and a sophisticated payment system that is working globally and 24/7 without ever shutting down. That gives it the value that goes up and down then it attracts investors who see it only as an investment.

Does it surprise you? Because I am not surprised at all, modern economists have forgotten completely the role that gold had and that it can still play on the current economy, so it is obvious that when they take a look at bitcoin which is an even better form of gold, they are not really going to appreciate it and instead they will attack it, as it has happened here, however a form of money that offers the ability to buy goods all over the world with it, with an improved level of privacy and that it can retain its value way better than fiat does is without a doubt valuable for a great deal of the population.

Not everybody needs to see the importance of Bitcoin as a decentralized digital currency, and it's very okay for such people, because weather they believe in Bitcoin or not, it can never affect its price value, which is one quality I so much love about the currency. So regarding the statement said by the economist who called Bitcoin useless, I'm very happy another well renowned author and economist, in the person of Robert Kiyosaki was able to recognize the importance of Bitcoin as an asset worthy of investment for long term.


   

The benefits are small but it is only small as Bitcoin has not been adopted globally. People can use Bitcoin for buying and selling in some part of the world but it is not widely accepted yet therefore there is not much Bitcoin can do to the economy but because of the profits that people are getting from their investment in Bitcoin or from trading, they are using those profits to buy things or make establishment that contribute to the economy as they are paying taxes and hiring workers which they also pay them. Bitcoin is not economically useless, those words are just coming from an economist that do not understand Bitcoin therefore he is going to call Bitcoin useless. Bitcoin is a valuable assets and anybody that owns Bitcoin can testify to this fact because they have experience what Bitcoin can do.

We can all give our own opinion about Bitcoin but it wouldn't make sense when we are trying to tag Bitcoin to look bad in the eyes of people that have less knowledge about it. If he thinks he hate Bitcoin, that's fine but it must not be to this extent. There are countries that are holding high amounts of Bitcoin in their portfolio and the value keep increasing as the price of Bitcoin keeps going bullish. I think he should talk more about Bitcoin not adding value but we have seen many holders that have made a lot of money from Bitcoin. Just imagine buying Bitcoin at low price and selling at a very high price, this is profits and no one wants to think that Bitcoin has no value at all when their are so many investors making huge money from it.

Bitcoin and USDT are discussed a lot, and the economic world is divided. Traditionalists are wary about change since they've always done things a certain way. Innovators believe these new technologies can transform our banking systems.

Now I get security worries. We all know hacker and fraud horror stories. But let's not let those stories obscure digital currency' amazing benefits. Higher transparency, lower transaction costs, and global financial inclusion are our goals. This possibility to democratize finance is worth fighting for.

I've always innovated. I think digital currencies are future. But we must do it well. We need strict laws and security to mitigate those threats. People must be taught how to utilize these devices safely and ethically.

Bitcoin is the worst currency for money laundering because blockchain is an open book and every transaction is listed publicly. Also, blockchain analysis technologies are advanced in tracing and if anyone tries to launder money, they are usually traced and discovered.
Paul Krugman has no idea what he is talking about and that's a huge problem with many famous people. Bitcoin has many benefits and one of them is the decentralization of this currency, it gives you the possibility to be your own bank and it also solves the problem of trusting a 3rd party while making transactions online. Isn't this a revolutionary?

I think that they are either:
1. Bored.
2. Have their own interests.
3. Someone pays them to say stupid things about Bitcoin.

No, he's saying it is not used for mainstream purposes, e.g. replacing everyday credit card and cash transactions for instance. After 14 years and hundreds of billions of dollars, Bitcoin processes perhaps 0.00001% of the world's transactions on a daily basis.

Blockchain is a great architecture for what it was designed to do, but the problem it was trying to solve is very narrow.



His idea of "large scale" here was thousands of users, not billions. If you told Satoshi that he designed a system that would replace the world's daily credit card transactions he'd say you were out of your mind.

Satoshi wasn't a moron, and he knew very well that blockchain would never scale to anything close to mainstream.

So, is it "a lot of people", when you think about "over 100,000 nodes"? And again, there are "the specialist server farms" mentioned.