Topic: Bitcoin: "Maybe Is a Partial Store of Value" (Read 666 times)

It is all relative. If I am living in a country such as Venezuela or Zimbabwe, then I would use Bitcoin as a store of value. Because I know that BTC is more stable when compared to either the Zimbabwean Dollar or the Venezuelan Bolivar. But that is not the case if I am a resident of some other country, such as the United States or the United Kingdom.

So you can see how flawed and baseless their arguments are and it does not take long for the long timers to understand what these people are trying to stir and thus become immune to such "opinions". People can opine what they want. Does not matter to you if your belief and faith are in the right place.

Stability of fiat vs bitcoin is more of a cognitive bias. You dont say any market to be stable. Every market is moving and is potentially volatile. But the newbies who are entering the market easily get swayed unless they have a background of trading and market psychology.

The value of bitcoin is determined by the people who are willing to purchase it at a given price. Due to this scenario, the law of demand/supply dictates its price on the market given that it only has a limited supply of 21 million (which by the year 2140, all bitcoins will be mined out).

If you based the price depending on its history, you can see that its price continuously increases/decreases depending on external and internal factors. While some claim that Bitcoin is a whole bubble, others see it as an alternative method for investment. But one thing has not changed, the price still continues to rise.

I would say that holding bitcoin can be a good store-of-value especially if you consider the long-term aspect of its potential and applicability in the future. Not to mention, we are only experiencing and enjoying its face-value and we have yet to see the blockchain be implemented in our transactions.

They never had any arguments about why something like bitcoin should not be incredibly valuable but now they are really desperate to try to find anything they can say to try to say bitcoin will not maintain its value.

They tried in the past to use the stability of fiat as a sign that it was better but since then inflation is making sure we notice that stability is for nothing if our purchasing power is going down while we see the opposite process happening with bitcoin.

You just contradicted your idea in the first place. Bitcoin is surely a store of value as we cannot think of any idea how we can implement it to small scale market transaction and commerce. If ever we need to to save money, bitcoin is the number one option for me, but not in terms of daily transactions since I find bitcoins transaction fee so high and it has an unstable market price.

Volatility is there with stocks and commodities too. It did not make bitcoin any different but the good thing about bitcoin is its deflationary supply and decentralization which makes it a somewhat safer than those controlled by banks and government organizations. Again it is correct that no "store of value" is prefect, they all have their pros and cons.

Hence it becomes a personal opinion. But not to mention what J Dimon did last to last year and bought bitcoin at a low price. The dumpers literally gave away their coins to his employees by selling at low. Therefore any opinionated article should be chuckled at and not taken seriously.

Next stop would be "bitcoin could be awesome but I still think it will go down to zero" or something, how could you still believe that something will go down to zero when you believe it has a partial store of value? I mean if it can store value that means it can't go down. It is like saying "this is a rare painting of van gogh, there is no other one like it, it is very valuable and whoever buys it could store it and sell it for a lot higher in the future, I think it will worth zero one day".

Do you realize how idiotic that sounded? Like really, HOW idiotic that sounds, well this dude sounds as moronic as that sentence if not more. Bitcoin is a digital commodity that has a store of value and a way of spending it as well that rivals anything ever in history of mankind and can't go down that much.

Even if we were to assume that bitcoin is a partial store of value then we need to question what kind of function other currencies can have.

Using that kind of standard then this means that gold is a partial store of value as well because as we know its price can go up and down, and what about fiat? Fiat doesn't even reach that standard, if anything fiat is a sure way to lose your wealth over time and yet you do not hear that from economists.

You got that right--I don't know what this guy's agenda is, or if he even really has one, but he's not entirely wrong. 

What is a good store of value?  Dunno, to me it means something you own that at least holds its value in the face of inflation.  Everyone always says gold & silver are stores of value, and that might be true for certain periods of time, but it's not always true.  I don't think there really is an ideal store of value unless it's some financial instrument that was created to keep pace with inflation.  Treasury bonds are supposed to do that--but you have to trust the government.

And bitcoin?  I've never thought of it as a safe-haven asset or a true store of value.  That value is constantly changing, and the volatility is freakin' notorious.  If it ever became stable, it might be able to store some value but as it is it's a huge gamble.  Anyway.  It's a gamble that I fell in love with, so I'm not knocking bitcoin by any means.

It could be a store of value in future but at the moment people who were holding it are in highly risk of losing their asset value any time,if there were here for long time and made lot more profits than how much they invested then it will be okay for them to lose but new investors needs to be very careful that is why long term is more suggested.

Is there such a thing called "partial store of value", it's either bitcoin is being used as SoV or not, there's no middle grounds there.

The thing is that this kind of debates has been on-going for many years now and actually people are seeing bitcoin as good leverage, hence store of value. That's why the term HODL came up, because early bagholders chooses not to sell a single bit of their coins because they know that the price could shoot up in the future, and it did at the end of 2017.

Totally agree that at the moment it is not a very good store of value because of the price fluctuations, and also agree that things will improve and the volatility will fade as the market matures.
But I would say it is a store of value right now, otherwise why are people holding it? It is a store of value that currently has some big problems that will be resolved in the longer-term, but it is still a store of value.

Shouldn't we also be looking at Bitcoin as a long term asset though?

I'm not arguing that it looks unfit to be a store of value, because it fluctuates a lot more than you'd want it to. It's bound to be more stable as the market grows though, and we're actually seeing improvements on that end in recent months, outside some wild swings here and there.

Most people who refer to Bitcoin as a store of value are in it for the long game, and aren't really fazed by the short fluctuations. It serves a very niche portion of the population at the moment, but it does work for that niche. Things are only going to be better.

Such a junction of arguments above where the financial crisis is not merely an eye and behind by Crypto. I think Crypto makes my life and people better than ever and it makes crypto very useful for the future even though some people don't argue like this. In Crypto, there is certainly a name of profit and loss we can not resist the sustenance which we can later on. So if talking about a future crisis maybe just an expert who can explain more in than I do.

If you look at the charts going further back, gold also had a collapse in the 1990's:

https://www.thebalance.com/gold-price-history-3305646


Given that house prices are about 10 times what they were in 1980, then gold really hasn't kept it's value compared to 1980.

Bitcoin has faced a lot of criticism in the past and present times but it is still dominating all digital currencies. The dream and mission of bitcoin still lives on in spite of the many critics from economic experts across the globe. Looking at major achievement in the world of economy, there has never been a successful story that faced no challenges or critics.

I don’t think that bitcoin was even initially deigned to serve mainly as store of value, the main purpose of bitcoin was to serve as payment of process, but it was overtime that people begin to see it as an asset that can increase for them overtime, which they started to accept it as store of value gradually, but this was not supposed to be the main reason why we should use bitcoin.

The main purpose of bitcoin that satoshi created is really this peer to peer payment system, that would give people lots of independence on their financial transaction, but as we take this, it is meant to start having its second benefit as store of value, which I am sure that till bitcoin becomes a little bit stable before we can actually start seeing this reflect in the market.

investing in crypto currencies has many ways and it all depends on the investors themselves with the belief they are entitled to choose a way to invest and maybe in conditions like now investors must be clever in utilizing every opportunity to invest in crypto currencies and each choice will certainly bring benefits.

Bitcoin is partly a currency at the same time partly a store of value. Bitcoin has transformed into different things depending on the way people take it. Bitcoin is also viewed by others as securities at the same time a digital gold. Others treat Bitcoin as a speculative asset. After several years, Bitcoin has deviated a lot from the original Bitcoin according to the whitepaper of Satoshi Nakamoto. This is not totally bad for me for as long as it remains a currency more than any other.

Yes... I have charts with me which track the gold prices for the last 150 years. And since gold is a long term asset, we should not be looking at these short-term variations. If you check the charts of gold over the last 150 years, it is clear that that particular asset have been successful in maintaining its purchasing power over the years. It is true that the prices fell from $1,800 per oz to $1,200 per oz. But before that, gold was priced somewhere around $600 per oz, and the current price is close to $1,500 per oz (which is just 20% lower than the ATH level).

Personally, I wouldn't take seriously anything that comes out of Nouriel Roubini's mouth. He's just riding on the popularity of bitcoin and playing the role of antagonist just to increase his fame and popularity. However, if you take a closer look, his arguments are always non-sense and only serve to prove how ignorant he is about the actual workings behind crypto and blockchain.

Thats just my opinion tho, also bitcoin is a great store of value.

I'm not sure if you have followed gold's performance throughout the last years, but it had a terrible crash from $1.9k back to $1k, where today the price of gold is hovering around the $1.5k mark.

If you put the gold and Bitcoin charts side by side, you'll see how similar the price activity actually is.... the important difference is that cycles within Bitcoin play out much faster than they do within the gold market.

I don't know when gold will take out its $1.9k high.... its recent price surge was due to economical turmoil, which means that when the situation calms down again, gold will be sold off hard.

Considering bitcoin as a tool for transition of will not be even possible since bitcoin is very unstable and when huge population adopt to it as their main cryptocurrency, economy will collapse as market prices of goods, services and every transaction will not have a consistent basis, not everone will know how much each transaction will be without comparing the value to fiats.

Well... Bitcoin exchange rates went down by 85% in 2008. This does not happen to assets which we consider as usage as "store of value", such as gold and platinum. If gold loses 85% of its value in 12 months, then it will be no longer considered as a store of value. Because when an asset is classified as store of value, it means that the holder can exchange it for fiat currency at any point of time, without incurring a significant loss. Bitcoin is a very good asset for speculative investment. But IMO it can't be used as a store of value.

I feel like this is when someone finally realised they are incorrect, but they are still trying to stick to their old opinion and not sound weak.

He clearly understands the currency a lot more, and I'd argue that he knows bitcoin is a store of value, but the problem is, he'd rather not make a public 180 turn on his previous turn, there is no term for a "partial store of value".

It's still a store of value then, otherwise, you wouldn't be able to spend a currency that has no value. An item being a payment method doesn't mean it can be a store of value.

Its really not totally out of place to assume that and if one should look at it holistically, one might want to agree with economist. From the lay point of view money as a store of value means a sort of investment which generate returns to the holder and in this case bitcoin could be and a simple example is what happened just early this week where if someone have invested at the rate of $7500+ but would have gained $1k+ just by holding for some days.

depends on the users .  if he mainly use his btc for investing then he can honestly say that btc is a store of value ( 100% or full ) but for those who only use btc for both use ex. for 50 % for investing and 50% for paying and buying then he can also say that btc is a partial store of value . actually there are few simillar threads like this but they are comparing gold if what is a better store of value

Sounds like a whole lot of BS to me.

Does he even know what a unit of account is? A unit of account can be anything, it can even be commodities. Are you saying that you can't account for liabilities and assets with BTC? It has nothing to do with even whether or not it can store value - it is a unit of account.

Also, why associate bitcoin's short term movements to something that is the fundamentals of BTC? The two should be separated given how volatile bitcoin can be, yet the fundamentals show that BTC should store its value better than fiats will in the long run.

"a partial store of value"? I think it is neither entirely true nor completely false.
because it depends on each person's thoughts. like me, I just see bitcoin as a trading tool and it's not something valuable for me to hold it.
And for long-term investors who believe in the future of bitcoin, they will buy it and store it in a cold wallet and see it as an intangible asset.

This makes me wonder if we are ever going to see bitcoin being used massively as a currency all over the world?

As you say bitcoin has characteristics that makes it very suitable to become a store of value, maybe we are going to see altcoins like litecoin performing that function while bitcoin is stored very much like gold and only whales and powerful institutions hold any significant amount, or maybe bitcoin will become the new gold while the rest of the population keeps using fiat.

His opinion is basically based on the fact that bitcoin has a scalability issue which makes it less competitive with other payment methods.
I am not sure if he knows about Ln and other proposed solutions to fix that issue though.

It's more than a partial store of value.

At the start of 2017 bitcoin was under $1,000, and gold was about $1,200. Bitcoin is now over $8,000 and gold is about $1.500.

So storing your money in bitcoin beat both holding dollars or gold.

Roubini is assuming everyone bought at the top. But most people bought either before the top, or after it had dropped back down again.

Agree with the first post, it's not like the whole crypto community is against critics even the crypto community usually counter some of accusation with logical and technical explanation regarding the problem pointed. However it seems hearing this person is like veiwing someone trying to figure out something and prove something. it's not like his opinion matter that much anyway regarding this partial store of value. bitcoin was first intended to be a currency and it will always be. the store of value is just a bonus if the value of bitcoin keeps rising steadily although there's bearish and bullish time aswell but overall it has up to thousands percent to initial price.

At first btc was considered as store of value and investment option by all but slowly when it grows and more people start adopting btc it became the medium of exchange and transacting business with its help and it was integral part of its growth and it became partial store of value but it is similar to fiat and other currencies in many ways.

We really need to remain objective towards the opinions of others, the opinions of leaders or figures who are anti-bitcoin are conventional figures in the comfort zone of making transactions or saving money in banks, not millennial parents who are close to technology. We call them antiquity and anti-change ancient people.

The function of bitcoin is indeed expected to be a legal and legal transaction tool in every country, but bitcoin itself to be a currency still does not meet several conditions, which is generally accepted and guarantees from the government.

Maybe now we need to ask, why do you have to use bitcoin if many banks already provide digital money technology? Maybe for those of us who understand the world of blockchain and cryptocurrency, this technology is very safe because there are no registration errors, but for ordinary people, if not recognized before the law in the event of default, then the injured party will not be able to get legal protection. They don't underestimate the logic of advantages and disadvantages.

Just admitting that Bitcoin is a "partial" store of value alone directly contradicts on the other things he have saved about Bitcoin. If it is somehow a store of value then it could also be a means of payment as well as a unit of account as this is what the functions of a currency is and Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are showing it not only by definition but also the users involve in the industry. He might still be denying the facts of its existence but the evidence is just right in front of us from companies adapting and accepting cryptocurrencies to companies like Facebook creating their own crypto this should prove that Bitcoin started the age of digital cryptocurrencies not only as a means of payment but a store of value.

it can be used as a medium of exchange, but think about it---bitcoin is the first asset with a known, finite supply. it has a level of extreme scarcity the world has never seen before. such a limited supply makes bitcoin ideal for storing (or growing) value. that's what makes bitcoin so attractive. if it were just another digital payment rail, it wouldn't be very interesting.

gresham's law suggests that bitcoin would be hoarded rather than spent given other weaker alternatives like fiat money. so it lends itself first and foremost to being a store of value.

He also told Tone Vays he is holding and supporting shitcoin. I listened this video yesterday. Let me find it for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WORkYsg2I4

Store value is really not that important when you think of what other things could be done with bitcoin. We are talking about a currency here not gold, gold is not something you can just go to a shop and use, bitcoin is like that. So, we are talking about the ease of transaction of a banknote changing hands (and digitally at that so even a lot easier), the purchasing power saver like a gold, the ease of spending like debit card and it is all in one.

Yes, you can call it a store of value as well which bitcoin does have and I do agree it is a good part of it but saying it is JUST a store of value currency is just not looking at the awesomeness it has created so far in bitcoin world which I can't really handle, people have been underrating bitcoin for years and I am sick of it.

This is going to take some years to solve. The rate of adoption, and by that I mean the usage of Bitcoin as money needs to increase so lots of people are using it, need to increase. If more and more people only buy Bitcoin just to store it in their backyard, I doubt it will bring any benefit at all. What makes gold so precious is not because it's rare, but because it's useful.

Bitcoin could be better than that, but we need time to solve this volatility thing.

Bitcoin treated as store value of assets same with how investors treated gold or those precious gems. Investors find this place as a good venue to invest money.

There's still discussions about the real value since it's still not being embrace by most government around the world, but once being labelled for sure it will bring more price movements, rise will happen along the way.

A thing is either a store of value or it isn't, there's not really any halfway state. I think he means that he's partially convinced that bitcoin is a store of value, i.e. he has reservations about it, i.e. he is backtracking partially on previous statements.

Bitcoin is a store of value, it's just that there are several issues at the moment that prevent being as good a store of value as gold or even USD. Not least of which is the price volatility.

Why do you ask me about this? Ask NR.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8izCNm6S63M (at 21:00 he addressed this question).

I'm not saying that I agree with NR about this "partial store of value" thing. Like I said, IMO, Bitcoin will always be "worthless" in the eye of traditional economics guru (or skeptics). It's like preaching the bible to skeptics/atheists. We need to show them the proof, e.g., healthy/efficient market, low volatility, more participants, etc., or simply leave them behind.

Mr. Roubini doesn't make any wrong assumption or statement regarding Bitcoin or cryptocurrency because every currency has a store of value, otherwise, you can't save or hold for the future, but it remains a doubt why he stated the as a partial store of value, I don't have any interest in this issue I know Bitcoin is fully currency and a payment system I don't care what people say, but it also true that in the society, people have a misconception regarding the Bitcoin and cryptocurrency, so people always pay to heed the statement what recognized people states so everybody should learn about first and then remark anything.

As per above definition from Wikipedia, I believe Bitcoin satisfies those requirements thus making it an absolute store of value and not "partial" as what he stated.

I guess we will see this assertion more clearly defined once Bitcoin reached its max supply which by that time, its worth would have surpassed Gold and other precious metals value!

What else he can do, despite the volatility of bitcoin it should be clear now that bitcoin is not going to disappear and when we add that in the countries in which the fiat currency has crashed bitcoin has been used by a small minority to save their wealth, then it is obvious that bitcoin is a store of value.

I have no problems admitting that the volatility of bitcoin does not make it a very effective store of value compared to gold but it can still perform that function in the case of an emergency.

I don't know what he meant by partial store of value.
If an asset is a store of value that means it will be worth more in future if saved today. BTC has inbuilt deflation as it has limited supply. So, it will be worth more in future as compared to today and hence can be used as a successful alternative investment. Roubini has always been a critic of Bitcoin. Now when he could see that BTC is actually worth something, he is taking these babysteps by appreciating it partially.

Bitcoin is not s store of value,its just medium of exchange.

The value of bitcoin keeps increasing so it maybe partially considered as storage of value too.

It's up to them and people who think the same, from the beginning of the blockchain technology there is freedom of transactions. bitcoin has a high value now so he says "(maybe) is partial store of value" even though he wants to buy digital currency too. I want to deny the return to the stone age, if Fiat is valued by the country's economy and cryptocurrency is valued by supply and demand which are both the same concept (stablecoin dan tokenization asset).

He used the word "partial" and for me this meant he recognized Bitcoin as a store of value but can't say it straight because he is known as "notorious critic of cryptocurrencies"  Well anyways there are lot of people like this in this industry and I'm wondering where will they hide when 90% of world's population is using Bitcoin.

So, if we take a period of time when Bitcoin increased in value by 100%, can we say with this logic that Bitcoin is a double store of value? That it "stores" even more value than you put in it?
Either this wasn't what Roubini meant, or he'd just not arguing in good faith and simply picks the observations that suit his narrative. There's really no point in listening to opinions of people who don't provide some strong arguments to back their claims. I don't care if they are genius economists or billionaires, if they just describe their personal feelings, it's all useless.

Not likely, nor is it likely he'll have the ego strength to reverse his public stance even if he does eventually change his mind about bitcoin.  And he may not.  He's an economist, so I will assume he isn't stupid and believes what he's talking about is true.

I think if bitcoin was a little bit more stable it would be considered a store of value, because I think low volatility is one of the requirements for that distinction.  Gold and silver are stores of value because they supposedly track inflation (tho I don't know if that's true) and hold their value over time relative to the dollar.  That cannot be said about bitcoin, which is one of the most volatile things in existence.  This guy might be correct about it being a 'partial' store of value, whatever that means.

I think it's good to get different viewpoints, even if they don't agree with what you personally think.  Otherwise it would just be an echo chamber.

Something is either a store of value or it isn't, there's no 'partial' to it, that doesn't make sense.

Bitcoin is a store of value, it's just not universally recognised as such. And yes it has certain problems and difficulties associated with it, price fluctuations being the most obvious example, but that doesn't make it a partial store of value. That's like saying that you can't spend a bar of gold at the local shop, so it's only partially of value.

It doesn't make sense to use the word partial in this situation - unless of course you are trying to backtrack on some comments about crypto that you've made previously, but only want to partially backtrack...

Roubini and Tone Vays are both a bunch of idiots only representing their HUGE egos during events. They shouldn't be invited to any event.

It's pointless to debate the same people while you know beforehand they won't concede any points. The only reason they keep doing it is to get some much needed exposure because they have services to sell.

Here is a link to the recent debate between Brock Pierce, Roubini, Tone Vays, Bobby Lee and Craig Wright. This is why the crypto sphere is still the mess today that it was years ago, and nothing will change when you invite the same losers over and over.

I think what he means by "partial store of value" is about Bitcoin price that down 60% from ATH. In other words, Bitcoin only able to store 40% of its value >> not 100% >> partial.

NR, along with other "traditional" economists, only would change their minds if people can show them the proof, and not with debates. Well, that's why academics rarely get rich since they won't take the risk. It's just wasting time if people want to change a skeptic's mind.

Seems more like "baby steps" like Tone Vays said. This is the same guy who said Bitcoin is going to $0. That's a far cry from "partial store of value." He's admitting Bitcoin fulfills one of the basic functions of money.

To be fair, Bitcoin is only a decade old and is employing an experimental economic model. It's volatile and speculative for good reason. "Partial" store of value is pretty damn good if you think about it.

Well, people like him look at Bitcoin's short-term performance and they miss the bigger picture --> https://cryptoslate.com/analyst-logarithmic-chart-shows-bitcoin-is-on-track-50000-by-2021/

What partial "Store of Value" do you see in that graph? Yes, it's short-term volatility might fool you into believing that the price are constantly going down, but the long-term view shows a constant upward curve. 

$50 000 per bitcoin are on the horizon. 

Someone who was correct in predicting a certain period economic outcome may not be correct again. Dont get my idea wrong, but you should stop listening to what mass media has to say about something that you are confident about. Manipulators are everywhere. You need to weed out the one that you dont need and keep your eyes on the prize.

He may be doing this a paid promotion, like Dimon and so one. But really if you believe in the future of bitcoin to be worthy as a store of value, would you back out for any reason? This person might just be trying to dip the market so he can buy more. You never know.

This a little bit funny. While admitting that Bitcoin can be a store of value -- at least partially -- Mr Roubini remains adamant on his old position against Bitcoin, in other words nothing has changed despite his admission which can just be influenced by people he was with in that conference. Well, as they are saying, there will always be two sides to the coin and in any human innovations there will be people whose role is to warn of possible impeding doom if we continue the change we are into. I have a great respect for this man because he is actually making some sense in many areas and I think we should also give space for people like him as their inputs can still be useful. However, don't get me wrong, it does not mean we have to follow what he is saying.

So is it really partial or full?


[/quote]
Well, at least he is starting to consider bitcoin functioning as a store of value. It's actually healthy that there are oppositions regarding the world of bitcoin, crypto, blockchain or anything related to it. It brings about progress and stimulates every participant to think about it, to refute about something they don't agree, and by the end, be forced to agree that the winning party is right cause they couldn't argue anything anymore against him.

I'd rather think of its function as a full store of value. It just currently cannot be easily seen as one because the supply still hasn't reached its limits. Once bitcoin has reached its last drop of supply, we can at the very least consider it as full store of value since its value should stabilize by then.

well, perhaps from this tiny little step, people like a donald trump or the old warrior warren buffet do the same thing, or its just a dream ?
because people like Nouriel Roubini has a considerable influence in the economic field, work at federal reserve, even world bank.

Yes it definitely is a store of value. Even if we consider fiat and other currencies even they are considered as a store of value then how can we say that bitcoin is not at all a store of value. It's primary function is a medium of exchange but can definitely also be used for store of value. But using it merely as a store of value will hamper it's growth. Which is the main problem people are concerned about.

With these statements it seems that he’s going to adopt it anytime soon. He has some points and we cannot reject that ideas coming from him, the real challenge in this community is to prove him that he’s wrong. I understand where he’s coming, he base the current situation on what he had learn from the past economic behaviour.

Is it me or he starts to understand that his old propaganda just makes him look stupid?
Is it me or he starts believing in Bitcoin?

Last time I've followed one minute of what he was saying, everything around him was shitcoin. Now it starts, with small steps, become a store of value? 
It's still far, but let's be nice and see that there's a bit of progress in it 

Bitcoin existed as a store of value, and further when it gained more and more value it got used as a transition medium. From my understanding it is completely a store of value. Quoting the scalability, and lack of mainstream usage it was mentioned as partial store of value. Everything won't get such a level of growth, it takes time. On such a thought process I believe in future everyone will realize it a complete store of value.

This is a little bit funny. While admitting that Bitcoin can be a store of value -- at least partially -- Mr Roubini remains adamant on his old position against Bitcoin, in other words nothing has changed despite his admission which can just be influenced by people he was with in that conference. Well, as they are saying, there will always be two sides to the coin and in any human innovations there will be people whose role is to warn of possible impeding doom if we continue the change we are into. I have a great respect for this man because he is actually making some sense in many areas and I think we should also give space for people like him as their inputs can still be useful. However, don't get me wrong, it does not mean we have to follow what he is saying.

So is it really partial or full?