Topic: BTC needs better PR (Read 162 times)

'We need a pro-BTC news stream that will spread the truth regarding bitcoin' - you're calling for exactly what you are complaining about. We do not need pro bitcoin news, we need impartial news that is going to clearly and accurately explain the benefits of bitcoin as well as the draw backs. We do not need sensationalism on either side.


Bitcoin is definitely being looked at a lot more positively of late but still has not fully shook many of the misconceptions and negative associations but that will take time. As you say, regulation will be a large step to adoption as it acts as a signal from governments that they are taking it seriously and it has some legitimacy.

99% of the media? "always associating it with crime"? wrong. Bitcoin has always been hit with negative news and FUD, but it's never been as think (perhaps you were exaggerating for the sake of argument). But even if it were true, how can you say that BTC needs PR when its popularity keeps going up despite having such bad reputation? Sure, there was a time when the general public had negative opinions about BTC because they used to asociate BTC with criminals and illicit activities, but that time is over, and nowadays people are looking at Bitcoin with positive eyes.

And BTC doesn't need PR to reach mainstream adoption, it needs 'regulations' ¹ to ensure that financial institutions, investors, and the average joe can finally make a move and invest in BTC. Regulations will give Bitcoin legitimacy, they will help 'clean up' that bad image of Bitcoin, and they'll provide that final boost needed to reach 'mainstream adoption'.

---

1. They're not the most important point, but they're part of several aspects needed to reach mass adoption.

I am against with your opinion. Bitcoin needs public relation. It cannot survive without the demand of the people. Remember, there is a law of demand and supply in economy and one vital role that demand plays is that it controls thè product. We can say that bitcoin is decentralized coin. But for me, bitcoin is a product where the supply is limited only. The demand of the people dictates the price of bitcoin, if no one will use or buy bitcoin, bitcoin will gone as fast as it have its value.

We did try that, with a Bitcoin Foundation who were supposed to be the brand ambassadors of Bitcoin and give it good PR. Unfortunately, it didn't work out. Right now, the attitude is make sure that the product is great - users and adoption will follow. Companies which are already in the Bitcoin space do their bit to increase awareness about Bitcoin and its positive attributes.

That's not his name, although I'm sure he sees himself as a diamond of the banking industry. He's compromised himself a few times like when he said that he wouldn't allow his employees to trade Bitcoin and then his company was caught trading. He's a clown.
You are right that we could use more spokesmen. Andreas is doing a lot, but people like him are rare.

This gives me flashbacks from 20 years ago. PGP was new, and a community of security conscious adopters wanted the public to embrace it, or at least some form of email encryption. Creating really easy to use applications wasn’t that difficult. For example, Netscape and Outlook supported S/MIME, giving it simple ‘click here to encrypt’ user interfaces. But people shouldn’t click on security critical widgets without understanding at least the basics of how they work. So one of the main obstacles usually was how to educate users about how public key cryptography, the web of trust etc. worked.

Now it’s 2018, we want people to adopt bitcoin, and we’re faced with the same challenges. Users like pretty apps and websites, so they buy bitcoins without understanding how they work. Bitcointalk is then flooded by help requests from users who have lost their bitcoins to scammers, who have sent bitcoins to an altcoin address, who aren’t receiving their merchandise because their transaction is stuck due to low fees, and so on. But no doubt your wish will come true and even easier products and services will be unleashed upon a public that doesn’t understand what they’re doing and will hence lose their money, giving Bitcoin a bad name and keeping it in the niche where it probably belongs for the time being.  

Corporates closing the gates to spread the bitcoin but still people who knows the bitcoin will be take the market in their charge. Hopefully issues will be resolved by them. If there is public relation team for bitcoin also will not take bitcoin this much.
Recent days I see the people started investing on trading and mining platform.

Anyone with half a brain will see that Bitcoin has the same negatives as cash when it comes to things like criminal usage. Every time Bitcoin hits the news from 'negative' press a lot more people are getting into it. If Bitcoin continues to go on it's path and continues to rise in value then it will be adopted by more people.

There's limitations in Bitcoin which are slowly being addressed, and corrected. For example, the congestion in the mempool a couple of weeks back just can't happen if we want Bitcoin to be the successor to cash.

Despite what others are saying in this thread, I think Bitcoin DOES need some better PR, 99% of the media paint a negative picture regarding bitcoin, always associating it with crime, volatility, risk and other misinformation. We need a pro-BTC news stream that will spread the truth regarding bitcoin, clearly illustrating how it has the potential to solve some of the worlds major crises, including the counterfeiting problem and the issue of wealth distribution. I would even go so far as to suggest that this will be the only way bitcoin can reach mainstream adoption.

You just said it as it is as the first person to respond. I like your direct response. Yes it has no need for PR, it will publicise itself which, it is already doing. The numbers of people that are now trading in bitcoin can't be compared to even the number we had last december.

Bitcoin itself cannot have PR because it's not an entity. PR is public relations, bitcoin cannot interact with the public.

There can be better promotion of bitcoin but that is driven by the community.

I wouldn't say it's PR but I understand what you are getting at. If bitcoin had a very outspoken and well respected advocate then that would go a long way to improving adoption. Likewise if it was much clearer and easier to buy bitcoin (sites like coinbase have greatly improved this in the last months).

I think what you speak of will happen with time, because of the decentralized nature it is always going to be slower.

I think bitcoin needs nothing because it is decentralized coins, there will be always some people against bitcoin and supporting it. I think that is very good and as we can see bitcoin survives.

I'm new to the space and wanted to summarize what I think would help to increase the acceptance of cryptocurrency.  

(1) Anyone using this forum who has ever purchased crypto may not appreciate just how difficult it is for many people to figure out how and where to buy BTC (or anything else) and how to store it.  Any product or service that makes this easier and less expensive for a person of limited ability (who may not even own a computer) will be a tremendous help.  If you want more buyers, it has to be made easier and cheaper.  Perhaps Robinhood will be a big step in this direction, but even that seems a bit too complex for many.


(2) The single most important thing a person can do to help the market is to encourage someone else to buy a little Bitcoin.  Start there.  This ties in with #1 in that it seems pretty difficult right now to find a way to buy $50 worth of BTC if you aren't very capable with a computer, but once a person learns how to buy, store, and ultimately spend crypto, it will spread exponentially.

(3) To sum it up, what Bitcoin needs is better marketing, and that's hard for a decentralized asset to manage.  It is a little discouraging how much BTC is held in the hands of so few, and how centralized the mining is, but I just don't know enough to say how big of a deal that will prove to be going forward.  For now, though, BTC needs better PR and one would hope the miners would step up to fund that effort.

Bitcoin needs a better standard bearer than the Winklevoss twins.  (No offense intended.)

Examples of what such a person might have offered to CNBC to refute recent FUD:

(A) To those critical of Bitcoin's energy use, why not point to the pointless energy (and lives) wasted in mining gold for non-industrial use?  How about the lives and landscapes ruined?  Sure, the point is being made, but not loudly enough for the average person to hear.

(B) As for things like Charlie Munger (of Berkshire Hathaway) calling Bitcoin a "noxious poison" that should be stamped out by governments...   Perhaps someone should call him out and ask him why he expresses such vitriol for a digital asset and yet has nothing to say about Berkshire Hathaway's lack of oversight in Wells Fargo (one of their companies) defrauding millions of customers through the creation of fake accounts?  How does he feel about the damage done to individual people who's credits scores were hurt, or who had their accounts closed?  I'd say the noxious poison is letting the VP of that division retire with $100M instead of going to jail.

How does he feel about the role Goldman Sachs has played in the global economy over the last, say, 20 years?  He and Buffet bailed them out, as you may recall.  

(C) Jaime Diamond has said that anyone buying Bitcoin should be prepared for total losses.  I would say that sounds a lot like buying stock in Lehman Brothers.  We allowed JP Morgan and all the rest to gamble in an asset class that was fundamentally riskier and less sound than Bitcoin (!) at 30-1 leverage and then bailed them out when it blew up, and even now are now standing idly by as their lobbyists chip away at the already inadequate regulations for their entire sector.

Bottom line: the banks can and will continue to gamble, knowing the taxpayer will be there as the backstop to their losses and bonuses.  Crypto can, will, and should change all of that, eventually.  (Though it won't be smooth sailing.)  The tangle of undisclosed, unregulated financial derivatives, and the ability of the banks to use leverage to gamble on them is the noxious poison that poses systematic risk to the financial markets and the lives of everyday people, not Bitcoin.   Crypto only threatens the long-term profit margins of these fundamentally corrupt, albeit necessary, institutions.  


I know this was long and rambling, but I feel these are important points to be made repeatedly so they can  begin to enter broader public awareness.  Once the average person begins to understand that buying a little Bitcoin is what they can do to change the world for the better, they will.  You may not get rich, but you will open the door to new economic opportunities, if not for you, than for your children.   When enough people understand this, the pace of change will accelerate accordingly.