Topic: Forbes: "4 Reasons Why Bitcoin May Still Blow Up" (Read 757 times)
The first is the Blockchain technology they use. Secondly, more and more users of Online electronic devices such as Smartphone, Laptop, etc. Third, Can be exchanged to local currency. Finally, many are increasingly believing in Bitcoin.
Here (https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2017/09/22/4-reasons-why-bitcoin-may-still-blow-up/#3c0e8e841c23) is a good example of the bad journalism that surrounds Bitcoin:
We have no way of telling what's going on since Bitcoin and its sister cryptocurrencies aren't on exchanges and are completely unregulated . . . There is no regulated exchange gathering market bids on daily [bitcoin] valuation . . . no legitimate market works without price discovery and transparency.
Can it be that the author, one John Wasik, the author of "16 books including Keynes's Way to Wealth and The Debt-Free Degree" and who is also "a contributor to the New York Times, AARP, Morningstar.com and other national publications" and has "appeared on CNN, FOX, NBC, MSNBC, NPR, PBS and radio stations from Australia to Israel" has never heard of San Francisco-based Kraken and Coinbase, founded in 2011 and 2012 respectively, which are fully compliant with all applicable California state and U.S. federal laws?
Since transactions are encrypted, it's said that bitcoins are used for illicit exchanges, although I have no good way of proving that.
Transactions are of course hashed, not encrypted. Can it be that the author does not know this, or does not know the difference?
Outside of some limited use as a means to buy goods and services, Bitcoin's $61 billion market cap is linked to the perception of value.
The author, like so many journalists, CEO's, and talking heads on the subject, apparently is unaware of Bitcoin's decentralized ability to register data immutably in a fast and cost-effective manner, potentially turning anyone into a notary public.
Still, there is reason for hope. Imagine --- a mainstream-media article about Bitcoin by a conventional-thinking author and he didn't even call it a ponzi or pyramid scheme.
Progress: you have to take it where you find it.
We have no way of telling what's going on since Bitcoin and its sister cryptocurrencies aren't on exchanges and are completely unregulated . . . There is no regulated exchange gathering market bids on daily [bitcoin] valuation . . . no legitimate market works without price discovery and transparency.
Can it be that the author, one John Wasik, the author of "16 books including Keynes's Way to Wealth and The Debt-Free Degree" and who is also "a contributor to the New York Times, AARP, Morningstar.com and other national publications" and has "appeared on CNN, FOX, NBC, MSNBC, NPR, PBS and radio stations from Australia to Israel" has never heard of San Francisco-based Kraken and Coinbase, founded in 2011 and 2012 respectively, which are fully compliant with all applicable California state and U.S. federal laws?
Since transactions are encrypted, it's said that bitcoins are used for illicit exchanges, although I have no good way of proving that.
Transactions are of course hashed, not encrypted. Can it be that the author does not know this, or does not know the difference?
Outside of some limited use as a means to buy goods and services, Bitcoin's $61 billion market cap is linked to the perception of value.
The author, like so many journalists, CEO's, and talking heads on the subject, apparently is unaware of Bitcoin's decentralized ability to register data immutably in a fast and cost-effective manner, potentially turning anyone into a notary public.
Still, there is reason for hope. Imagine --- a mainstream-media article about Bitcoin by a conventional-thinking author and he didn't even call it a ponzi or pyramid scheme.
Progress: you have to take it where you find it.
Bitcoin is going to rise and this media and that Jp Ceo will eat their words back, they don't understand Bitcoin at all, they are anxious that it will eat their profitability and that's really bad, that they should have got Bitcoin in the mainstream and made more money and it will be a boost for them to. Bitcoin is up and running and when it will reach Heights of glory, they will regret they missed the bus.
This is a major issue for bitcoin, the sheer ignorance of the media when they are reporting bitcoin related news. And this is partly contributing to why there are so many bitcoin skeptics. They view this sort of article, and they automatically assume that it's legit because it is published by Forbes.
The points he make is completely nonsense and gibberish. Bitcoin does not encrypt transactions, the transactions are there for everyone to see. Plus, he simply ignores the fact that bitcoin can't just disappear with investors money. It is a decentralized protocol at its core.
But yeah, at least he doesn't accuse bitcoin of being a ponzi scheme... But i'm sure some other guy will write about that soon, lol.
The points he make is completely nonsense and gibberish. Bitcoin does not encrypt transactions, the transactions are there for everyone to see. Plus, he simply ignores the fact that bitcoin can't just disappear with investors money. It is a decentralized protocol at its core.
But yeah, at least he doesn't accuse bitcoin of being a ponzi scheme... But i'm sure some other guy will write about that soon, lol.
The thing about bears is that they will be right at some point, but bitcoin may go up for a decade or longer. The market is all about timing. Both bulls and bears can make money in the market if their timing is right. However, I don't think it's smart to short bitcoin right now.
just another article written by someone who has zero understanding of how bitcoin works! i wonder why they even bother publishing stuff like this. do they want to push away newbies! because that is the only effect of that, the rest of the world knows better.
this part made me chuckle though:
"Since transactions are encrypted, it's said that bitcoins are used for illicit exchanges".
this part made me chuckle though:
"Since transactions are encrypted, it's said that bitcoins are used for illicit exchanges".
I am a "crypto-optimist", but I agree with some of the points of the author.
The two biggest problems I see and where I agree:
- Too much shilling, and thus Bitcoin is prone to pump-and-dump fraud (the author's first point). If we, as the community, had a better "bullshit detector" when analyzing price predictions, newbies won't get burnt that much.
- The valuation dilemma is real, in my opinion. If we had better metrics about Bitcoin "real" usage, then we could see earlier if we are in a bubble or a crash has gone too deep. The community should try do develop these metrics, and above all, should include use "as a currency" (trade against goods and services) and the related price discovery. An idea could be the creation of a basket of goods and services that are often traded against Bitcoin (e.g. hosting) and track its value.
Obviously, the author has made an error when he called transactions "encrypted", but I think you all here get his point: if you mix your coins well, then it is very, very difficult to find illicit transactions. Although here, I consider that a "feature" (privacy!) and not a "bug", so here I disagree with the author.
Bitcoin is really risky for the Average Joe, if he has zero knowledge and experience about bitcoin. This is why most central banks and most of the commercial banks are warning people and advicing not to invest in bitcoin, to prevent these newbies from getting burnt. These banks needs to give reliable advice and this kind of speculation is not for the average people, this is why they act like this. (And of course they're defending their own market...) The two biggest problems I see and where I agree:
- Too much shilling, and thus Bitcoin is prone to pump-and-dump fraud (the author's first point). If we, as the community, had a better "bullshit detector" when analyzing price predictions, newbies won't get burnt that much.
- The valuation dilemma is real, in my opinion. If we had better metrics about Bitcoin "real" usage, then we could see earlier if we are in a bubble or a crash has gone too deep. The community should try do develop these metrics, and above all, should include use "as a currency" (trade against goods and services) and the related price discovery. An idea could be the creation of a basket of goods and services that are often traded against Bitcoin (e.g. hosting) and track its value.
Obviously, the author has made an error when he called transactions "encrypted", but I think you all here get his point: if you mix your coins well, then it is very, very difficult to find illicit transactions. Although here, I consider that a "feature" (privacy!) and not a "bug", so here I disagree with the author.
legendary
Activity: 1358
Merit: 1565
The first decentralized crypto betting platform
If find it sarcastic that those kinds of papers usually call for unregulation because free market regulates itself and bla, bla, bla. Here we see that one of the arguments against bitcoin is that it is unregulated so unregulation is good if it is applied to the asset I have, like stocks, but it is bad if applied to the ones I don’t have and threaten me, like cryptocurrencies.
This is just another move like the JP Morgan one, don’t bother about it.
This is just another move like the JP Morgan one, don’t bother about it.
Here (https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2017/09/22/4-reasons-why-bitcoin-may-still-blow-up/#3c0e8e841c23) is a good example of the bad journalism that surrounds Bitcoin:
We have no way of telling what's going on since Bitcoin and its sister cryptocurrencies aren't on exchanges and are completely unregulated . . . There is no regulated exchange gathering market bids on daily [bitcoin] valuation . . . no legitimate market works without price discovery and transparency.
Can it be that the author, one John Wasik, the author of "16 books including Keynes's Way to Wealth and The Debt-Free Degree" and who is also "a contributor to the New York Times, AARP, Morningstar.com and other national publications" and has "appeared on CNN, FOX, NBC, MSNBC, NPR, PBS and radio stations from Australia to Israel" has never heard of San Francisco-based Kraken and Coinbase, founded in 2011 and 2012 respectively, which are fully compliant with all applicable California state and U.S. federal laws?
Since transactions are encrypted, it's said that bitcoins are used for illicit exchanges, although I have no good way of proving that.
Transactions are of course hashed, not encrypted. Can it be that the author does not know this, or does not know the difference?
Outside of some limited use as a means to buy goods and services, Bitcoin's $61 billion market cap is linked to the perception of value.
The author, like so many journalists, CEO's, and talking heads on the subject, apparently is unaware of Bitcoin's decentralized ability to register data immutably in a fast and cost-effective manner, potentially turning anyone into a notary public.
Still, there is reason for hope. Imagine --- a mainstream-media article about Bitcoin by a conventional-thinking author and he didn't even call it a ponzi or pyramid scheme.
Progress: you have to take it where you find it.
So it seems that it is better of we invest all of our money to the bitcoin because according to the Forbes the price of the bitcoin will still blow up. We can become rich person if we do investment in bitcoin. We have no way of telling what's going on since Bitcoin and its sister cryptocurrencies aren't on exchanges and are completely unregulated . . . There is no regulated exchange gathering market bids on daily [bitcoin] valuation . . . no legitimate market works without price discovery and transparency.
Can it be that the author, one John Wasik, the author of "16 books including Keynes's Way to Wealth and The Debt-Free Degree" and who is also "a contributor to the New York Times, AARP, Morningstar.com and other national publications" and has "appeared on CNN, FOX, NBC, MSNBC, NPR, PBS and radio stations from Australia to Israel" has never heard of San Francisco-based Kraken and Coinbase, founded in 2011 and 2012 respectively, which are fully compliant with all applicable California state and U.S. federal laws?
Since transactions are encrypted, it's said that bitcoins are used for illicit exchanges, although I have no good way of proving that.
Transactions are of course hashed, not encrypted. Can it be that the author does not know this, or does not know the difference?
Outside of some limited use as a means to buy goods and services, Bitcoin's $61 billion market cap is linked to the perception of value.
The author, like so many journalists, CEO's, and talking heads on the subject, apparently is unaware of Bitcoin's decentralized ability to register data immutably in a fast and cost-effective manner, potentially turning anyone into a notary public.
Still, there is reason for hope. Imagine --- a mainstream-media article about Bitcoin by a conventional-thinking author and he didn't even call it a ponzi or pyramid scheme.
Progress: you have to take it where you find it.
I think this is exactly what some journalists do, they know a little to none about a certain topic, yet they try to create an article about it, i think for them the jucier, the better, the higher the ratings, the higher the pay, never mind those who are really involved and don't get their opinion, clearly they just wanted to getbthe good side of the banks, probably their company owes them. I think they should first study what bitcoin is about, [...] All i can say is that, the author failed to research further and might have just regret buying bitcoin before, and now, they also wants to try to manipulate the price if they can. I think doing a little more research for them would be wise.
The author made one single mistake in the article, and although technically an important mis-conception, it's a minor one, because it's not relevant for the point he wanted to illustrate ("hashed" != "encrypted" transactions).
All the other points he rises are perfectly valid - one has not to agree with him (for example, I don't agree with his insinuated proposal to regulate cryptocurrency exchanges more strictly), but he seems to have done his job researching.
It's more: Many Bitcoin users, in this forum
, are complaining about the same things the author does: Price manipulation via FOMO and generation of panic sells by the big whales, and distinct kinds of scams. Would we have a whole "Scam Accusations" sub-forum if this wasn't a problem?
I think this is exactly what some journalists do, they know a little to none about a certain topic, yet they try to create an article about it, i think for them the jucier, the better, the higher the ratings, the higher the pay, never mind those who are really involved and don't get their opinion, clearly they just wanted to getbthe good side of the banks, probably their company owes them. I think they should first study what bitcoin is about, like most of us did, from scratch, there were no books saying how bitcoin works, what are the transactions going to be and why is there bitcoin. The author should first clear that, and thrn try to speculate, like what most of us here are doing, though we are not new to cryptocurrency, we are still learning since bitcoin and altcoins have not yet gain the full potential, rather than saying things like that, the author should've suggested ways on how bitcoin can be regulated, he shoudl've went to japan and ask them how they did it. All i can say is that, the author failed to research further and might have just regret buying bitcoin before, and now, they also wants to try to manipulate the price if they can. I think doing a little more research for them would be wise.
Bitcoin is greatest financial risk I have ever taken and I'm not unhappy about that. Time can be a game changer but still, I estimate it will have a very long lifespan compared to altcoins.
With investment and trade there is always the issue of profit or loss probably sometimes there is the small margin of striking the balance but with BTC we ve seen so much success and now we look really worried prices can sore base on national decisions. I say all reasons written are right and can impact BTC prices positively but once again i say this is a business. You win or loose
I appreciate all his opinions...
he has not been involved so he still does not understand why bitcoin was created, maybe 5 to 10 years away he will understand what it bitcoin and regret already ignore it in the past. lol
he has not been involved so he still does not understand why bitcoin was created, maybe 5 to 10 years away he will understand what it bitcoin and regret already ignore it in the past. lol
I am a "crypto-optimist", but I agree with some of the points of the author.
The two biggest problems I see and where I agree:
- Too much shilling, and thus Bitcoin is prone to pump-and-dump fraud (the author's first point). If we, as the community, had a better "bullshit detector" when analyzing price predictions, newbies won't get burnt that much.
- The valuation dilemma is real, in my opinion. If we had better metrics about Bitcoin "real" usage, then we could see earlier if we are in a bubble or a crash has gone too deep. The community should try do develop these metrics, and above all, should include use "as a currency" (trade against goods and services) and the related price discovery. An idea could be the creation of a basket of goods and services that are often traded against Bitcoin (e.g. hosting) and track its value.
Obviously, the author has made an error when he called transactions "encrypted", but I think you all here get his point: if you mix your coins well, then it is very, very difficult to find illicit transactions. Although here, I consider that a "feature" (privacy!) and not a "bug", so here I disagree with the author.
The two biggest problems I see and where I agree:
- Too much shilling, and thus Bitcoin is prone to pump-and-dump fraud (the author's first point). If we, as the community, had a better "bullshit detector" when analyzing price predictions, newbies won't get burnt that much.
- The valuation dilemma is real, in my opinion. If we had better metrics about Bitcoin "real" usage, then we could see earlier if we are in a bubble or a crash has gone too deep. The community should try do develop these metrics, and above all, should include use "as a currency" (trade against goods and services) and the related price discovery. An idea could be the creation of a basket of goods and services that are often traded against Bitcoin (e.g. hosting) and track its value.
Obviously, the author has made an error when he called transactions "encrypted", but I think you all here get his point: if you mix your coins well, then it is very, very difficult to find illicit transactions. Although here, I consider that a "feature" (privacy!) and not a "bug", so here I disagree with the author.
We should be listening to these people.
Which doesn't mean that we have to agree, btw, but their opinions and even their misunderstandings can point us to exactly what we as a community need to work on to solidify Bitcoin and it's value.
It's not, for instance, untrue that the perception of value plays a massive role in Bitcoin's current valuation (otherwise the volatility would be much lower). Most of these folks seem to point at this to suggest this means Bitcoin is utterly worthless, but that's a different matter altogether.
They are finding ways and means of getting richer and it seems the best way they can do it is by spreading fear and panic so that the prices may go down. They really don't know how bitcoins works at all and people are always afraid of things that they don't understand. Which doesn't mean that we have to agree, btw, but their opinions and even their misunderstandings can point us to exactly what we as a community need to work on to solidify Bitcoin and it's value.
It's not, for instance, untrue that the perception of value plays a massive role in Bitcoin's current valuation (otherwise the volatility would be much lower). Most of these folks seem to point at this to suggest this means Bitcoin is utterly worthless, but that's a different matter altogether.
Here (https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2017/09/22/4-reasons-why-bitcoin-may-still-blow-up/#3c0e8e841c23) is a good example of the bad journalism that surrounds Bitcoin:
We have no way of telling what's going on since Bitcoin and its sister cryptocurrencies aren't on exchanges and are completely unregulated . . . There is no regulated exchange gathering market bids on daily [bitcoin] valuation . . . no legitimate market works without price discovery and transparency.
Can it be that the author, one John Wasik, the author of "16 books including Keynes's Way to Wealth and The Debt-Free Degree" and who is also "a contributor to the New York Times, AARP, Morningstar.com and other national publications" and has "appeared on CNN, FOX, NBC, MSNBC, NPR, PBS and radio stations from Australia to Israel" has never heard of San Francisco-based Kraken and Coinbase, founded in 2011 and 2012 respectively, which are fully compliant with all applicable California state and U.S. federal laws?
Since transactions are encrypted, it's said that bitcoins are used for illicit exchanges, although I have no good way of proving that.
Transactions are of course hashed, not encrypted. Can it be that the author does not know this, or does not know the difference?
Outside of some limited use as a means to buy goods and services, Bitcoin's $61 billion market cap is linked to the perception of value.
The author, like so many journalists, CEO's, and talking heads on the subject, apparently is unaware of Bitcoin's decentralized ability to register data immutably in a fast and cost-effective manner, potentially turning anyone into a notary public.
Still, there is reason for hope. Imagine --- a mainstream-media article about Bitcoin by a conventional-thinking author and he didn't even call it a ponzi or pyramid scheme.
Progress: you have to take it where you find it.
The reason has potential. That is the reason why many people are believing that the price will still blow up. I have a faith that the bitcoin will reaxh $10,000 per each. We have no way of telling what's going on since Bitcoin and its sister cryptocurrencies aren't on exchanges and are completely unregulated . . . There is no regulated exchange gathering market bids on daily [bitcoin] valuation . . . no legitimate market works without price discovery and transparency.
Can it be that the author, one John Wasik, the author of "16 books including Keynes's Way to Wealth and The Debt-Free Degree" and who is also "a contributor to the New York Times, AARP, Morningstar.com and other national publications" and has "appeared on CNN, FOX, NBC, MSNBC, NPR, PBS and radio stations from Australia to Israel" has never heard of San Francisco-based Kraken and Coinbase, founded in 2011 and 2012 respectively, which are fully compliant with all applicable California state and U.S. federal laws?
Since transactions are encrypted, it's said that bitcoins are used for illicit exchanges, although I have no good way of proving that.
Transactions are of course hashed, not encrypted. Can it be that the author does not know this, or does not know the difference?
Outside of some limited use as a means to buy goods and services, Bitcoin's $61 billion market cap is linked to the perception of value.
The author, like so many journalists, CEO's, and talking heads on the subject, apparently is unaware of Bitcoin's decentralized ability to register data immutably in a fast and cost-effective manner, potentially turning anyone into a notary public.
Still, there is reason for hope. Imagine --- a mainstream-media article about Bitcoin by a conventional-thinking author and he didn't even call it a ponzi or pyramid scheme.
Progress: you have to take it where you find it.
Here (https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2017/09/22/4-reasons-why-bitcoin-may-still-blow-up/#3c0e8e841c23) is a good example of the bad journalism that surrounds Bitcoin:
We have no way of telling what's going on since Bitcoin and its sister cryptocurrencies aren't on exchanges and are completely unregulated . . . There is no regulated exchange gathering market bids on daily [bitcoin] valuation . . . no legitimate market works without price discovery and transparency.
Can it be that the author, one John Wasik, the author of "16 books including Keynes's Way to Wealth and The Debt-Free Degree" and who is also "a contributor to the New York Times, AARP, Morningstar.com and other national publications" and has "appeared on CNN, FOX, NBC, MSNBC, NPR, PBS and radio stations from Australia to Israel" has never heard of San Francisco-based Kraken and Coinbase, founded in 2011 and 2012 respectively, which are fully compliant with all applicable California state and U.S. federal laws?
Since transactions are encrypted, it's said that bitcoins are used for illicit exchanges, although I have no good way of proving that.
Transactions are of course hashed, not encrypted. Can it be that the author does not know this, or does not know the difference?
Outside of some limited use as a means to buy goods and services, Bitcoin's $61 billion market cap is linked to the perception of value.
The author, like so many journalists, CEO's, and talking heads on the subject, apparently is unaware of Bitcoin's decentralized ability to register data immutably in a fast and cost-effective manner, potentially turning anyone into a notary public.
Still, there is reason for hope. Imagine --- a mainstream-media article about Bitcoin by a conventional-thinking author and he didn't even call it a ponzi or pyramid scheme.
Progress: you have to take it where you find it.
Well, its amazing that he couldnt come up with "10 Reasons why" + insert click bait title here. There must be many more than 4, but then again it suceeds. We have no way of telling what's going on since Bitcoin and its sister cryptocurrencies aren't on exchanges and are completely unregulated . . . There is no regulated exchange gathering market bids on daily [bitcoin] valuation . . . no legitimate market works without price discovery and transparency.
Can it be that the author, one John Wasik, the author of "16 books including Keynes's Way to Wealth and The Debt-Free Degree" and who is also "a contributor to the New York Times, AARP, Morningstar.com and other national publications" and has "appeared on CNN, FOX, NBC, MSNBC, NPR, PBS and radio stations from Australia to Israel" has never heard of San Francisco-based Kraken and Coinbase, founded in 2011 and 2012 respectively, which are fully compliant with all applicable California state and U.S. federal laws?
Since transactions are encrypted, it's said that bitcoins are used for illicit exchanges, although I have no good way of proving that.
Transactions are of course hashed, not encrypted. Can it be that the author does not know this, or does not know the difference?
Outside of some limited use as a means to buy goods and services, Bitcoin's $61 billion market cap is linked to the perception of value.
The author, like so many journalists, CEO's, and talking heads on the subject, apparently is unaware of Bitcoin's decentralized ability to register data immutably in a fast and cost-effective manner, potentially turning anyone into a notary public.
Still, there is reason for hope. Imagine --- a mainstream-media article about Bitcoin by a conventional-thinking author and he didn't even call it a ponzi or pyramid scheme.
Progress: you have to take it where you find it.
These people are highly intelligent and has the capability on saying things on purpose. It means that the things they are saying are credible enough. And I believe in this.
That is so BS.
If they are intelligent then why are they trying to shed a bad light on bitcoin when they've got nothing to do with it? He seems to not understand what bitcoin is even about. Yes, in essence it is a perception of value but that's every single currency. Gold is a perception of value. So is silver. Especially the currency that he is defending which is fiat currency.
If you read OP post you'll see that he doesn't even know how bitcoin works, for a start. And he's trying to call it a scam.
These people are highly intelligent and has the capability on saying things on purpose. It means that the things they are saying are credible enough. And I believe in this.
Great analysis.
I think that this article based on what you told us, resembles somebody's and seen High School which they are not bothered at all to proofread or to check the facts before they publish it. Except, this is an article was published on Forbes by a well-known author and journalist. He obviously has no idea what he's talking about just by looking at these excerpts.
Bitcoin transaction there for everyone to see. They are not encrypted. it is just that the unique identifiers that represents an entity is completely anonymous. And as you said comma there are so many regulated and compliant exchanges that I can't even list them all here. It is just another example of how ignorant the media and the public is about Bitcoin right now.
I think that this article based on what you told us, resembles somebody's and seen High School which they are not bothered at all to proofread or to check the facts before they publish it. Except, this is an article was published on Forbes by a well-known author and journalist. He obviously has no idea what he's talking about just by looking at these excerpts.
Bitcoin transaction there for everyone to see. They are not encrypted. it is just that the unique identifiers that represents an entity is completely anonymous. And as you said comma there are so many regulated and compliant exchanges that I can't even list them all here. It is just another example of how ignorant the media and the public is about Bitcoin right now.
Jump to: