The media has predicted the death of Bitcoin many, many times in the past years.
Topic: Forbes: "4 Reasons Why Bitcoin May Still Blow Up" - page 2. (Read 757 times)
It's extremely clear to me that 99.99% of people do not understand what Bitcoin is.
As more and more people start to understand what it is and what it does and what it can be used for, Bitcoin will see increased adoption.
As more and more people start to understand what it is and what it does and what it can be used for, Bitcoin will see increased adoption.
Sounds like a bunch of journalists who don't know much about the fundamentals of Bitcoin talking about its viability for the future because they have a platform 
Bitcoin is only risky if you don't know how it is created, how it works and its advantages.
It is sort of like the stock market, where there are many traders who just look at the numbers and do fancy market analysis to predict the future.
Then there are investors like Warren Buffet who will find a good business with great fundamentals and go all in with it.
Personally, I am more of the 2nd type of investor. Articles like this from Forbes appeal more to the casual investor who wants to sprinkle a few dollars to make some back rather than the hardcore ones who know a good business/opportunity when they see one.
Bitcoin is only risky if you don't know how it is created, how it works and its advantages. It is sort of like the stock market, where there are many traders who just look at the numbers and do fancy market analysis to predict the future.
Then there are investors like Warren Buffet who will find a good business with great fundamentals and go all in with it.
Personally, I am more of the 2nd type of investor. Articles like this from Forbes appeal more to the casual investor who wants to sprinkle a few dollars to make some back rather than the hardcore ones who know a good business/opportunity when they see one.
Everything has risk, but bitcoin is here to stay. 
everything has a potential of blowing up, we've seen that with stocks, currencies lose value etc. so no big deal!
He is just looking to buy more bitcoin at lower prices: "Do what I say, but don't do what I do"
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.
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.
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.
Jump to: