What is with the apocalyptic BOT? Paris is not burning and USD will never be zero. Is this something that you do for fun? Writing posts like "World's about to end! Save yourselves!"
There is a great tour on the illegal network and the possibility that block chain brought to money laundry. Maybe this will keep BTC alive?
Topic: Is Bitcoin Going To Zero? - page 11. (Read 24798 times)
I do not believe that Bitcoin is back to zero. Because the current black market is using Bitcoin as the primary currency for transactions. Do you think that these illegal transactions use Bitcoin as a currency? Everything will never end if it is still selected.
The Euro and USD are going to zero!
Paris is literally burning and the NYSE is exploding.
Paris is literally burning and the NYSE is exploding.
Here's a hilarious article from Forbes with same tittle: Is Bitcoin Going To Zero? What makes it particularly hilarious is the author's striking inability to understand that to make a consistent and coherent argument he has to tie up loose ends in his logic and reasoning, to make his narrative smooth and even, not contradictory and conflicting
At first, he claims that Bitcoin is effectively dead as it has no value because it "doesn't produce any products or services". And then, all of a sudden, he proceeds to assert that Bitcoin's characteristics such as "a store of value that easily crosses borders around the globe" and "the comfort of anonymity it can provide" have only persisted because governments have largely allowed cryptocurrencies to exist
So am I the only one who feels like the author makes mutually exclusive claims in this piece of shit? If Bitcoin is in fact as dead as a doornail, it can't possibly possess and enjoy all these benefits and advantages he mentions, and therefore no government intervention is actually required to get away with it. But if, nevertheless, the government intervention is still required to get done with Bitcoin, it doesn't look like being dead at all, right?
In short, haters gonna hate. Bitcoin is money but money itself doesn't produce any products or services on its own. Does that take anything from its value as long as it is not fiat hyperinflated (when it basically stops being money)? Essentially, as money Bitcoin produces transactional utility upon which things like a store of value or "comfort of anonymity" are built. Thus, this argument doesn't hold even when taken separately, on its own "merits"
At first, he claims that Bitcoin is effectively dead as it has no value because it "doesn't produce any products or services". And then, all of a sudden, he proceeds to assert that Bitcoin's characteristics such as "a store of value that easily crosses borders around the globe" and "the comfort of anonymity it can provide" have only persisted because governments have largely allowed cryptocurrencies to exist
So am I the only one who feels like the author makes mutually exclusive claims in this piece of shit? If Bitcoin is in fact as dead as a doornail, it can't possibly possess and enjoy all these benefits and advantages he mentions, and therefore no government intervention is actually required to get away with it. But if, nevertheless, the government intervention is still required to get done with Bitcoin, it doesn't look like being dead at all, right?
In short, haters gonna hate. Bitcoin is money but money itself doesn't produce any products or services on its own. Does that take anything from its value as long as it is not fiat hyperinflated (when it basically stops being money)? Essentially, as money Bitcoin produces transactional utility upon which things like a store of value or "comfort of anonymity" are built. Thus, this argument doesn't hold even when taken separately, on its own "merits"
Jump to: