Topic: Justin Bons baseless criticisms (Read 244 times)

The real question is why should we even care what a random person on the internet says about bitcoin? Just because he owns an investment company doesn't give his uneducated opinion any more value than any other idiot on social media. The fact that you see it reflected in multiple media outlets is just because they are desperate for articles and nothing more.

In other words he doesn't even know what Bitcoin is.

Everyone sees whatsoever thing they bids for as the right thing and consider the ones they don't like and antagonize them, we all seems right at some point in life in our oen eye ehile others see a lot of wrongs allover, as the case of Justin Bons, he has said his own o the best of his knowledge but what others feels about him is the judgement that justify what he had been saying, but the advice here is that, it's always good to hear feedback about our actions as we progress in life.

Same here, never heard of him before and I'm glad that I did because it's all misinformation.

Anyhow, those who attack or put a lot of FUD will not last that long, sooner or later they will be exposed and so people are not going to believed on what they tweet or their opinion will not matter. Well if he has change his mind against bitcoin then so be it. And the more he open his mouth, the more obvious that he really didn't know what bitcoin is, and you can just shake your head with his arguments.

I propose we have a dedicated thread, were users can post shit arguments against Bitcoin, made on other platforms, and the community can challenge such propaganda on the platform it was posted.

Posting this only gives more attention to such persons, and ignoring them could allow them spread more lies. So a middle ground is a dedicated thread, such news gets reported there and can be countered or reported and does not give much publicity.

AFAIK, Elon Musk has not acquired Twitter yet.
Last I heard, there was the argument about audits on how many percentage of users are bots and that seemed to be the deal breaker, for now.

Perhaps it's not controversial enough to merit some recognition from those 'fighting' from misinformation. It not affects a lot of people, therefore the misinformation can continue unless the issue is made big

---

I don't understand why a lot of these people pushing for their own agenda on bitcoin create a coin wherein they can put all their ideas and prove to other people that their ideas are indeed better. If they believe that their advocacies and their possible additions to bitcoin is good, why not fork bitcoin and start putting in some actual work? Bitcoin's code has been politicized to death, and those who continue to shove their great ideas on other people doesn't even seem to do anything on their own at all.

I think many people need to report the tweet and then it might get deleted. But since Elon Musk acquisition of twitter there have been few changes I don't know maybe this procedure still works though

Bitcoin being a security will eventually make itunder controlled by SEC, that is not what decentralization will be. You dont want what BTC to be how Eth is after its merge. Since he support so much of blocksize issue then he can suggest to Ver for BTC cash to be security.

I actually have not heard of Justin Bons before today. But its not surprising to see someone from known Institutions to wish to acquire control over an asset.

I'm not that much knowledgeable in how Twitter works, but I wonder why isn't it reported for spreading fake information. Wasn't social media fighting (or pretending to do so) against fake news?

There is a discussion here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.60835743
About the fact that a the old versions of the client ( 0.8 )can still sync to today and versions older then that just need a very little / simple tweak to get to today.

Doing what JB wants would kill a decade of compatibility. And that is just bad. My old money still spends, the bank will still take old checks and so on.
Yes it's software so it's a bit different, but keeping compatibility and not just doing stuff to do it is important.

-Dave

Justin Bons tweeted that he had bitcoin node before and that he was once supporting bitcoin in the past. According to how I understood it, he started not to support bitcoin again because the block size was not increased, which lead to Bitcoin Cash. From what I see, he wished bitcoin to be centralized like altcoins, he wants bitcoin to have smart contract and continue to be modified in a way bitcoin would not be regarded as a commodity but a security.

He do not like how bitcoin is decentralized according to all what I read from his tweets.

You can read his whole tweet: https://twitter.com/Justin_Bons/status/1563912991015305216?s=20&t=CCW_pcC7QwXNogJDeKX1Mg

Is what he is tweeting worth it? No. Absolutely not worth it. Full of misleading information

Let me quote some of what he tweeted and see how he is wrong.

False

False

False

False

In short period of time? Yes
In long period of time? Wrong

If you hold bitcoin for a long time like 4 years, it is a store of value and a hedge against inflation. In short time period, it is a speculative asset. Does that makes bitcoin bad? No.

Leading us to where please? But Bitcoin Cash forked from bitcoin, where is Bitcoin Cash today.

False

I am expecting any country that adopt bitcoin as a legal tender not to accept centralized coins, which is what is happening. El Salvador, CAR and an island in Honduras all accepted bitcoin as legal tender, why not your altcoins? Is there any platforms that cyyptocurrencies are accepted that bitcoin is not the first among them? Yet bitcoin remain number 1. There is more to this, definitely all the quotes are wrong, he just want to mislead people.

This is rubbish, no sense in this.

If bitcoin fails, all (centralized) coins and tokens would fail, which means all would fail, and bitcoin would be the last to fail. One of the purposes of bitcoin is to be a hedge against inflation and as an investment.

Yet bitcoin remain the number one in market capitalization with 40% dominance.

Yet bitcoin supply remain 21 million, no pre-mined coins like the centralized altcoins. People had proposed burning of bitcoin supply, but not welcomed and won't be welcomed by the bitcoin community. Because some bitcoin is not burned does not make bitcoin not to be deflationary, bitcoin is deflationary.

All I felt is emotional baseless critism, bitcoin is not ponzi is what that fit the reply here. Is there any cryptocurrency that is not highly volatile than bitcoin? Altcoins are more and most volatile. All the cryptocurrencies move in the same direction which is the direction that bitcoin is moving to.

You only want your wish, not the wish of the community, I have mentioned that already, you unconsciously want centralization, but what bitcoin community did not give.