Topic: What are the most convincing arguments against Bitcoin? - page 5. (Read 9236 times)

This is clearly an issue. The more unequal the spread of wealth the more problems. 

Here is a great video: Paul Piff: Does money make you mean?

Personally I believe that unequal spread of wealth is both a cause and a symptom. But the symptom is deadly in itself and should therefore not be ignored.

Some of the solution will come from philanthropy, some will come from better education/culture and I can't help some of it will come from some kind of voluntary basic income though I have no idea of how it would look.

Lack of information online is not a long-term problem as more trustworthy exchanges will arise, and more secure and easy to use wallet solutions will come for the less technology savvy.

In the long term I don't see how this could be a problem. There are several people making more and more secure and easy-to-use wallets, besides, with the current technology the problem isn't the infrastructure but how to get the information. When it comes to money spreading that information will be quite easy and fast. I mean, grandparents can use facebook and internet banking no problem, why wouldn't they be able to understand that you could print a paper wallet for ultimate security with a click?

After that it is just a matter of hiding it in a safe place. Besides, for smaller amounts of money, a usb stick could easily provide more than enough security.

Ease of use is not a long-term issue.

As far as I have understood, Gavin and the developers have promised that pruning will be ready "when it is necessary". I have no reason to doubt the developer team, but when is it really necessary to prune, at 1TB? Has anyone come up with a timeline? What proof is there that pruning will be possible when it really is necessary?

IQ is a test designed specifically and explicitly for detecting learning disabilities that prevent someone from succeeding in mainstream school systems. The test had 5 iterations so far which meant to refine its ability to detect issues such as dislexia and other learning disabilities. The revising also were used to adjust to cultural changes as scores rapidly shifted, eg, when 120 became the average they refactored it so that 100 is the average again.

Scores over 100 are largely meaningless because of this.

Furthermore, the score is calculated as 100*X/Y
where X = The average age of an average student in the K12 system whose academic performance matches yours
where Y = Your actual age.

So a 10 year old who has the academic performance of an average 15 year old has an IQ of 100*15/10 = 150. If you haven't realized it yet, IQ is a percentage.

This also means it is a completely meaningless score for adults.

1. I have done my research. Do yours
2. I wasn't talking about pools. I was talking about mining cartels and ASIC manufacturers. Or in the future, just banks. If bitcoin is accepted I can see many governments spending a lot of money to make massive mining centers to ensure they control the currency. They can then treat it like they do regular banking today.
3. If this was the case we would have prunning already

You could have used that argument against the mass adoption of computers 30 years ago...

The most convincing argument against mass Bitcoin adaoption to me is this:

1. The average human IQ is 100. Let that sink in for a while: 100 is average.

Think about what a massive challenge that represents.

How's that a valid argument? Dogecoin is a joke coin.

because now we have dogecoin.

And it is precisely my naiveté that prompted me to make this thread.

After reading the latter parts of the Problem with Altcoins thread, I am inclined to agree that there are serious issues with Bitcoin in the long term.

One being the problem of mining cartels forming in a post mining-boom (when returns on mining are minuscule) where the plutocrats dump the transaction fees to zero to capture the entire mining-market and only those with the deepest pockets could afford to spend money getting no return on mining. Maybe even governments could play such a role, with the excuse of "guaranteeing the infrastructure of the Bitcoin network". This group of people could then hold the currency hostage, and there would be no monetary incentive for selfish miners to compete with them. A selfish miner would either accept the status quo or get out of Bitcoin.

The other being anonymity. How the anonymity offered through Bitcoin is weak, becuse using Tor to hide one's IP address is not good enough when fighting a global enemy using a timing attack as explained here. A global enemy (like the NSA) could also has a myriad of other exploits to find out your identity. At first glance, this might be seen as a huge problem. But think of what happens if the global financial system collapses and the masses move into Bitcoin, then there they will a large amount of blame given to Bitcoin and its early adapters. In the words of J.R. Willet in the Lifeboat foundation:


Hence hard uncrackable anonymity is needed.

I assume that the elite, fearing their power being encroached by Bitcoin would both try to dominate mining and also drum up popular anger at Bitcoin instead of assuming their own responsibility in having created the current and doomed fiat system.

None of these two issues with Bitcoin are absolute flaws. One way to solve them is to think of these issues ahead of time and like the Lifeboat foundation wants to, advice regulators, wealthy Bitcoiners and other power brokers on how to proceed in a way that causes the least harm. And with the help of generous directed donations from those who made their wealth by Bitcoin as well as careful explanation and good marketing, it would be possible to at least somewhat abate public anger.

On the mining cartel problem one could set up some kind of foundation or institution to ensure that mining power is spread out and independent.

Both these "solutions" are big ifs (there might be other better solutions if these issues are addressed seriously by the Bitcoin community now rather than later - creds to the Lifeboat foundation).

There are some advantages to having Bitcoin public, but it does require fighting a PR-war to win over the masses of disenfranchised. That could easily mean Bitcoiners would resort to logical fallacies in order to convince people, just the kind of behavior that can be seen all around these forums now (imagine what that would be like when wealthy people are trying to justify why they are rich when the world economy is grinding to a halt.

About setting up organizations that would provide safety and stability to Bitcoin-mining and make sure no one co-opts mining when returns drop to the point where transaction fees are the main income - this is clearly possible. It might even work quite well, but organizations can also be co-opted or just become myopic over time. This is also not a foolproof solution and more similar to the current system than the apparent flawlessness that attracted me to Bitcoin in the first place. 

Bad news about bitcoin makes the price go down and vice versa. When the prices go down a lot, then people will buy more bitcoin because of the low price, so the price will go up again. It could potentially hold up a long time. It only ends if there is no more trust in the currency whatsoever.

Cryptocurrencies are here to stay but maybe Bitcoin will die. There could be a cryptocurrency ecosystem which includes Bitcoin and several other cryptocurrencies with various advantages. As the cryptocurrency market matures, we will see systems that interface with all major cryptocurrencies. Banks might co-opt Ripple/anothercoin and credit transactions could work on top of it. Zerocoin/something-similar may offer better anonymity and might subvert protocol detection attacks better.

That being said, software sucks and most people probably won't use systems that interface with all major cryptocurrencies, for whatever reasons. Banks are subject to regulation, and Bitcoin could get around those regulations (and at the same time, Ripple/anothercoin).

Well there usually is one or two trustorthy members - that's all it takes to get an escrow.

I was meaning that you have to trust that the person you are buying BTC for example from will actually send it - escrow is all well and good - but you still have to trust the person acting as escrow to do what they should.

Pruning, Larger block sizes, faster internet speeds, specialized equipment if needed and continued bitcoin development.

ugh.. you really need to look into this yourself. Ignoring uses with a bright yellow "ignore". its lit up for a reason.

1. Thats not what a 51% attack is and doesnt let you do that. do research.
2.bitcon isnt centralized, pools are false centralization. ie. if someone pulls some shady stuff, the people 'get out of the water' and they lose the hashrate and peoples faith in them, pool owner then loses their income stream. any other form of centralization is just as much BS. do research.
3.no it doesnt... do research...

To use Bitcoin trust is unnecessary. Consensus is necessary. As with trading anything, all parties involved must agree with the value of the item being exchanged. Fiat is backed by trust in the issuing authority. Even transactional trust is unnecessary if you use escrow.

The biggest argument against Bitcoin - and all crypto currencies for that matter - is that everyone thinks everyone else is out to rip them off in one way shape or form. It's sad but when you can't trust anyone, how far can it go?

1. ASICs & Mining facilities. 51% lets you do anything from ruining the currency to implementing modifications to the protocol.
2. Centralization makes it a lot easier to make a 51% attack, but besides that, centralization could result in governments taking over bitcoin and destroying every single one of its benefits over fiat.
3. Reduces the security of bitcoin.