Topic: What are the most convincing arguments against Bitcoin? - page 8. (Read 9236 times)

This argument only works if you view Bitcoin as software. But in reality, Bitcoin is a protocol (like TCP/IP, HTML, DNS), and the difference is that protocols adapt because they're only the basis on which other software structures are built. We are still using protocols that were designed in the 60s and 70s, but what we have built on top of them makes today's internet unrecognizable from the networks of that time.

Just about the only argument against Bitcoin that has any credibility (that I've come across so far), is that governments could try and squash it by going after not Bitcoin itself, but the entities on the periphery of the network (exchanges, Bitcoin-based businesses and startups and so on). Of course, the counter argument to this is that there is no such thing as "governments" that act in a completely homogeneous manner. There are many different governments, each with its own set of priorities, and each in itself also in constant flux.

So if China decides to ban deposits to Bitcoin exchanges (to come up with an example), you can be certain that other countries will take a different approach. And, really, all you need is a handful of jurisdictions where Bitcoin can thrive.

Over the next 70 years or so quantum computing might become an issue, but then there will likely be consensus to change the protocol so that it isn't that big of a problem.

Most people are not technically savvy enough to store their bitcoins themselves.  Without a trusted, insured deposit institution, they'll lose their savings to trojans, social engineering, and computer failures.  There may be regulatory difficulties in creating such a service down the line.

Has the scalability problem been solved yet?

What about the infrastructure, the mining power, the network effect and that Bitcoin could be adapted?

The best argument I've seen against Bitcoin is that it'll be another cryptocurrency that we use mainstream in the future. Just because Bitcoin is first, doesn't mean it's the best.

Other arguments I've seen against Bitcoins or even cryptocurrencies in general, are just flimsy imo. Cryptocurrencies will be a part of our future, there's no turning back now. The only question is which one?

money is working well for average citizen and for the economy. only criminals NEED to use bitcoin. they earn a lot. the ebthusiasm of bitcoiners makes criminals rich. u want that to be tbe basis of a new financial order?

edit the idealism and the greed of innocent bitcoiners make criminals rich.

people typically live day to day in cities and don't care about this whole Silk Road craze, bits, etc..

when prices crashed cause of china whole reddit sub talked about india and downvoted china-posts. bitcoiner are trolls with money and promoting bitcoin only to become rich. with every wave of incomers greed and stupidity grows. new bitcoiner are fanatic to promote btc. only reason is greed. btc is no ponzi, but bitcoiners behave like it is one.

I'm not talking about the short-term, not the medium-term, but the long-term.

What are best arguments that Bitcoin won't last?

So far I'm convinced by the pro-arguments decimating the con-arguments. But what if there are some damning arguments out there?

Please try to present them, and please present the prerequisites for why those arguments could be valid.

And just posting "there are no negative arguments against Bitcoin" or "up up up" is not going to further the discussion.

We need good con-arguments and attempts at destroying them, if possible.