Topic: Why bitcoin is worthless - page 3. (Read 690 times)

LN removes obstacles such as transaction precessing speed, confirmation times, costly fees, etc. You however fail to see the value in it, because for some reason you keep hammering on that second layer like it's something that can't and won't work, while it does already deliver an outstanding job. I am sure that at a given point if Bitcoin provides on-chain scaling offering all the aforementioned features, you'll still find something to complain about. Let me ask you a question, from all the current altcoins, what is according to you a 'perfect' example of an adoption/usage stimulating altcoin? And explain why you think it is. Just saying this or that coin because it's faster and cheaper isn't enough.

You haven't answered the question. How do you determine the value of benefit of decentralisation? If the high costs are not justified, what's the fair cost?
Average Joe may not be valuing decentralisation too high, but it's a different story for WikiLeaks (and alike), who had all their bank accounts frozen, or for individuals/businesses from Cyprus (EU member state, not some Banana Republic), who had seen their money just taken away from them, or for citizens of shithole countries with high risk of hyperinflation - you get the gist.
Other than exchanging physical goods (incl. cash), cryptocurrencies are the only way to transfer value in trustless, censorship-free, borderless manner. How do you put a value on that to say whether costs are justified or too high?

As for speed/costs - cryptos are performing pretty good. Bitcoin seems slow compared to other cryptos, but txs are irreversible and settled in average of 10 mins - this is huge advantage over the traditional means. Credit card purchases are rather expensive (especially for small merchants), buyers' could think they're free, but they're not - merchants pay the fees (and pass the costs to the buyers via increased product price, which also reflect costs of fraudulent chargebacks).

I just made a purchase on Aliexpress, my first payment attempt failed for an unknown reason, tried different card - it went through. Now I only have to wait 1 day for them to verify my payment. Wow, how fast and convenient. I'd be happy to pay even $15 fee just to use BTC if they had such option.


Private blockchains don't require high computational power (mining hashpower) at all. If it's pointless then why the hell is Swift (and others) spending presumably a fortune to explore/implement blockchain tech? They don't know any better? You want to email them and educate them on the issue?

That is the case for now. What if a revolutionary technology is introduced to help the problem at hand? What if the slow transaction speed has been solved through a fork? IMO anything is possible to happen in the future as people's mind are creative and always craves new things, thus people might build mining devices that are far more efficient and cheaper to use than the current ones. This might solve the issue at hand about it consuming a lot of energy.

How can people say bitcoin is worthless where a lot of people changed their life because of this. Bitcoin is everything, its technology that drives the price to pump higher is the prove for itself. Believe on bitcoin, its value will make you more rich in the future.

I agree that blockchain is not that great of a technology and I hated the moment bitcoin news started being filled with headlines of "blockchain" instead of "bitcoin". The entire purpose of the blockchain was only to be used with bitcoin where it was absolutely needed because there is no centralized entity to trust and robust security against hackers in this wild wild west is needed. As soon as you move away from the use case of bitcoin, blockchain is no longer neccessary or efficient. I also have hoped that bitcoin will upgrade its use of blockchain to a more distributed model as well as get rid of POW.

I am not really talking about the difference between blockchain and bitcoin because I am talking about the article itself, If you would read the article it is trying to take out blockchain technology from the one that is running from it and trying to innovate it without bitcoin, And they are trying to explain the usefulness of blockchain technology if its not being use as a ledger of transaction because it can really be use in different things other that bitcoin.

your wrong,ofcourse they understand bitcoin,but they deny it becaue THEY ARE A WRITER WITH COST(not Cause)cant you even see that if Bitcoin funded hes write ups then maybe t articles will be in reverse,lets not spend our time with thisk kind of issue.coz it comes out that were only advertising that articles to favor the dev

Well as the author says, it not only consumes tons of energy, it's just not usable as payment system because of the extreme slow processing speed. I think a lot of people have some dream about how bitcoin is going to change the world. But it's also important to look at the technology and what it can and can NOT do. That's why I think it's such a good article, it lays out why blockchain can not be used as an international payment system.

Yes blockchain and Bitcoin maybe a little being overhyped, but it's the one that make people interested, at least something new was introduced and people was excited to see new things and as far as I know blockchain and Bitcoin is very useful and can help a lot of people, the technology maybe not yet perfect and consume a lot of energy, but it's a promising technology that can change the world

It means that the only "pro" of crypto over, for example, Visa or Mastercard or Venmo or any other means of transferring money/value is the fact that it is decentralized. You don't have to trust anyone, whereas with Venmo, you're giving a company control of your funds. The cost of crypto vs these systems is that it is WAYYYY slower, not scalable, more expensive in many cases, and requires the use of a massive network that consumes stupid amounts of energy even when it is less than 1% of the size it would need to achieve the dream of replacing fiat currency. It's just not worth it.


Actually it is right and you pretty much just admitted it. A centralized and non-trustless blockchain like the one you are describing is completely pointless. You are better off using a database, which would be WAY faster and WAY fewer computational resources.


Cryptocurrencies are more overhyped than blockchain technology itself. The two ideas are commonly viewed as if they aren't coupled together even though they are. I'm not saying it makes sense.

I don't agree bitcoin is worthless even I'm agree there is have a risk if you invest in bitcoin but for me that the way for earn profit.

I wouldn't agree with anything written in that article besides the explanation of the ICO. Bitcoin is definitely not a safe investment and is of high risk but personally I think that its not that risky and its a good long term investment. Crypto is not going to fall off, in fact crypto is the next big thing because its mainstream, its the future.

Bitcoin is worth a lot of money and it's easy to check. If it was possible to offer the journalist who wrote this article to buy 100 btc for 1000 dollars. You think he'd refuse? Lol. He'd love to do it and ask me to sell him more coins. This means that even he doesn't believe in what he writes.

I'd say if you think Bitcoin is worthless then it is to you.  If you don't think it's worthless then it obviously isn't to you.  But if fiat is rubbish why is Bitcoin always valued in Fiat. 

For me bitcoin is very great investment, is not worthless at all. When bitcoin came to my live, it help me to paid some bills, help my family etc.
Bitcoin is profit is good every years is increase. I hope bitcoin in the future is good assets for everyone, especially investors.

The price tag disagrees. Bitcoin is worth as much as the next buyer is willing to pay, specifically $10945 right now, or in any other equivalent, but we use USD because it's the most widespread currency.

These people are so full themselves. They could say "in my opinion, bitcoin is worthless" but they speak as if they have universal truth. Just ignore these scammers, they can't even form a valid argument for their claims.

It looks like you already warn us I don't understand why you are such a pessimist. Blockchain certainly will not be forgotten, certainly not for the next hundred years, so I do not think that something bad will happen to cryptocurrencies. Only those whose projects will be abandoned by the developers will disappear.

It's always good to be reminded that indeed all investment in crpyto could one day go to zero, without any warning!

Same opinion here. Many people compare blockchain to internet. People know that it is better to not underestimate this great potential of blockchain and want to be at the beginning of the next technological revolution. In my opinion hype here is natural.

It is indeed overhyped, but calling it bullshit is completely wrong. The amount of hype it is receiving is probably a lot more than its potential, but blockchain is still a very useful technology with many real world applications.