Though I'm a pretty stubbornly commited maxi, I've seen many articles that predict Bitcoins death or irrelevance and the vast majority of them are just weak sauce on top of flimsy uninformed misrepresentations.
I'd like to see a solid argument for why Bitcoin will fail, I want to properly steal-man the opposing view, and I want to have a deeper perspective as to what the risks and negatives are with Bitcoin.
If you share a good article, essay, book, podcast or any piece of media that legitimately makes a case against Bitcoin, you get 1000 Sats
Bitcoin could fail because
Most people on the planet have no savings ever
No new money/currency took hold in a society without violence historically
Freedom is really foreign concept to half the planet. Like, the idea that someone is “free” to use his money without constraints is not even considered in the realm of possibilities. I lived half of my life in the Middle East, this place would be the last to adopt Bitcoin because of #3
The fiat structure permeates everything in our society, Bitcoin doesn’t just change money, it changes everything. The more change something introduces, the harder it will be fought
Wow, my friend, I like the way you think, thanks so much for your input. I think these are all extremely solid points.
El Salvador comes to mind, but not their current monetary transition, rather the last one. Colon to Dollar. I'll definitely be doing some research on how that transition happened, the timescales, the violence related to it and as much info as possible since your last point is what peaked my interest here. I have more personal experience with the current situation in Venezuela which is going down the dollarization path now, and though it does involve a whole lot of economic uncertainty, instability and confusion, the amount of violence directly related to it is small. This of course is a rather poor comparison since Venezuela is not the global hegemon that the US is with their petro-dollar, which they have enforced violently in the past.
Amazing points all around man, top contender so far for the bounty
Most people not having a savings is precisely why I think bitcoin won’t fail. Network effects will ultimately determine its success and by today’s standard it’s already successful.
Convenience Vs. Security
People (the average Joe) tend to go towards the more convent (likely centralized option) vs the more secure (decentralized option). They may burn their hand and try the decentralized option but over time they will go back to centralized options as the painful memories fade.
I am not hoping for this outcome but I do see as one way BTC adoption can play out in the future.
Joe Kelly has written a bunch of articles. He seems to be one of the only people who understand the mechanics of bitcoin & has an opposing view.
Honestly I think this will take the cake. Joe does have some strong points.
I think what's making up my mind is the mirror image of the path to getting on the Bitcoin train. There is no single post or explanation that will fully transmit all the information necessary to see why bitcoin can be a globally transformational change up of our whole monetary system and beyond. Similarly, there is no single post or explanation that can fully delve into the potential weaknesses and forseeable problems with the system.
Joe has several different articles and arguments which build on eachother, each with a different line of thinking in a different area of the system, and taken together along with some critical thinking and independent analysis on my own part, it constitutes the best takedown I've seen of Bitcoin out there.
Thanks so much for this
Winner goes to paywalled "security budget" fud?? Idk man...
Thanks for putting up the bounty though, I enjoyed this thread
I tried to summarize it in another branch: https://stacker.news/items/127685
Who would you have picked as the winner?
It wasn't paywalled when I read it a year or so ago
Can anyone summarize the points, or provide non-paywalled links?
We definitely disagree that a single post can't transmit what's necessary to see why Bitcoin can be a globally transformational change.
If I remember correctly its a government or governments gaining more than 51% of the hash rate to DOS attack so no transactions get through. They have basically an unlimited budget & as the network gets attacked more bitcoiners will try to get out creating a kind of death spiral. As the price of BTC comes down it will be cheaper to continue this wasteful mining.
Something like that
Oh I like that, maybe I'll make another bounty about that one
Good luck fed 😉
Yeah, I really think Joes arguments need to be answered by bitcoiners that know more about the mechanics of BTC.
Thanks so much!
Here's an interview of him discussing some of these ideas.
Joe's arguments are the strongest I've come across.
Countries nationalize privately run oil production all the time, they could unite and nationalize BTC mining facilities, then grief the remaining 49% by always orphaning their blocks.
To save BTC, at that point coordination among non-government devs/nodes/hodlers must occur to change the hashing algo and agree on at which block height to fork off. That's a big frickin headache. Price would take a dive even from explicit threats of nationalization, let alone threats of block-orphan-griefing.
I guarantee the Core devs already have a new hashing algo ready to go in case such an event. I'm also pretty confident a fork would happen quickly, as node operators and users want to preserve their wealth.
Remaining miners would be in an uproar over worthless hardware. Companies would be totally confused over what flavour of bitcoin to accept. Governments could use a fraction of their military spending to 51% attack the next algo until all purchasing power is lost.
Its only the US government that is left in this scenario.
And it would be VERY unpopular for an elected president to put through such a policy.
Bitcoin despite the environmental FUD is still growing in adoption & so also in popularity
You mean a lot of hashrate currently resides in the US?
Narratives can be spun and repeated until popular, as the last years have shown.
What might help is increasing the pace of adoption: https://www.swanbitcoin.com/the-race-to-avoid-the-war/
Its a very small possibility. Maybe if we get a strong man takeover of the US where they confiscate asics.
Bitcoiners will see this coming & set up elsewhere.
Unlikely, but yeah don't get too comfortable thinking nothing like this could happen.
Prepare for the worst
If FATF and BRICS countries agree they don't want competition with their fiat, things are going to get spicy.
As long as we are not seen as a threat in geographical territories with a good mix of cheap energy and preferably cool climate, we are okay. Otherwise we'll have to find an alternative to proof of work (no, I'm not advocating PoS).
Sovereign individual thesis. If the West want to stop bitcoin mining, other countries or jurisdictions look to benefit from productive companies & individual wealth.
Free market & truth win in the end.
At that point, you have an outright war for sound money.
That's a good outcome.
deleted by author
As far as I know, this is the only legitimate opposing view on Bitcoin that I've seen. However, this raises one big question from me: WHAT ARE THEY WAITING FOR?! If nation-states can kill Bitcoin, the best times were in 2010, 2013, 2017, 2021...if they're capable of creating a mining monopoly, they should do it NOW just so everyone can be sure. All I can do is guess what the state has in store for Bitcoin
Here is something we haven't seen in the thread:
Stall, Suppression and 'Fake' Competition to Oblivion
We believe the only realistic way for Bitcoin to fail is to fizzle out into irrelevancy.
A sufficiently determined state actor could do a combination of:
The combination of which risk forcing Bitcoin to stagnate and stumble in a very trepidatiously way. This risks it losing its first spot in the cryptocurrency ranking (BS anyway as it doesn't compare to them), perhaps even top 5 or 10 depending on how much the alternatives are pumped. (you bet game theory will force them to go all out as they smell blood)
As that happens, a negative network effect begins to form. Since Bitcoin's value is based on belief, the shakeup of belief can negatively affect price which can further negatively affect belief - and the vicious cycle makes it end in a much worse place than today, effectively neutralized. At this bottom point, it would be an insurmountable task for Bitcoin to rise up and muster the same amount of support again. Like the gold bug crowd.
I wonder if state actors are employing these very techniques right now... 🤔
Nah, they're moral people and could never use such odious tactics.
Who do you think pumped it to $67k? Malicious actors. Trapped everyone, and started selling to inflict pain. But honey badger, apparantly doesent care. I wonder what the next thing they will do. Probably Nuclear war. Wipe out the internet. Yea, they want to put that back into the abyss where it came from. Bye
The WEF did do war games on an internet outage scenario, the same way they did war games on a pandemic scenario right before 2020. Really gets the noggin joggin.
The bitcoin protocol will not fail.
However, the nebulous "hyperbitcoinization" is not likely in our lifetime, and I would argue ever. Here is the definition of hyperbitionization I have in mind:
The base layer of bitcoin does not scale to the world population if we continue on the current trajectory of price appreciation. Layers built on top of it will always make trust and privacy trade offs, and that's ok. Trust is useful in society, so long as you can control who you want to trust and when.
If adoption continues on pace, running a node and holding your keys is going to be for those who have savings of at least $50,000 in today's dollars. For everything else, people will either be using fiat, chaumian e cash, or free banking issued credit a la Pear Credit.
So in this scenario, I would put sovereign custody at ~50%, medium of exchange not native bitcoin, and fiat currencies continuing through inertia.
And that's probably the best case scenario.
Worst case scenario, bitcoin remains a primarily dark market money, valued for its permission-less and sound nature, as well as its native programmability. It will be used for international payments and bank settlements, as well as online micropayments, but usually swapped for fiat. Most won't think about bitcoin as their unit of account.
how do you define "fail"?
However, I'm interested to know what YOU would consider failure, and what might be the reasons you think Bitcoin could fail according to your own definition.
Looking to expand my perspective here, not really for a specific answer to a specific question. Feel free to run with it
I am not aware of any comprehensive, strong cases for why bitcoin could fail and haven't written one yet myself, so I'll at least give myself a running start here. Some of this has been mentioned by others on this thread already so consider this reinforcement of their arguments :)
I consider there to be two main failure modes for bitcoin:
Failure mode (1) could happen a few ways. But before digging into this, it's worth defining what I mean by "full potential". I consider bitcoin's "full potential" to be: anyone who wants to use bitcoin as p2p electronic cash (self-custodial electronic money with strong censorship resistance and strong security against double-spending) is able to use it, and use it at a cost that makes sense (i.e. it shouldn't cost 50 sats to spend 100 sats).
One way bitcoin could fail to reach its full potential is that the bitcoin community fails to invent and implement ways to scale bitcoin so it can be used by everyone who could possibly want to use it. Self-custodial transaction capacity maxes out and most people will end up using some kind of custodial system to transact in "BTC", reintroducing the problem of trust and reversible payments that bitcoin was designed to solve in the first place.
Another way bitcoin could fail to reach its full potential is that the bitcoin community fails to invent and implement ways for BTC to be used in every type of transaction where money is required. For example, many new privacy protocols, p2p financial contracts, and self-custody schemes such as vaults have been implemented on alternative blockchains. If someone wants to use these new features with their money, currently the only way to use these features with bitcoin is using (semi)custodial mechanisms for bridging bitcoin to these other chains (RBTC, L-BTC, WBTC, and the like), again reintroducing the problem of trust that bitcoin was designed to solve. If people want to use these new features in a self-custodial way, they have to buy an asset that is native to these other chains that implement the feature (ETH on Ethereum, for example). If people continue to buy these alternative assets instead of BTC because BTC cannot be used with these new features without some (semi)custodial mechanism, I consider that a failure of BTC to reach its full potential.
Maybe my definition of "full potential" is a mirage and can never be obtained. I'm willing to accept that, provided all options are exhausted. But I do think it's a goal worth striving for.
That brings me to failure mode (2), nearly completely failing. There are a couple of ways failure mode (2) could happen that I can think of.
The first is as a conclusion of failure mode (1): because bitcoin fails to reach its full potential, eventually enough "true believers" die off that more and more BTC left to the next generation is sold, fewer and fewer people are transacting and paying fees to miners, etc. So there's this "death spiral" feedback loop of fewer users -> sell pressure and less usage -> hashrate drops -> less security -> sell pressure and less usage -> hashrate drops... etc and this continues until bitcoin is basically a hobbyist thing that maybe a few thousand people worldwide care about and the market cap is at most today's equivalent of a few million USD. As long as there's a single computer mining blocks, bitcoin will never "completely fail" in terms of totally stop working, but as a monetary system, for all intents and purposes, if it is a hobbyist thing used by a few thousand people at most, I consider this "nearly completely failing".
Another way failure mode (2) could happen could be instigated by a severe govt crackdown: bans on self-custody, exchanges, mining, running nodes, etc. This could leave a core of "resistance fighters" who continue to use bitcoin underground. They will need to "keep the flame alive" by recruiting the next generation of resistance fighters, if they don't maintain sufficient recruitment then the "death spiral" I described above could occur as the resistance fighters die off.
There is a failure failure mode (3) which I consider highly unlikely but worth mentioning. This is "total failure" meaning that no more blocks are mined and bitcoin has zero monetary value because it cannot be transferred and/or literally everyone has lost interest in bitcoin. For this scenario to occur, computers and telecommunications networks will need to completely fail for an extended period of time. This is a post-apocalypse scenario: nuclear war, asteroid strike, a cosmic event fries all computers including miners, the sun explodes before humans can get beyond its blast area, etc.
I love this, very well thought out, and definitely based on some realistic thinking and grounded logic.
I think my best takeaway from this is the fact that "failure" can look a lot of different ways, each one with a viable pathway leading to it. In terms of broadening my perspective to the point of making me understand even my original question was too narrowly worded, you're blowing me away.
Your concern with definitions is resonating a lot with me, being clear and concise is so gratifying, and the English language has so many options, not using them is a shame.
This is the comment that I have enjoyed reading the most, I think we have similar styles of thinking.
I can't let this comment go unrewarded, it's just so well crafted, but there's a clear winner for the bounty, so you get 500 sats. A refreshingly strong second place.
Thank you my friend
Thanks! I'm glad it was helpful.
My bearish arguments is the following:
Bitcoin circulating supply is forever decreasing.
** According to Peter Todd, the supply is always decreasing at a variable rate due to burned or lost coins.
-- Short time horizon. Good for price. -- Long time horizon. Bad for price discovery.
Price discovery relies on a liquid circulating supply. This means that without Tail Emission or Demurrage the Bitcoin Network is in danger on the long term.
I think about this sometimes too but keep in mind that each BTC is equal to 100 million sats. So there's actually 2,100,000,000,000,000 sats in total. That's 2.1 quadrillion.
So the way I see it, even if over half of the supply is lost and the population of the world doubles there still should be enough for a functioning economy.
Still, I believe that not knowing how many satoshi units are really available for sale it will undermine price discovery.
The problem will just get bigger overtime.
But I also believe that somebody will eventually implement Demurrage into Bitcoin
There was no way to know how much gold or silver there was above ground or in circulation for a very long time while those were money, there's no way to know how many dollars there are, no monetary medium has ever had anything even kind of close to the certainty that bitcoin brings in this regard, and yet price discovery has carried on throughout the whole time. Bitcoin may not be perfect in this, but it's an incalculably gigantic improvement over anything else we've ever seen, so if this presents an issue with price discovery, and that's a big if, then this will also improve dramatically. This is a point in favor of Bitcoin, not against it.
One way for Bitcoin to die is to become obsolete and better technology will replace it. It is not always the one that is first to market that wins, eventhough there is the first mover advantage which Bitcoin has utilized so far. However, if a different protocol which has better technology suited for whatever people need, then there will be no reason for Bitcoin to continue to exist. Just look at all the social networks as an example, we had Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, now TikTok, each improving on top of the other in terms of what people want to use it for (not really in a good way, but still). Nowadays, the younger generation does not even bother with the first one :).
Only time will tell :).
This is a solid point, just one that I struggle with because of a simple lack of imagination. I don't see what else needs to be improved, and I especially don't see any improvements to be made that fundamentally cannot be applied in a future BIP.
Thanks for sharing your perspective
This is a good answer. Just want to add it won't be some shitcoin. It will be something completely different. Bitcoin relaced gold but bitcoin isn't newly discovered metal with different physical properties than gold. It's a whole new thing entirely. Eventually something will replace bitcoin, but it too will be something completely new and unexpected.
Yea this is a fantastic take, I didn't even think about it like this at all. It also hints at why the "crypto industry" seems so awkward and clunky. Just like Bitcoin isn't a new metal, the car wasn't just a faster horse and buggy, it completely changed the game on the whole thing. All these new projects using blockchains for weird things other than just Bitcoin, just seem like horse and buggy entrepreneurs strapping internal combustion engines on a horse to make it go faster by using the "underlying technology behind the transportation revolution".
If there is another step to be taken in the direction of better money technology, surely outdated and stubborn bitcoiners will try to integrate that new thing into Bitcoin somehow to try to make it work better, without understanding the true implications of such a different and better money technology, trying to strap that engine to that horse.
I have a strong belief that in the same way that cars started out super heavy, slow, inefficient, dangerous and just worse than cars today, so Bitcoin is in its awkward infancy. We haven't even figured out power steering or seatbelts, let alone airbags or self-driving. And in the face of so much innovation still to come for this novel money technology, that I can't even imagine, trying to imagine a still more novel money technology altogether which obsoletes Bitcoin seems like idk. Idk what it seems like. Impossible? Futile? Idk, pointless? Not sure what word goes here..
But this is a phenomenal answer , I'm so glad I made this post
Great stuff. New idea is always scary and it takes a leap of faith. Go bitcoin:)
Here's a pretty solid article about the impossibility of scaling the LN: https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-the-lightning-network-cannot-be-a-decentralized-bitcoin-scaling-solution-1b8147650800
Wow, blast from the past.
I must protest your description: Fyookball's article is complete garbage. His model for the Lightning Network is nonsense and on basis of that non-existent foundation all that math is complete eyewash.
Please refer to the reply I wrote back then: https://murchandamus.medium.com/i-have-just-read-jonald-fyookballs-article-https-medium-com-jonaldfyookball-mathematical-fd112d13737a
Thanks for sharing, really important stuff!
There are many possibilities that bitcoin could fail. I think the most likely is:
Lack of scalability: Bitcoin's current design limits the number of transactions that can be processed on the network, which can lead to slow transaction times and high fees.
Environmental concerns: The energy consumption required to mine and process Bitcoin transactions is very high and has a significant environmental impact.
Volatility: The value of Bitcoin can fluctuate greatly and rapidly, making it an unreliable store of value.
Lack of regulation: Because Bitcoin is decentralized, it is not subject to the same regulations as traditional currencies, which some argue makes it a haven for illegal activities.
Lack of mainstream acceptance: Bitcoin is not yet widely accepted as a means of payment, which limits its utility as a currency.
A perfect currency for a non-perfect people.
Bitcoin ended up using all the energy in the world several years ago like the media claimed it would. The Earth has flooded with boiling saltwater and I wake up on a mountain top hospital from a coma like Dorothy going "I had the craziest dream."
Then a Waterworld edition Dennis Hopper NFT suffocates me with a stuffed, packed, wrapped, tacked, pegged and bridged Ethereum pillow in my web3 metavision existence as "Proof of Stake" flashes like game over in my pawculus cat themed rip off VR headset.
In all seriousness I've become such a progressive maxi during this crash that despite being aware of some of the weak points I've mostly stopped caring about them. This post is a helpful reminder of the struggles ahead.
I am not seeking the bounty obviously, because this was completely unhelpful.
I think BTC will fail because the general public are not incentivised to think for themselves and are bound by the herd mentality. Bitcoin is originally intended to be a private exchange of currency between peer to peer, but Binance is now banned in Singapore because it enabled this very feature during its operations here. Some of my countrymen might believe in the narrative spun by our central bank - that peer to peer BTC exchanges might facilitate money laundering and other shady practices. This leads to Bitcoin being negatively associated with dirty money in their minds. Our fiat is fighting a losing battle against inflation but their minds are preoccupied with hustling more to get more fiat, not with Bitcoin as a viable alternative currency. We are lucky that we are not Venezuelans or Turkish people who are suffering from hyperinflation and HAVE to resort to Bitcoin.
The fact that most, if not all, consumer electronics chips are backdored by nation state actors (ie. US intelligence) is more than a rumor by now. Google intel management engine. You can safely assume that now for some time, every time when any device generates a seed phrase it is being written to God knows where on some hard drive in the US. The implication here is that a certain amount of BTC (60%?) is co-owned by US government making them the majority holder of BTC and rendering our beloved cyber money a controlled asset.
bitcoin will fail because people will not care about it enough to learn, and overtime less and less people will care to participate because it is too difficult to understand and it will fade into irrelevance
Not everyone will care about it but those who do will initiate people’s mindsets simply by their peers seeing an improvement in quality of life. Like the drunkard who becomes sober and people in their life seeing the improvements, rather than simply talking about being sober with no change in lifestyle. Understanding doesn’t really matter so much. How many people use email without understanding its protocol, the vast majority.
Not an argument for why it will fail.... but certainly one possible threat that could lead to its death or irrelevance is shitty regulation - governments imposing restrictions on use, aquisition, custody (reason why understanding custody is so important) or making it a pain in the ass for merchants to accept might make it unattractive to use as payment for goods and services which in turn might lead to a reduced demand and its failure.
Bitcoin is a hard and decentralized money.
A hard money provides the function of having constant savings. Thus, it is between a fiat money and an investment:
It's sandwiched in between. The less volatile markets become, the more surplus budget money to invest people have the less there is a need for savings.
Bitcoin can't be killed, but it's growth path can be derailed through a coordinated attack by State power.
If fiat morphs into a one-world Global Central Bank Digital Currency -- a clear goal for globalists -- and then bitcoin transactions are banned with that currency, bitcoin is effectively asphyxiated and marginalized.
It would take years to recover as a purely black market currency.
Difficult scenario for them to pull off, but not inconceivable.
Satoshi is one of the biggest risks: if he shows up and turns out to be a pedophile, sells all of his coins, makes weird statements, etc there could potentially be such a big exodus that the project could fail
Big bug in the code: very unlikely at this point, but there's a possibility that a bug exists and that someone could exploit it. Same as above, if Bitcoin has a bug, everybody is going to freak out and leave
Governments heavily restricting the internet, freedom, and human rights: this one is a little bit more tricky, but in a very very censored environment only a tiny fraction of the population ("the resistance")would still use Bitcoin. Also, if the sheeps in such scenario are "intellectually" unable to choose to use Bitcoin, that's also a failure (I guess a much broader failure though)
To be clear, in these cases the underlying idea of Bitcoin would not die (e.g. a hard fork or some other coin taking over). Also, I consider anything that is not mass adoption within the next few decades as a failure
I think the most viable criticism is the lack of elasticity in a supply. Jeff Snider has articulated this well on a number of occasions. While, I think the keynesian consensus that money supply needs to be elastic is generally a farce, I can see the argument why during a time of crisis such as after a natural disaster the ability to expand the money supply helps expedite the relief and rebuilding efforts. I think this can be overcome through credit issuance, cooperation and charity but it is definitely an interesting thought experiment.
I think this article makes pretty good case for the possible destruction of bitcoin. It was borne of the blocksize wars. Of course I don't agree!
If the internet goes down.
If the internet goes down the economy goes down as well. There would be no place to hide
Bitcoin is perfect. Now pay me my bounty.
You get 1 sat cause you're prolly right and you made me chuckle.
Bitcoin will fail only when people will give up their own custody of their bitcoins to 3rd parties (banks controlled by govs).
There's no other way to control and shut down Bitcoin.
This is making a case for Bitcoin, not against it. This comment will not be considered for the bounty.
Yes, but is still feasible scenario... just look around how many dumb people are.
Damn, sick burn
I can imagine this becoming a meme on SN
Given I don't have one ready makes me think I've been confirming my biases too much.
The most effective high level "argument" against bitcoin (compared to other cryptohs) that I've seen repeated over and over is relative developer activity. It's often presented without accurate data and taken as a given, but I'd like to see actual numbers. If we can convince people that more developers, or simply more really good developers, are building on bitcoin than elsewhere, it'll have a significant impact on the narrative.
the only way is to break the internet away. Bitcoin is built resilient, it’s decentralized. but even if they do hypothetically, they can never ever take away the idea. damage is done. If we loose we bring back the whole wold to an prehistoric era. No capitalist or government is that stupid. the cost will always outweigh the effect. Trying to break bitcoin from the inside will only accelerate new solutions actually speeding up the adoption and integration on global level. This is why it’s a revolutionary invention. This is why in essence it’s also scaled and propositioned as a digital gold. With lighting bitcoin created a second usability and scale taking care of speed of light payments outperforming traditional banking. Where centralized banking never reinvented their own technology for the past 50+ years. Bitcoin answered that perfectly and it will only get better. Just build build build and trust . Because we decentralized trust with e.g. fairness protocol making sure we will and won’t have to keep enduring lies and suppression of a world dominated by psychopaths . Choose. Bitcoin is selfregulated by code, it it does not have to obey. If you let your mind get poisened by old traditional thinking yes then sure , you could think of 1001 ideas why it could fail. I think that’s more a cognitive trauma then a tech that goes far beyond traditional thinking. And that is exactly why banks (one of the most powerful entities ) until today still cannot take btc down. And they know it. The government knows it. It’s useless , spreading FUD and useless attacks and building CBDS only shows how scared and powerless they are. If you understand btc well, you know cbds are no threat. Fear is not really a good teacher , focus on facts and once again, keep building ✌️
It will fail because of the simple fact that layer one bitcoin has a fee structure that is volatile, transactions that are not guaranteed to confirm in a certain timeframe, and confirmation times that can never be estimated due to the fact that the time between blocks is also, insanely volatile. Sometimes there are two blocks within five minutes, then other times you won't see a block generated for over an hour. Finally, BTC is expensive to transact compared to other cryptocurrencies. The majority of people are insanely greedy and will refuse to pay the fees that Bitcoin requires to get into a block (which, once again, are drastically volatile..) if they can use a different cryptocurrency that is either feeless or almost feeless... Add to the fact that those other cryptocurrencies offer guaranteed confirmation of your tx's and they're confirming in a much faster amount of time, yeah, it's obvious why the common folk wouldn't choose Bitcoin..
1.Bitcoins have low transaction fees and make it easier to do transactions internationally. 2.The Bitcoin network is difficult to govern. 3.There are many practical difficulties with using Bitcoin as a regular payment method.
I think the idea of possibly scaling to 42. million bitcoins is more damaging on halving the price / value of bitcoin then govermental or other entities attacks , it could lead into loosing trust or integrity . quantum computing is also not a completley sealed off risk , as we only know when quantum computing will get succesfully realized
@TheGuySwann Dear Guy, I'm a regular listener of Bitcoin Audible, and I've heard a few of the books you performed, big fan.
I think it's important to understand and think about the opposing arguments. I encourage you to take a look at the comments here, put them in your pipe and smoke them. The fiat world has trouble steelmaning the arguments in favor of Bitcoin, let's not make the same mistakes.
I absolutely love your reads, I like that they're all over the place, exploring different things that don't seem related at first. I have a big need to understand the different implications and the inner workings of the idea of Bitcoin, and when I listen to your podcast, I feel satisfied because I can see how my understanding has expanded and developed, or my perspective has changed.
I also think I can benefit from a deep exploration of the risks, drawbacks, problems and negatives and I think it could be equally beneficial to provide listeners with a well rounded proper understanding of where the mines are and how big the explosion might be if we trip them. Some food for thought. Cheers.
deleted by author
время. только время может служить антивирусов для биткоина! придет момент когда в обращении останется 1 монета и нам придется разбить 1 сатоши еще на 100 000 000 частей. да это не скоро но все же если взять во внимание тот факт что монеты без движений увеличиваются то это факт. других аргументов найдено небыло.
возможно что это будет взлом протокола атака 51 % от пула который держит америка и имеет сейчас более 33 %. если подумать то это будет в их интересах разрушить его и оставить инфляционный доллар... ИМХО
биткоин может упасть в цене, потому, что во-первых: колличество добытыых btc постоянно уменьшается, во-вторых: нужны всё более и более мощные видиокарты, установки для майнинга. добывать btc втановится всё дороже, проблемы могут решить только игры-симуляторы майнинга. пузырь btc может вероятно лопнуть из-за вероятных хакерских атак на держателей btc