New essay seriously questions Bitcoin's future success

[Lagartijo]

Some powerful economic and historical arguments here, and what governments could do to defeat Bitcoin...

http://moraluniversal.com/en/why-bitcoin-cannot-win/

"Money is the product of society, just as Bitcoin is the product of a society of computers. Money needs the greatest human network to succeed, just as the Bitcoin blockchain needs the greatest computer consensus. This network and consensus, however imperfect, is ultimately provided by the state in modern societies, just as it was the case in the many cases of recoinage and remonetization throughout history. For as long as we have states that strong and accepted by people, for better or worse, Bitcoin will remain a substitute currency."

[Lagartijo]

"For any currency to succeed ultimately, it needs to be accepted by government as good for payment of debt and taxes. Bitcoin is anathema to the bankers, and these financial terrorists will cause pain and death in any country that attempts to adopt it, and blame it on the currency extremists. They don't need governments to kiss and make up."

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3f6947/why_bitcoin_cannot_win_when_states_across_the/

[foodstamps]

I think people need to stop focusing on getting BTC accepted as a national currency. The government will not gain anything from doing this and in fact they will lose the power to control the economy. Why would they allow this to happen?

I feel like people should concentrate more on getting BTC accepted by the people as a "alternate currency". There is a much better chance of this happening.

[jonald_fyookball]

the article is saying governments can outcompete Bitcoin by creating their own cryptocurrencies.  However, unless they are scarce like Bitcoin, I don't see why they would be likely to beat Bitcoin in the long run.  In other words, if a government creates a crypto coin but can still print money whenever it wants, why would people be interested in that? and if they do create a scarce coin like Bitcoin, then it will accomplish the same goal of Bitcoin, which is sound money.

[RodeoX]

the article is saying governments can outcompete Bitcoin by creating their own cryptocurrencies. ...

That's what I got from it also. But why would I want controlled money that works in one place when I could have math based money that works everywhere? This is the same as businesses thinking they could create a digital money. Actually, what they are creating is just a frequent flier mile. A store of value for one purpose that someone else controls. Do I want that?

Please, lol.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

What is it with these newbies & their first posts always being negative FUD?
Every single day I log in here to see wumming & FUD, what purpose does it serve?
If people think bitcoin has no future & aren't interested in investing in it then why are they here?

[Lauda]

What is it with these newbies & their first posts always being negative FUD?
Every single day I log in here to see wumming & FUD, what purpose does it serve?
If people think bitcoin has no future & aren't interested in investing in it then why are they here?

This is what happens when you remove the newbie jail that we have in place. These threads are very common in this section and in economics.

the article is saying governments can outcompete Bitcoin by creating their own cryptocurrencies. ...

That's what I got from it also. But why would I want controlled money that works in one place when I could have math based money that works everywhere? This is the same as businesses thinking they could create a digital money. Actually, what they are creating is just a frequent flier mile. A store of value for one purpose that someone else controls. Do I want that?

I thought that one of the fundamental reasons for Bitcoin was the separation of money and state (i.e. people becoming their own banks). The essay is a waste of time and people should not read it.

[PolarPoint]

Any crypto created by a government is dependent on that government. When that government fail, so does the crypto. Bitcoin is created so it's not tied to any government and it will survive governmental failures. PayPal and Visa are not backed by any government. They are global payment systems. Bitcoin is like that and better.

[Lagartijo]

The essay is very clear and careful to value Bitcoin as sound money. It's obviously a lot easier to get a badge on here than do some comprehensive reading.

This is what happens when you remove the newbie jail that we have in place. These threads are very common in this section and in economics.

[Lagartijo]

“Guys this technology has the potential of including all the poor people in the favelas of Brazil into the banking system. When we regulate this with the Central Bank, we should not restrict it but promote it. Let’s not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.”

http://cointelegraph.com/news/115056/how-3-central-banks-the-financial-elite-embraced-bitcoin-for-one-day?ref=2604&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=twit&utm_campaign=alx

[polychenko]

What is it with these newbies & their first posts always being negative FUD?
Every single day I log in here to see wumming & FUD, what purpose does it serve?
If people think bitcoin has no future & aren't interested in investing in it then why are they here?

This is what happens when you remove the newbie jail that we have in place. These threads are very common in this section and in economics.

Nothing wrong with seeking re assurance. Asking probing questions will ultimately help if they are properly answered. This is how science progresses. Some of the pro Bitcoiners borderline on religious fanaticism, which isn't particularly convincing.

[bornil267645]

Bitcoin technology is a very unique and unsettling invention, with endless possibilities. It is free from any centralization, authority or a regulatory system. It doesn’t need any help from other currencies to make it look good. It can create its own existence and save the world economy from the downside of the traditional fiat currency system. In recent times, the Bitcoin network has faced many ups and downs, while raising questions among the community about its resilience. Still, everyone needs to keep in mind that this is a currency that has been operating worlwide only for half a decade. It is still adopting and struggling to make its mark. But with proper time and management, we can help Bitcoin to become “the future of money.”

https://99bitcoins.com/the-future-of-money-bitcoinized/

[Kazimir]

the article is saying governments can outcompete Bitcoin by creating their own cryptocurrencies.

This argument seems to miss the fact that there is no such thing as someone's "own" cryptocurrency.

The whole idea behind cryptocurrency is that you take away the issuer, controller, administrator, or authority, and replace that with cryptography.

Sure, they could still create their own money (not crypto), but they've already done that: fiat.

In the end, it doesn't matter what governments or banks do or say or want. With the technological advancement that came with Bitcoin, we don't need the government or bank anymore, or their consent (at least not where it concerns our money or financial system).

[btcbug]

the article is saying governments can outcompete Bitcoin by creating their own cryptocurrencies.  However, unless they are scarce like Bitcoin, I don't see why they would be likely to beat Bitcoin in the long run.  In other words, if a government creates a crypto coin but can still print money whenever it wants, why would people be interested in that? and if they do create a scarce coin like Bitcoin, then it will accomplish the same goal of Bitcoin, which is sound money.

Basically this would be like issuing fiat on a blockchain. We understand this is stupid, but most don't. The essence of government is control, so for them it probably sounds like a sensible idea. It allows them to retain their power, while also making them look progressive and fiscally responsible because it would save the economy money.

I think there is a really good chance we'll see this happen and it could even be a good thing Just imagine all the socialist sheep out there getting a practical schooling in economics because their favorite currency is being devalued meanwhile everyone else can freely choose to hold any of hundreds of decentralized currencies. So what I'm saying is that it might raise awareness and understanding of sound vs unsound money, etc.

[franky1]

"Money is the product of society, just as Bitcoin is the product of a society of computers. Money needs the greatest human network to succeed, just as the Bitcoin blockchain needs the greatest computer consensus. This network and consensus, however imperfect, is ultimately provided by the state in modern societies, just as it was the case in the many cases of recoinage and remonetization throughout history. For as long as we have states that strong and accepted by people, for better or worse, Bitcoin will remain a substitute currency."

translation
"Money is the product of banks, just as Bitcoin is the product of social demand for change. Money needs legislation and minimum wage laws forcing the banks paper to remain and to succeed, Bitcoin blockchain needs just a non centralized consensus to succeed. For as long as we have states laws forcing fiat acceptance by people, for better or worse, Bitcoin will remain a substitute currency."
"For any currency to succeed ultimately, it needs to be accepted by government as good for payment of debt and taxes. Bitcoin is anathema to the bankers, and these financial terrorists will cause pain and death in any country that attempts to adopt it, and blame it on the currency extremists. They don't need governments to kiss and make up."

translation
"For any currency to succeed ultimately, it needs to be accepted by a majority of the population who refuse to barter with anything else. then governments would be forced to accept it too, else they would be out of a job. Bitcoin is anathema to the bankers, and these financial terrorists are just businesses. and a government can easily just let them dry up and not get bailed out. They need governments to survive."

[thebenjamincode]

As what I have understand in the article the banks can defeat Bitcoin by making a currency big enough to compete with bitcoin. And this will need a big innovation since the inflation rate was one of the big disadvantage of investing in the bank. They will need to increase the earnings of their investors to earn people's trust which in turn can result for them to suffer in a great financial lost. And since they can not manipulate the bitcoin because it's decentralized it will be really hard for them to outrun the bitcoin.

[S4VV4S]

"Money is the product of society, just as Bitcoin is the product of a society of computers. Money needs the greatest human network to succeed, just as the Bitcoin blockchain needs the greatest computer consensus. This network and consensus, however imperfect, is ultimately provided by the state in modern societies, just as it was the case in the many cases of recoinage and remonetization throughout history. For as long as we have states that strong and accepted by people, for better or worse, Bitcoin will remain a substitute currency."

translation
"Money is the product of banks, just as Bitcoin is the product of social demand for change. Money needs legislation and minimum wage laws forcing the banks paper to remain and to succeed, Bitcoin blockchain needs just a non centralized consensus to succeed. For as long as we have states laws forcing fiat acceptance by people, for better or worse, Bitcoin will remain a substitute currency."
"For any currency to succeed ultimately, it needs to be accepted by government as good for payment of debt and taxes. Bitcoin is anathema to the bankers, and these financial terrorists will cause pain and death in any country that attempts to adopt it, and blame it on the currency extremists. They don't need governments to kiss and make up."

translation
"For any currency to succeed ultimately, it needs to be accepted by a majority of the population who refuse to barter with anything else. then governments would be forced to accept it too, else they would be out of a job. Bitcoin is anathema to the bankers, and these financial terrorists are just businesses. and a government can easily just let them dry up and not get bailed out. They need governments to survive."

No they don't.
They buy governments anyday of the year.
If the government in discussion doesn't co-operate, some sort of fatal accident or incident will take place.

http://www.examiner.com/article/executive-order-11110-and-the-jfk-assassination-question

On June 4, 1963, a little known attempt was made to strip the Federal Reserve Bank of it's power to loan money to the government at interest. On that day President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order No. 11110 that returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency, without going through the Federal Reserve. Mr. Kennedy's order gave the Treasury the power "to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury." This meant that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation. In all, Kennedy brought nearly $4.3 billion in U.S. notes into circulation. The ramifications of this bill are enormous.

[311]

"Money is the product of society, just as Bitcoin is the product of a society of computers. Money needs the greatest human network to succeed, just as the Bitcoin blockchain needs the greatest computer consensus. This network and consensus, however imperfect, is ultimately provided by the state in modern societies, just as it was the case in the many cases of recoinage and remonetization throughout history. For as long as we have states that strong and accepted by people, for better or worse, Bitcoin will remain a substitute currency."

What's wrong with it being a substitute currency? In the past states are the only people that have issued currency because it's in the power-hungry interests to do so, but whether bitcoin will succeed or even overtake a national currency is down to the people who use it. I certainly think it could become some sort of defacto world currency and one that I think we need just as a long as it's not controlled by a state.

[franky1]

No they don't.
They buy governments anyday of the year.
If the government in discussion doesn't co-operate, some sort of fatal accident or incident will take place.

they buy the government because they need the government,, without the laws allowing banks to run.. they wont survive. if governments were not needd to survive they wouldnt even bother to buy them..

[DarkHyudrA]

I think people need to stop focusing on getting BTC accepted as a national currency. The government will not gain anything from doing this and in fact they will lose the power to control the economy. Why would they allow this to happen?

I feel like people should concentrate more on getting BTC accepted by the people as a "alternate currency". There is a much better chance of this happening.

Well, but even having it as an alternate currency they lose a bit.
Like being able to buy things online without a international CC. Avoiding taxes and fees is nice but what the banks and the governments think about it?