New essay seriously questions Bitcoin's future success

[TinEye]

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.

it can not be done because of the decentralization nature of bitcoin, the best thing that governments can do is making an altcoin which is centralized, this is far worse than any altcoin you have out there
but i could see the blockchain technology working with this and may drive some unaware users to embrace it, instead of going with bitcoin

they are trying so hard to replicate a centralized bitcoin, but everyone know that they will fail at it, i think it's better for them to stop printing money and find a better way to rise the value of their currency

[1714807641]

1714807641

[1714807641]

1714807641

[Lagartijo]

"The primary requirement for anything to function as money is that of being accepted by people. Bitcoin is designed to avoid relying on central authorities, which increases its function as a store of value. However, the acceptance of money (adoption) is ultimately determined by central authorities in any foreseeable socio-economic context, as has always been the case throughout history. All the desirable features of cryptocurrencies can be easily implemented by governments in their competition with Bitcoin to the extent that will preserve their monetary dominance.  The belief in Bitcoin becoming a world currency in an increasingly interconnected world is therefore based on a mistaken worldview."

[Denker]

OP's article is total nonsense.And he knows that. He is trolling as hell that's it.

[juankburke]

i doubt bitcoin will ever replace currency but if it can just be accepted as a " yet another way to pay " would be good enough for it

[Gleb Gamow]

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."

I'm goin' get a fresh cup of coffee now, then read the kindly linked article.

I'm pretty sure that all extinct currencies were once based upon their then modern society, e.g., the Romans weren't using nor accepting fish bones or seashells to or for trade. That said, what ever argument that's presented, US dollars, et al., could easily be added to the list of why-<insert>-cannot-win.

EDIT: Read it.

The author also wrote: Have you sold it to the NSA? At what price?

[Lagartijo]

I'm pretty sure that all extinct currencies were once based upon their then modern society, e.g., the Romans weren't using nor accepting fish bones or seashells to or for trade. That said, what ever argument that's presented, US dollars, et al., could easily be added to the list of why-<insert>-cannot-win.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

EDIT: Joining you with the coffee.

[ObscureBean]

Governments will only seek to defeat Bitcoin if they stand to lose control over the masses because of it. As long as Bitcoin doesn't aspire to become a tool for rebellion they will roll with it. It would be foolish for Bitcoin to go against the current anyways because it is borne of control the same as everything else in the human world.

[BitProdigy]

The article attributes too much to the state.

While it is tempting to think of the state as an unbeatable almighty force with ultimate power, the reality is state power is finite, and indeed purely based the confidence individuals contribute to it. Ironically, the article personally contributes more power to that which it wishes were not so powerful.

As confidence weighns in the minds of the people a state loses it's power. Instilling fear in individuals predicated upon the state having infinite power effectively amounts to a donation at the alter of one's enemy.

Let us consider the scenario in which the state produces it's own crypto coin, do we imagine such a coin to be open source and decentralized? If so then so what if they create such a coin? They have no power over it.

If we imagine that such a coin would be centralized, and even if we further imagine that the state declares that all taxes must be paid in this coin only, then again this is not a nightmare scenario. No sane individual will hold his wealth in a centralized closed source currency any more than is necessary, so we will see that bitcoin is the superior store of wealth, and the inferior centralized coin will be used only for taxes and trial trade perhaps. Bitcoin will not be destroyed in such an scenario.

Perhaps we imagine a centralized closed source state coin that is declared the only acceptable payment for tax and also bitcoin is made illegal. Even so bitcoin will persist. In the underground places of that state it will stubbornly persist, and further it will bloom in other parts of the world that are more accepting to bitcoin. Such a state will have effectively cut itself off from the rest of the world and global trade, but it will not have succeeded in deleting bitcoin. Bitcoin cannot be deleted.  

Bitcoin is here to stay, that much is a certainty. How insane states can be, that is but an irrelevant variable.

[Dire]

"The primary requirement for anything to function as money is that of being accepted by people. Bitcoin is designed to avoid relying on central authorities, which increases its function as a store of value. However, the acceptance of money (adoption) is ultimately determined by central authorities in any foreseeable socio-economic context, as has always been the case throughout history. All the desirable features of cryptocurrencies can be easily implemented by governments in their competition with Bitcoin to the extent that will preserve their monetary dominance.  The belief in Bitcoin becoming a world currency in an increasingly interconnected world is therefore based on a mistaken worldview."

Only because in history no form of money had been invented that could easily avoid being confiscated and was 'endorsed/created' by the ruling elite.

That's the point of Bitcoin (one of them) the fact that there is no central authority, the authority is with the people that own it (and miners), and there is little Johnny government can do about it at this stage.

Basically, if person A sells his bike for 1btc to person B, and B agrees his bike is worth 1btc and pays him, who's gonna stop him? And who can tell him he's wrong?

It's really quite simple. I find it strange how many people don't understand that a genius created Bitcoin, and that he essentially covered all the angles, economic and otherwise.

[Kprawn]

So now the shills try to take this stupid angle... Governments is the product of the people.... Have we not seen what citizens can do, when the governments no longer listen to

the needs of the people? Do not underestimate the power of the people... you might just be surprised. I would rather support a little life raft in the ocean, than staying on the

Titanic whilst it's sinking.  

[Lagartijo]

"The power of the people"? The "needs of the people"... "People want to be free"? "They're coming to take our freedoms"? ... Where have you heard these ones before?

Governments of course are made up of people. You are the state. And that's why Bitcoin isn't changing anything.

[sidhujag]

Market will always win. Right now central bank inflation control is/was the closest thing to ideal money until Bitcoin came... But in society it takes a generation or so for market to realize that a closer alternative to ideal money exists before it switches. It's an asymptotic process because there is really no ideal money.. I mean every system has a flaw but bitcoins is far better than the fed.. It's fed 2.0

Give it a few years and cryptocurrency will supplant the fiat money system

[Soros Shorts]

"For as long as we have states that strong and accepted by people, for better or worse, Bitcoin will remain a substitute currency."

States are not necessarily nations. The Bticoin community could be a nationless state.

[LiteCoinGuy]

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

like Mintchip  ?

they can use a sidechain if they wish. please come back in 5 years.

[Dire]

"For as long as we have states that strong and accepted by people, for better or worse, Bitcoin will remain a substitute currency."

States are not necessarily nations. The Bticoin community could be a nationless state.

Hmm. This is interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_nation

'A stateless nation is an ethnic group, religious group, linguistic group or other cohesive group which is not the majority population in any nation state'

'Nations without state are classified as fourth world nations.'

Be interesting to be a fourth world nation that ends up richer than the first, wouldn't it?

'A nation can exist without a state but a state can not without a nation'

Here is a stateless nation check list from wiki:

* Has no own Sovereign State. (ticked)
* Does not form a majority in any Sovereign State. (ticked)
* Autonomist or secessionist movements is known to exist. (ticked)
* Not recognized by any UN members. (certainly ticked)

I think we match the criteria!

So, what's our name?

Bitcoin Nation? The United Nations of Bitcoin? The People's Republic of Bitcoin?

We need a flag though, even the nationless states have a flag on that wiki page.

[xhoneyael]

"For as long as we have states that strong and accepted by people, for better or worse, Bitcoin will remain a substitute currency."

States are not necessarily nations. The Bticoin community could be a nationless state.

Hmm. This is interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_nation

'A stateless nation is an ethnic group, religious group, linguistic group or other cohesive group which is not the majority population in any nation state'

'Nations without state are classified as fourth world nations.'

Be interesting to be a fourth world nation that ends up richer than the first, wouldn't it?

'A nation can exist without a state but a state can not without a nation'

Here is a stateless nation check list from wiki:

* Has no own Sovereign State. (ticked)
* Does not form a majority in any Sovereign State. (ticked)
* Autonomist or secessionist movements is known to exist. (ticked)
* Not recognized by any UN members. (certainly ticked)

I think we match the criteria!

So, what's our name?

Bitcoin Nation? The United Nations of Bitcoin? The People's Republic of Bitcoin?

We need a flag though, even the nationless states have a flag on that wiki page.

that a good idea..
i think Bitcoin Nation .. because we are a member of an international organization..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State
the bitcoin logo is our flag     

[Lagartijo]

"Blockchain technology could be used to bypass today's centralised financial infrastructure entirely, according to a report by BBVA Research US."

www.coindesk.com/bbva-blockchain-tech-could-replace-centralised-finance-system/

And there's a reason they're not worried.

[Lagartijo]

"New York Times technology and finance reporter Nathaniel Popper, author of  “Digital Gold: Bitcoin and the Inside Story of the Misfits and Millionaires Trying to Reinvent Money,” noted that a permissioned blockchain could be jointly run by the computers of the largest banks and serve as the backbone for a new, instant payment system without a single point of failure. The new blockchain, decentralized but closed, would offer the benefits of the current Bitcoin network without relying on end-users for its operations."

www.coindesk.com/bbva-blockchain-tech-could-replace-centralised-finance-system/

Note that a "permissioned blockchain" is just about what it means to have a Bitcoin protocol and client.

[manselr]

This is the usual FUD from a not well informed enough individual. If you have a clue on Bitcoin you will already know by now that we will scale up to as big as needed and take over the world. If you aren't on Bitcoin yet then I don't know what you are doing to be honest. Stop worrying about it and start stacking up Bitcoin before its too late.

[Blawpaw]

"The primary requirement for anything to function as money is that of being accepted by people. Bitcoin is designed to avoid relying on central authorities, which increases its function as a store of value. "
That being said, it is perfectly possible for Bitcoin to win. It is the perfect store of value against corrupt Governments trying to snoop around their citizens finances.
I seriously believe this can make the difference...