Forbes: "4 Reasons Why Bitcoin May Still Blow Up"

[Uberse]

Here (https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2017/09/22/4-reasons-why-bitcoin-may-still-blow-up/#3c0e8e841c23) is a good example of the bad journalism that surrounds Bitcoin:

We have no way of telling what's going on since Bitcoin and its sister cryptocurrencies aren't on exchanges and are completely unregulated . . . There is no regulated exchange gathering market bids on daily [bitcoin] valuation . . . no legitimate market works without price discovery and transparency.

Can it be that the author, one John Wasik, the author of "16 books including Keynes's Way to Wealth and The Debt-Free Degree" and who is also "a contributor to the New York Times, AARP, Morningstar.com and other national publications" and has "appeared on CNN, FOX, NBC, MSNBC, NPR, PBS and radio stations from Australia to Israel" has never heard of San Francisco-based Kraken and Coinbase, founded in 2011 and 2012 respectively, which are fully compliant with all applicable California state and U.S. federal laws?

Since transactions are encrypted, it's said that bitcoins are used for illicit exchanges, although I have no good way of proving that.

Transactions are of course hashed, not encrypted. Can it be that the author does not know this, or does not know the difference?

Outside of some limited use as a means to buy goods and services, Bitcoin's $61 billion market cap is linked to the perception of value.

The author, like so many journalists, CEO's, and talking heads on the subject, apparently is unaware of Bitcoin's decentralized ability to register data immutably in a fast and cost-effective manner, potentially turning anyone into a notary public.

Still, there is reason for hope. Imagine --- a mainstream-media article about Bitcoin by a conventional-thinking author and he didn't even call it a ponzi or pyramid scheme.

Progress: you have to take it where you find it.

[emuLOAD]

We should be listening to these people.

Which doesn't mean that we have to agree, btw, but their opinions and even their misunderstandings can point us to exactly what we as a community need to work on to solidify Bitcoin and it's value.

It's not, for instance, untrue that the perception of value plays a massive role in Bitcoin's current valuation (otherwise the volatility would be much lower). Most of these folks seem to point at this to suggest this means Bitcoin is utterly worthless, but that's a different matter altogether.

[natsuki.sugimoto]

He is just looking to buy more bitcoin at lower prices: "Do what I say, but don't do what I do"

[valucash]

everything has a potential of blowing up, we've seen that with stocks, currencies lose value etc. so no big deal!

[Elite 888]

Everything has risk, but bitcoin is here to stay. 

[smartbitcoininvestor]

Sounds like a bunch of journalists who don't know much about the fundamentals of Bitcoin talking about its viability for the future because they have a platform  Bitcoin is only risky if you don't know how it is created, how it works and its advantages.

It is sort of like the stock market, where there are many traders who just look at the numbers and do fancy market analysis to predict the future.

Then there are investors like Warren Buffet who will find a good business with great fundamentals and go all in with it.

Personally, I am more of the 2nd type of investor. Articles like this from Forbes appeal more to the casual investor who wants to sprinkle a few dollars to make some back rather than the hardcore ones who know a good business/opportunity when they see one.

[gluedog]

It's extremely clear to me that 99.99% of people do not understand what Bitcoin is.

As more and more people start to understand what it is and what it does and what it can be used for, Bitcoin will see increased adoption.

[Coldsnap4457]

The media has predicted the death of Bitcoin many, many times in the past years.

[Yuuto]

Great analysis.

I think that this article based on what you told us, resembles somebody's  and seen High School which they are not bothered at all to proofread or to check the facts before they publish it. Except, this is an article was published on Forbes by a well-known author and journalist. He obviously has no idea what he's talking about just by looking at these excerpts.

Bitcoin transaction there for everyone to see. They are not encrypted.  it is just that the unique identifiers that represents an entity is completely anonymous. And as you said comma there are so many regulated and compliant exchanges that I can't even list them all here. It is just another example of how ignorant the media and the public is about Bitcoin right now.

[shimbark123]

These people are highly intelligent and has the capability on saying things on purpose. It means that the things they are saying are credible enough. And I believe in this.

[Yuuto]

These people are highly intelligent and has the capability on saying things on purpose. It means that the things they are saying are credible enough. And I believe in this.

That is so BS.

If they are intelligent then why are they trying to shed a bad light on bitcoin when they've got nothing to do with it? He seems to not understand what bitcoin is even about. Yes, in essence it is a perception of value but that's every single currency. Gold is a perception of value. So is silver. Especially the currency that he is defending which is fiat currency.

If you read OP post you'll see that he doesn't even know how bitcoin works, for a start. And he's trying to call it a scam.

[finthebar]

Here (https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2017/09/22/4-reasons-why-bitcoin-may-still-blow-up/#3c0e8e841c23) is a good example of the bad journalism that surrounds Bitcoin:

We have no way of telling what's going on since Bitcoin and its sister cryptocurrencies aren't on exchanges and are completely unregulated . . . There is no regulated exchange gathering market bids on daily [bitcoin] valuation . . . no legitimate market works without price discovery and transparency.

Can it be that the author, one John Wasik, the author of "16 books including Keynes's Way to Wealth and The Debt-Free Degree" and who is also "a contributor to the New York Times, AARP, Morningstar.com and other national publications" and has "appeared on CNN, FOX, NBC, MSNBC, NPR, PBS and radio stations from Australia to Israel" has never heard of San Francisco-based Kraken and Coinbase, founded in 2011 and 2012 respectively, which are fully compliant with all applicable California state and U.S. federal laws?

Since transactions are encrypted, it's said that bitcoins are used for illicit exchanges, although I have no good way of proving that.

Transactions are of course hashed, not encrypted. Can it be that the author does not know this, or does not know the difference?

Outside of some limited use as a means to buy goods and services, Bitcoin's $61 billion market cap is linked to the perception of value.

The author, like so many journalists, CEO's, and talking heads on the subject, apparently is unaware of Bitcoin's decentralized ability to register data immutably in a fast and cost-effective manner, potentially turning anyone into a notary public.

Still, there is reason for hope. Imagine --- a mainstream-media article about Bitcoin by a conventional-thinking author and he didn't even call it a ponzi or pyramid scheme.

Progress: you have to take it where you find it.

Well, its amazing that he couldnt come up with "10 Reasons why" + insert click bait title here. There must be many more than 4, but then again it suceeds.

[KnightElite]

Here (https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2017/09/22/4-reasons-why-bitcoin-may-still-blow-up/#3c0e8e841c23) is a good example of the bad journalism that surrounds Bitcoin:

We have no way of telling what's going on since Bitcoin and its sister cryptocurrencies aren't on exchanges and are completely unregulated . . . There is no regulated exchange gathering market bids on daily [bitcoin] valuation . . . no legitimate market works without price discovery and transparency.

Can it be that the author, one John Wasik, the author of "16 books including Keynes's Way to Wealth and The Debt-Free Degree" and who is also "a contributor to the New York Times, AARP, Morningstar.com and other national publications" and has "appeared on CNN, FOX, NBC, MSNBC, NPR, PBS and radio stations from Australia to Israel" has never heard of San Francisco-based Kraken and Coinbase, founded in 2011 and 2012 respectively, which are fully compliant with all applicable California state and U.S. federal laws?

Since transactions are encrypted, it's said that bitcoins are used for illicit exchanges, although I have no good way of proving that.

Transactions are of course hashed, not encrypted. Can it be that the author does not know this, or does not know the difference?

Outside of some limited use as a means to buy goods and services, Bitcoin's $61 billion market cap is linked to the perception of value.

The author, like so many journalists, CEO's, and talking heads on the subject, apparently is unaware of Bitcoin's decentralized ability to register data immutably in a fast and cost-effective manner, potentially turning anyone into a notary public.

Still, there is reason for hope. Imagine --- a mainstream-media article about Bitcoin by a conventional-thinking author and he didn't even call it a ponzi or pyramid scheme.

Progress: you have to take it where you find it.

The reason has potential. That is the reason why many people are believing that the price will still blow up. I have a faith that the bitcoin will reaxh $10,000 per each.

[joebrook]

We should be listening to these people.

Which doesn't mean that we have to agree, btw, but their opinions and even their misunderstandings can point us to exactly what we as a community need to work on to solidify Bitcoin and it's value.

It's not, for instance, untrue that the perception of value plays a massive role in Bitcoin's current valuation (otherwise the volatility would be much lower). Most of these folks seem to point at this to suggest this means Bitcoin is utterly worthless, but that's a different matter altogether.

They are finding ways and means of getting richer and it seems the best way they can do it is by spreading fear and panic so that the prices may go down. They really don't know how bitcoins works at all and people are always afraid of things that they don't understand.

[d5000]

I am a "crypto-optimist", but I agree with some of the points of the author.

The two biggest problems I see and where I agree:
- Too much shilling, and thus Bitcoin is prone to pump-and-dump fraud (the author's first point). If we, as the community, had a better "bullshit detector" when analyzing price predictions, newbies won't get burnt that much.
- The valuation dilemma is real, in my opinion. If we had better metrics about Bitcoin "real" usage, then we could see earlier if we are in a bubble or a crash has gone too deep. The community should try do develop these metrics, and above all, should include use "as a currency" (trade against goods and services) and the related price discovery. An idea could be the creation of a basket of goods and services that are often traded against Bitcoin (e.g. hosting) and track its value.

Obviously, the author has made an error when he called transactions "encrypted", but I think you all here get his point: if you mix your coins well, then it is very, very difficult to find illicit transactions. Although here, I consider that a "feature" (privacy!) and not a "bug", so here I disagree with the author.

[Renampun]

I appreciate all his opinions...
he has not been involved so he still does not understand why bitcoin was created, maybe 5 to 10 years away he will understand what it bitcoin and regret already ignore it in the past. lol

[MostHigh]

With investment and trade there is always the issue of profit or loss probably sometimes there is the small margin of striking the balance but with BTC we ve seen so much success and now we look really worried prices can sore base on national decisions. I say all reasons written are right and can impact BTC prices positively but once again i say this is a business. You win or loose

[coinzoid]

Bitcoin is greatest financial risk I have ever taken and I'm not unhappy about that. Time can be a game changer but still, I estimate it will have a very long lifespan compared to altcoins.

[ivrynx]

I think this is exactly what some journalists do, they know a little to none about a certain topic, yet they try to create an article about it, i think for them the jucier, the better, the higher the ratings, the higher the pay, never mind those who are really involved and don't get their opinion, clearly they just wanted to getbthe good side of the banks, probably their company owes them. I think they should first study what bitcoin is about, like most of us did, from scratch, there were no books saying how bitcoin works, what are the transactions going to be and why is there bitcoin. The author should first clear that, and thrn try to speculate, like what most of us here are doing, though we are not new to cryptocurrency, we are still learning since bitcoin and altcoins have not yet gain the full potential, rather than saying things like that, the author should've suggested ways on how bitcoin can be regulated, he shoudl've went to japan and ask them how they did it. All i can say is that, the author failed to research further and might have just regret buying bitcoin before, and now, they also wants to try to manipulate the price if they can. I think doing a little more research for them would be wise.

[d5000]

I think this is exactly what some journalists do, they know a little to none about a certain topic, yet they try to create an article about it, i think for them the jucier, the better, the higher the ratings, the higher the pay, never mind those who are really involved and don't get their opinion, clearly they just wanted to getbthe good side of the banks, probably their company owes them. I think they should first study what bitcoin is about, [...] All i can say is that, the author failed to research further and might have just regret buying bitcoin before, and now, they also wants to try to manipulate the price if they can. I think doing a little more research for them would be wise.

The author made one single mistake in the article, and although technically an important mis-conception, it's a minor one, because it's not relevant for the point he wanted to illustrate ("hashed" != "encrypted" transactions).

All the other points he rises are perfectly valid - one has not to agree with him (for example, I don't agree with his insinuated proposal to regulate cryptocurrency exchanges more strictly), but he seems to have done his job researching.

It's more: Many Bitcoin users, in this forum , are complaining about the same things the author does: Price manipulation via FOMO and generation of panic sells by the big whales, and distinct kinds of scams. Would we have a whole "Scam Accusations" sub-forum if this wasn't a problem?