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

[DevilSlayer]

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.

So it seems that it is better of we invest all of our money to the bitcoin because according to the Forbes the price of the bitcoin will still blow up. We can become rich person if we do investment in bitcoin.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

If find it sarcastic that those kinds of papers usually call for unregulation because free market regulates itself and bla, bla, bla. Here we see that one of the arguments against bitcoin is that it is unregulated so unregulation is good if it is applied to the asset I have, like stocks, but it is bad if applied to the ones I don’t have and threaten me, like cryptocurrencies.

This is just another move like the JP Morgan one, don’t bother about it.

[bitart]

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.

Bitcoin is really risky for the Average Joe, if he has zero knowledge and experience about bitcoin. This is why most central banks and most of the commercial banks are warning people and advicing not to invest in bitcoin, to prevent these newbies from getting burnt. These banks needs to give reliable advice and this kind of speculation is not for the average people, this is why they act like this. (And of course they're defending their own market...)

[pooya87]

just another article written by someone who has zero understanding of how bitcoin works! i wonder why they even bother publishing stuff like this. do they want to push away newbies! because that is the only effect of that, the rest of the world knows better.

this part made me chuckle though:
"Since transactions are encrypted, it's said that bitcoins are used for illicit exchanges".

[pushups44]

The thing about bears is that they will be right at some point, but bitcoin may go up for a decade or longer. The market is all about timing. Both bulls and bears can make money in the market if their timing is right. However, I don't think it's smart to short bitcoin right now.

[Kyraishi]

This is a major issue for bitcoin, the sheer ignorance of the media when they are reporting bitcoin related news. And this is partly contributing to why there are so many bitcoin skeptics. They view this sort of article, and they automatically assume that it's legit because it is published by Forbes.

The points he make is completely nonsense and gibberish. Bitcoin does not encrypt transactions, the transactions are there for everyone to see. Plus, he simply ignores the fact that bitcoin can't just disappear with investors money. It is a decentralized protocol at its core.

But yeah, at least he doesn't accuse bitcoin of being a ponzi scheme... But i'm sure some other guy will write about that soon, lol.

[Juggy777]

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.

Bitcoin is going to rise and this media and that Jp Ceo will eat their words back, they don't understand Bitcoin at all, they are anxious that it will eat their profitability and that's really bad, that they should have got Bitcoin in the mainstream and made more money and it will be a boost for them to. Bitcoin is up and running and when it will reach Heights of glory, they will regret they missed the bus.   

[dimastegar]

The first is the Blockchain technology they use. Secondly, more and more users of Online electronic devices such as Smartphone, Laptop, etc. Third, Can be exchanged to local currency. Finally, many are increasingly believing in Bitcoin.