2 economists just eviscerated bitcoin, saying it should be trading at $20

[Silberman]

The problem with the assumption of the economist is that he creates all this mental exercise from a false premise, he says that if bitcoin was used just like any other currency it will be worth 20 dollars, and there are two flaws with that kind of thinking, the first one is since when currencies are only used as currencies and not as a source of speculation? Look at the Forex market, and second bitcoin is in no way or form an ordinary currency so all what he is talking about can be disproved with just those two points.

[tee-rex]

The problem with the assumption of the economist is that he creates all this mental exercise from a false premise, he says that if bitcoin was used just like any other currency it will be worth 20 dollars, and there are two flaws with that kind of thinking, the first one is since when currencies are only used as currencies and not as a source of speculation? Look at the Forex market, and second bitcoin is in no way or form an ordinary currency so all what he is talking about can be disproved with just those two points.

Well, these two points of yours don't actually disprove the authors' argument. Because it is not a false premise, it is just an assumption, basically "what if". You may accept it or you may discard it. In the first case, you could then argue what Bitcoin price would be. Though it would be hard to say since we don't know and can't correctly assess what Bitcoin adoption might be and what technologies like LN and its likes would be used by now.

[Silberman]

The problem with the assumption of the economist is that he creates all this mental exercise from a false premise, he says that if bitcoin was used just like any other currency it will be worth 20 dollars, and there are two flaws with that kind of thinking, the first one is since when currencies are only used as currencies and not as a source of speculation? Look at the Forex market, and second bitcoin is in no way or form an ordinary currency so all what he is talking about can be disproved with just those two points.

Well, these two points of yours don't actually disprove the authors' argument. Because it is not a false premise, it is just an assumption, basically "what if". You may accept it or you may discard it. In the first case, you could then argue what Bitcoin price would be. Though it would be hard to say since we don't know and can't correctly assess what Bitcoin adoption might be and what technologies like LN and its likes would be used by now.

From wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise
'A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of an argument or syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error.'


It is a false premise that currencies are only used as such when we know that no major currency follows that pattern, every major currency is used to speculate with the strength of the economy of the country or with other factors, the scenario pictured could be correct but it does not change the fact the premise is false and as such it is never going to happen and the conclusion is mistaken.

[Jet Cash]

Typical BBC rubbish. Don't they say that we ( the UK ) would be better off staying in the EU, and continuing the decline and asset theft that started when we joined.

They make no account of the fact that Bitcoin is undergoing a change in users' perception. It's apparent use as a payment system is in decline, and it's acceptance as a store of worth is increasing. This means it is substantially undervalued in my opinion. Economists don't seem to understand this, they probably still link Bitcoin to the use of cowrie shells.

[phr0stbyt3]

Let people speculate bitcoin has never stopped or discouraged anyones opinion about its price from their predictions it is clear they just hate bitcoin for whatsoever reason or still doesnt know how blockchain or bitcoin has made a significant change in the world economy and peoples life

[Viper1]

The problem with the assumption of the economist is that he creates all this mental exercise from a false premise, he says that if bitcoin was used just like any other currency it will be worth 20 dollars, and there are two flaws with that kind of thinking, the first one is since when currencies are only used as currencies and not as a source of speculation? Look at the Forex market, and second bitcoin is in no way or form an ordinary currency so all what he is talking about can be disproved with just those two points.

Well, these two points of yours don't actually disprove the authors' argument. Because it is not a false premise, it is just an assumption, basically "what if". You may accept it or you may discard it. In the first case, you could then argue what Bitcoin price would be. Though it would be hard to say since we don't know and can't correctly assess what Bitcoin adoption might be and what technologies like LN and its likes would be used by now.

From wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise
'A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of an argument or syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error.'


It is a false premise that currencies are only used as such when we know that no major currency follows that pattern, every major currency is used to speculate with the strength of the economy of the country or with other factors, the scenario pictured could be correct but it does not change the fact the premise is false and as such it is never going to happen and the conclusion is mistaken.

You've read things the way you want to in order to say it's based on a false premise. No where in the article do they say it's "only" used as a currency.

Regardless, it's just another group of people throwing their hat in the ring to try and make sense out of the experiment known as bitcoin. No one is capable of doing that as it's a completely different beast.

[TheKeyLongThumbI]

It's not them that will decide on that matter but the market itself. We did not go $20k and then down to $6k because someone just said it should be, it happened because it's the reaction of the investors affected by the news or on their own beliefs.

[tee-rex]

The problem with the assumption of the economist is that he creates all this mental exercise from a false premise, he says that if bitcoin was used just like any other currency it will be worth 20 dollars, and there are two flaws with that kind of thinking, the first one is since when currencies are only used as currencies and not as a source of speculation? Look at the Forex market, and second bitcoin is in no way or form an ordinary currency so all what he is talking about can be disproved with just those two points.

Well, these two points of yours don't actually disprove the authors' argument. Because it is not a false premise, it is just an assumption, basically "what if". You may accept it or you may discard it. In the first case, you could then argue what Bitcoin price would be. Though it would be hard to say since we don't know and can't correctly assess what Bitcoin adoption might be and what technologies like LN and its likes would be used by now.

From wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise
'A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of an argument or syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error.'

It is a false premise that currencies are only used as such when we know that no major currency follows that pattern, every major currency is used to speculate with the strength of the economy of the country or with other factors, the scenario pictured could be correct but it does not change the fact the premise is false and as such it is never going to happen and the conclusion is mistaken.

Did you read my post, huh? You obviously don't get it. The authors don't follow false premises. They make assumptions, they don't claim these assumptions are true or false because this is not what you would expect an assumption to be anyway. For your information, assumption is "something that you accept as true without question or proof". In other words, an assumption cannot be false by definition since it is just an assumption.