What are the most convincing arguments against Bitcoin?

[jinni]

I'm not talking about the short-term, not the medium-term, but the long-term.

What are best arguments that Bitcoin won't last?

So far I'm convinced by the pro-arguments decimating the con-arguments. But what if there are some damning arguments out there?

Please try to present them, and please present the prerequisites for why those arguments could be valid.

And just posting "there are no negative arguments against Bitcoin" or "up up up" is not going to further the discussion.

We need good con-arguments and attempts at destroying them, if possible.

[1714937642]

1714937642

[1714937642]

1714937642

[1714937642]

1714937642

[1714937642]

1714937642

[Itcher]

when prices crashed cause of china whole reddit sub talked about india and downvoted china-posts. bitcoiner are trolls with money and promoting bitcoin only to become rich. with every wave of incomers greed and stupidity grows. new bitcoiner are fanatic to promote btc. only reason is greed. btc is no ponzi, but bitcoiners behave like it is one.

[jongameson]

people typically live day to day in cities and don't care about this whole Silk Road craze, bits, etc..

[Itcher]

money is working well for average citizen and for the economy. only criminals NEED to use bitcoin. they earn a lot. the ebthusiasm of bitcoiners makes criminals rich. u want that to be tbe basis of a new financial order?

edit the idealism and the greed of innocent bitcoiners make criminals rich.

[vadoff]

The best argument I've seen against Bitcoin is that it'll be another cryptocurrency that we use mainstream in the future. Just because Bitcoin is first, doesn't mean it's the best.

Other arguments I've seen against Bitcoins or even cryptocurrencies in general, are just flimsy imo. Cryptocurrencies will be a part of our future, there's no turning back now. The only question is which one?

[jinni]

The best argument I've seen against Bitcoin is that it'll be another cryptocurrency that we use mainstream in the future. Just because Bitcoin is first, doesn't mean it's the best.

What about the infrastructure, the mining power, the network effect and that Bitcoin could be adapted?

[Topazan]

Most people are not technically savvy enough to store their bitcoins themselves.  Without a trusted, insured deposit institution, they'll lose their savings to trojans, social engineering, and computer failures.  There may be regulatory difficulties in creating such a service down the line.

Has the scalability problem been solved yet?

[Piper67]

The best argument I've seen against Bitcoin is that it'll be another cryptocurrency that we use mainstream in the future. Just because Bitcoin is first, doesn't mean it's the best.

Other arguments I've seen against Bitcoins or even cryptocurrencies in general, are just flimsy imo. Cryptocurrencies will be a part of our future, there's no turning back now. The only question is which one?

This argument only works if you view Bitcoin as software. But in reality, Bitcoin is a protocol (like TCP/IP, HTML, DNS), and the difference is that protocols adapt because they're only the basis on which other software structures are built. We are still using protocols that were designed in the 60s and 70s, but what we have built on top of them makes today's internet unrecognizable from the networks of that time.

Just about the only argument against Bitcoin that has any credibility (that I've come across so far), is that governments could try and squash it by going after not Bitcoin itself, but the entities on the periphery of the network (exchanges, Bitcoin-based businesses and startups and so on). Of course, the counter argument to this is that there is no such thing as "governments" that act in a completely homogeneous manner. There are many different governments, each with its own set of priorities, and each in itself also in constant flux.

So if China decides to ban deposits to Bitcoin exchanges (to come up with an example), you can be certain that other countries will take a different approach. And, really, all you need is a handful of jurisdictions where Bitcoin can thrive.

Over the next 70 years or so quantum computing might become an issue, but then there will likely be consensus to change the protocol so that it isn't that big of a problem.

[jinni]

when prices crashed cause of china whole reddit sub talked about india and downvoted china-posts. bitcoiner are trolls with money and promoting bitcoin only to become rich. with every wave of incomers greed and stupidity grows. new bitcoiner are fanatic to promote btc. only reason is greed. btc is no ponzi, but bitcoiners behave like it is one.

Many Bitcoiners might behave like cultish people but many of them are hard-headed independent-minded people who think for themselves, this can be inferred through the ways of thinking that lead people to learning about Bitcoin as a technology. In other words, I don't think i people here are as sheepish as they many look, and there are many objective careful people here. In addition there is good reason to believe Bitcoin is going up, and telling other people about it is naturally something one would do, not out of greed but because how great it is. If I was greedy I wouldn't tell anyone about it so that I can buy more cheap.

only criminals NEED to use bitcoin.

This is not true. People need faster, cheaper and easier ways to use money. Also criminals make a lot money using cash or greedy bankers, strawmen and financial engineering to make money, they don't need Bitcoin.

[hamdi]

the way it is right now it will always just be a proxy-currency.

[jinni]

Most people are not technically savvy enough to store their bitcoins themselves.  Without a trusted, insured deposit institution, they'll lose their savings to trojans, social engineering, and computer failures.  There may be regulatory difficulties in creating such a service down the line.

This argument is not true. Anybody can print a paper-wallet for storage of wealth from blockchian.info, if they know how to do it (which is simly the case of watching a 30sec youtube video. For spending money you can have some change in an e-wallet.).

[beetcoin]

christians are less likely to adopt it when giveen the choice of choosing JesusCoin vs. bitcoin.

[Topazan]

Most people are not technically savvy enough to store their bitcoins themselves.  Without a trusted, insured deposit institution, they'll lose their savings to trojans, social engineering, and computer failures.  There may be regulatory difficulties in creating such a service down the line.

This argument is not true. Anybody can print a paper-wallet for storage of wealth from blockchian.info, if they know how to do it (which is simly the case of watching a 30sec youtube video. For spending money you can have some change in an e-wallet.).

Yes, blockchain.info is probably the best out there for now, but long term it might not be enough.

First of all, someone has to know that taking those steps is even necessary.  I've made a special effort to convince the people I've introduced to bitcoin, but it's a hard sell.

Second, as malware becomes more sophisticated attackers may well gain the ability to capture a user's blockchain.info decryption key. 

Down the line, as paper wallets become more common, burglars will learn to recognize them, and even they won't be safe if you live in a high-crime area and lack access to a vault.

There's also the risk that blockchain.info might be compromised, and the attacker could insert some malicious javascript to gain the coins that way.

You also completely ignored the possibility of phishing/social engineering.

Think about how many people are victims of identity theft as it is, then consider that bitcoin offer zero of the protections that existing financial institutions do.  A lot of people don't even know how to create a secure password. 

[madmadmax]

The only real arguments is that Gavin could be convinced to include hidden backdoors/weaknesses in the client and so on.

The second is that the price would drop so low that it would no longer be profitable to mine with the increased difficulty, the currency could then potentially die from what I understand.

[vmldem]

Two major obstacles:
      1.Lack of trusted exchanges to properly trade bitcoins.
Me sent money orders (significant amount) to those crooks at Camp BX.
They don't answer phone, no email return and keep claiming not received money.
Next week I'll call FBI to put these scammers where they belong.
     2.Lack of proper info. on line(even this board is not caring about) how to open a stuping wallet and get keys for it.
For. ex. I downloaded one from bitcoin.org but unable to get the keys of that stupid wallet.
Very frustrated process and ended up to uninstall the software .

[AnonyMint]

The best argument I've seen against Bitcoin is that it'll be another cryptocurrency that we use mainstream in the future. Just because Bitcoin is first, doesn't mean it's the best.

What about the infrastructure, the mining power, the network effect and that Bitcoin could be adapted?

I and others refuted that in the Problem with Altcoins thread. Not the OP, see our comments downthread.

There are serious problems with Bitcoin in terms of mining, transactions fees, anonymity, and cartel takeover. I've covered these in detail in my November posts. I am not going to resummarize here. Suffice it to say I am nearly certain a new altcoin will seriously challenge Bitcoin in 2014.

The other big problem with Bitcoin is that it isn't legal tender, and thus it is taxed on changes in its value unlike legal tender. Thus Bitcoin can NEVER be a non-anonymous currency.

So Bitcoin has very powerful arguments against it. The OP is naive.

[DavidZ]

Bitcoin could be superseded by another technically superior cryptocurrency. Smart analysts could be rewarded handsomely by being early adopters of such a currency. Technological lock in could help keep bitcoin "numero uno" for some time however.

[HeliKopterBen]

I'm with the guys who say security for the average Joe is the biggest obstacle.  I work with many business people on a day to day basis and most of them have no clue about even the simplest of security measures and what the consequences are if their data is stolen.  With bitcoin, we are talking about securing wealth.  People MUST understand it.  They would not understand that no one should ever see that private key printed on their paper wallet.  No camera of any type should come near your paper wallet.  Trojans, man-in-the-middle, etc are all potential threats that could potentially wipe out a life's savings in a heartbeat with no recourse.  It is for these reason i have yet to encourage anyone to try it.  Let the pros work out the kinks first.  I believe a viable solution will come but until then bitcoin is not ready for mainstream.

[AnonyMint]

I'm with the guys who say security for the average Joe is the biggest obstacle.  I work with many business people on a day to day basis and most of them have no clue about even the simplest of security measures and what the consequences are if their data is stolen.  With bitcoin, we are talking about securing wealth.  People MUST understand it.  They would not understand that no one should ever see that private key printed on their paper wallet.  No camera of any type should come near your paper wallet.  Trojans, man-in-the-middle, etc are all potential threats that could potentially wipe out a life's savings in a heartbeat with no recourse.  It is for these reason i have yet to encourage anyone to try it.  Let the pros work out the kinks first.  I believe a viable solution will come but until then bitcoin is not ready for mainstream.

I am proposing a physical solution.

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

Too complex to use for people as dumb as me.