[2018-07-10] Joseph Stiglitz says BTC could drop to 100$

[IBXNetwork]

So yeah this keynesian piece of economist calls for a Bitcoin completely destroyed...

“You cannot have a means of payment that is based on secrecy when you’re trying to create a transparent banking system. If you open up a hole like bitcoin then all the nefarious activity will go through that hole, and no government can allow that.”
“People in power will move to regulate anonymous transactions. That you can be sure of. Bitcoin could easily be worth just $100 in 10 years.”
“I believe very strongly that countries like the United States could and should move to a digital currency … so that you would have the ability to trace this kind of corruption.”


https://ambcrypto.com/bitcoin-btc-may-drop-100-nobel-prize-laureate/

[1714520202]

1714520202

[1714520202]

1714520202

[1714520202]

1714520202

[1714520202]

1714520202

[1714520202]

1714520202

[1Referee]

There is no such a thing as transparent banking system for the user, only for banks and governments, all to extract details concerning your financial activity, to prevent you from spending your money the way you want, and to use that data against you in other departments of the government. By getting rid of cash, they force you to use plastic payment methods and apps; no one will be able to enjoy freedom anymore, and all payments will reflect that because people are afraid of doing something the government doesn't like. It's called sneek censorship.

Bitcoin on its own is open as well, so you have to be a little bit more careful where and what you spend (to prevent that using a mixer is recommended), but that through LN won't be much of a problem anymore.

Bitcoin in 10 years could be worth $100 or $1,000,000 where the latter is the more likely scenario.

[Betwrong]

This is a very strange statement for an economist. "Bitcoin could easily be worth just $100 in 10 years.” Seriously? Why not $2 then? Basically he's saying that no government can allow using of crypto currencies by their citizens, but it contradicts to what is happening in reality. Governments are more and more inclined to making a better environment for crypto usage, that’s not to mention that Bitcoin is absolutely legal in most countries already. Unfortunately for him, Joseph Eugene Stiglitz is too old for understanding and accepting such progressive things like Bitcoin. And I don't mean his chronological age, which is 75, but rather his state of mind which can be seen from his statements.

[NeuroticFish]

So yeah this keynesian piece of economist calls for a Bitcoin completely destroyed...

“You cannot have a means of payment that is based on secrecy when you’re trying to create a transparent banking system. If you open up a hole like bitcoin then all the nefarious activity will go through that hole, and no government can allow that.”
“People in power will move to regulate anonymous transactions. That you can be sure of. Bitcoin could easily be worth just $100 in 10 years.”
“I believe very strongly that countries like the United States could and should move to a digital currency … so that you would have the ability to trace this kind of corruption.”


https://ambcrypto.com/bitcoin-btc-may-drop-100-nobel-prize-laureate/

Wow. Another "economist" talking. The extracted statements show that he clearly didn't understand anything about Bitcoin.
And his logic is flawed. So Bitcoin is bad - for reasons he didn't understand and obviously cannot explain - but US should move to digital currency - whatever he thinks he understood what that could be

[jjacob]

This reminds me of Professor Bitcorn, who famously predicted that Bitcoin will trade for under $10. It is next to impossible to get Bitcoin’s price right, but these so called experts go ahead and make outrageous predictions. History will not be kind to them.

[gentlemand]

Could be $100 million too.

And what on Earth is this blathering about anonymity? Has he even bothered to peruse a pamphlet or two? There ain't no secrecy I can see. Are there many or any things less transparent than existing finance?

[IBXNetwork]

Wow. Another "economist" talking. The extracted statements show that he clearly didn't understand anything about Bitcoin.
And his logic is flawed. So Bitcoin is bad - for reasons he didn't understand and obviously cannot explain - but US should move to digital currency - whatever he thinks he understood what that could be

Exactly this is what I meant. The guy calls for bright future on digital currencies, but for any reason, not for Bitcoin
Why could that be? Maybe his Stiglitzstein and Josephbergs in the federal reserve are not liking that much a currency they don't issue and have not control over it...

[Karisma Black]

Another one who wants his name in the news and makes stupid speculation predictions. Every day we hear of a new one.

[Slow death]

He probably giving his personal opinion and should not be thinking like a economist, one of the biggest problems of people when they do not like something is talk with feelings and not analyze the situation very carefully. As the years pass the price of bitcoin will increase and more countries will adopt bitcoin, how could the price fall to  $100? countries like Japan, Malta, North Korea are a great example of how it may be possible to use bitcoin legally. This economist said his personal opinion and did not speak as an economist.

[figmentofmyass]

“You cannot have a means of payment that is based on secrecy when you’re trying to create a transparent banking system. If you open up a hole like bitcoin then all the nefarious activity will go through that hole, and no government can allow that.”

the irony here is incredible. the banking system is built for laundering money. the world's biggest banks (hsbc for starters) have been tied to massive laundering efforts in service of drug cartels and terrorist organizations.

why would you use a transparent, permanent ledger (and a relatively illiquid market) for large scale illegal activity? you're better off creating a web of shell companies with puppet directors and using the legacy banking system.

[richardsNY]

This reminds me of Professor Bitcorn, who famously predicted that Bitcoin will trade for under $10. It is next to impossible to get Bitcoin’s price right, but these so called experts go ahead and make outrageous predictions. History will not be kind to them.

I find it quite funny that while they mostly all think that Bitcoin will fail or tank miserably, they don't ever dare short Bitcoin. If you are confident in a bad ending for Bitcoin then it only makes sense to short it, which basically applies to anything in the regular market. These clowns know exactly where and how to short it, but refrain from doing so because of their flawed logic, and they probably know that as well. If you want to get yourself in the picture then throw around with extremely bearish outlooks and you are guaranteed to get media attention because that generates clicks and traffic.

[stompix]

I think I'm losing touch with the world.
Every damn time a guy comes with a prediction I have to google to see who the hell he is.

So, a Nobel prize economist says that "bitcoin could go to 100", yeah and?
Bitcoin could go even below that and even to 50$, the possibility is always there.
He never said BTC is going to 100.

countries like Japan, Malta, North Korea are a great example of how it may be possible to use bitcoin legally.

Are you sure about this one ??

[cryptofonia]

Stiglitz...  I recall how he boasted about economy of Mauritius when he was invited to visit this island state. 

[IBXNetwork]

countries like Japan, Malta, North Korea are a great example of how it may be possible to use bitcoin legally.

Buddy I think you really meant South Korea although it would be really nice to see Crypt Jong-Un

[bbc.reporter]

So yeah this keynesian piece of economist calls for a Bitcoin completely destroyed...

“You cannot have a means of payment that is based on secrecy when you’re trying to create a transparent banking system. If you open up a hole like bitcoin then all the nefarious activity will go through that hole, and no government can allow that.”
“People in power will move to regulate anonymous transactions. That you can be sure of. Bitcoin could easily be worth just $100 in 10 years.”
“I believe very strongly that countries like the United States could and should move to a digital currency … so that you would have the ability to trace this kind of corruption.”


https://ambcrypto.com/bitcoin-btc-may-drop-100-nobel-prize-laureate/

The biggest banks in the world participate in money laundering, tax evasion, and as we have seen during the housing bubble, issuance of scam investments. If you know what you are doing, bitcoin is a ledger that anyone can use for money laundering, tax evasion, and for issuance of scam investments in counterparty.

I reckon that Nobel prize economist is paid to spread FUD because the big banks like HSBC do not like competition in their criminal activities hehehe.

[hatshepsut93]

The biggest banks in the world participate in money laundering, tax evasion, and as we have seen during the housing bubble, issuance of scam investments. If you know what you are doing, bitcoin is a ledger that anyone can use for money laundering, tax evasion, and for issuance of scam investments in counterparty.

I reckon that Nobel prize economist is paid to spread FUD because the big banks like HSBC do not like competition in their criminal activities hehehe.

Governments are fine with tax evasion and money laundering when some high profile officials get their cut. Bankers and said officials hate Bitcoin because they don't want average joe to do those things, without him the whole system would crash. So, they ask economists to write FUD against Bitcoin in exchange for grants or bribes or whatever.

But maybe most governments don't ban Bitcoin because they see how robust it is. Historically they have failed to stop people from taking drugs, including drinking, or downloading pirated content and so on, so instead of banning Bitcoin they hope to discourage people from using it while keeping an eye on those who do by regulating exchanges and requiring KYC. So far it works because a lot of users don't care about their privacy and keep using those exchanges and avoid privacy-related practices like mixing.

[BitHodler]

But maybe most governments don't ban Bitcoin because they see how robust it is. Historically they have failed to stop people from taking drugs, including drinking, or downloading pirated content and so on, so instead of banning Bitcoin they hope to discourage people from using it while keeping an eye on those who do by regulating exchanges and requiring KYC. So far it works because a lot of users don't care about their privacy and keep using those exchanges and avoid privacy-related practices like mixing.

Yep. There is enough historical evidence that certain things just can't be stopped, and especially not when it comes to P2P applications. Bitcoin is like an open book that contains permanent loggs.

It will help the government link your activities back to you, even if it's like 5-10 years later, and that's what they like. They know where you buy Bitcoin and when you spend it, they just need to prove that what you did was illegal.

Eventually the entire centralized ecosystem will be filtered by authorities and we can't do much other than to watch our steps. Right now we're ahead of that, but we don't have much time left to use dex's and free ourselves.

[magneto]

It's not the first time nor is it the last time that someone is going to be saying absurd things about bitcoin, both in the bear and bull directions. It's not even the first time that someone says that bitcoin will go to zero and die, as a matter of fact.

“You cannot have a means of payment that is based on secrecy when you’re trying to create a transparent banking system. If you open up a hole like bitcoin then all the nefarious activity will go through that hole, and no government can allow that.”

Banks are more secretive, and facilitate money laundering, corruption, etc. Does that mean that fiat currency is fault? No. Nefarious activity is a byproduct of every single currency, not just bitcoin.

The government can try to restrict access to bitcoin, which is already happening, but bitcoin will continue to be an alternative store of value to fiat which is proving to have demand. And this demand will definitely keep bitcoin from falling to such lows, imo.

[figmentofmyass]

Eventually the entire centralized ecosystem will be filtered by authorities and we can't do much other than to watch our steps. Right now we're ahead of that, but we don't have much time left to use dex's and free ourselves.

even with DEXs, we still need fiat gateways. someday, the matrix meme will be reality and people won't need to exchange BTC/USD, but there's just no way around it for the foreseeable future.

in the US, the government seems to have completely scared the localbitcoins market into compliance. my old cash trading connects have disappeared and everyone is demanding ID now. and the coinbases and geminis are enforcing bank-level verification at this point.

Banks are more secretive, and facilitate money laundering, corruption, etc. Does that mean that fiat currency is fault? No. Nefarious activity is a byproduct of every single currency, not just bitcoin.

he's just using red herrings. any reasonable person can see the issue is one of "control" and not "secrecy." of course there's nothing secret about bitcoin. it's the most transparent financial instrument ever created, lol! but they can't control it....

[BitHodler]

in the US, the government seems to have completely scared the localbitcoins market into compliance. my old cash trading connects have disappeared and everyone is demanding ID now.

LocalBitcoins has lost a significant amount of popularity due to the legal requirements, which is sad to see. If we discard the hype traffic of last year during the peak, and look the metrics, the net loss is 50%.

It was to be expected though. LocalBitcoins has been operating successfully for quite some time in a relatively free manner. It was just a matter of time before authorities would step in.

Hasn't there been a decentralized or less restrictive alternative that popped up to benefit from the gap left behind by LocalBitcoins? Usually these things happen quickly after a major competitor is losing market share.