[2018-12-28] Time Magazine: Bitcoin Development Should Be World Priority

[ruthbabe]

TIME Magazine has produced a surprisingly complimentary appraisal of Bitcoin, saying the cryptocurrency “matters for freedom” and is a “way out” of authoritarianism.

TIME: CAN’T TRUST YOUR RULER? GO BITCOIN

As 2018 draws to a close, TIME appeared to cap a year of mixed reviews of Bitcoin with an acknowledgment of at least some of its fundamental use cases.

https://twitter.com/gladstein/status/1078614849305890816

Tamper-proof transactions, lack of government control and inclusion, the publication says, mean the world should spend more time developing Bitcoin, author Alex Gladstein explains.

“If we invest the time and resources to develop user-friendly wallets, more exchanges, and better educational materials for Bitcoin, it has the potential to make a real difference for the 4 billion people who can’t trust their rulers or who can’t access the banking system,” it wrote December 28.

  "For them, Bitcoin can be a way out.

As Bitcoinist has frequently reported throughout this year, citizens under regimes such as Venezuela have turned to Bitcoin in increasing numbers to circumvent fiat currency, political oppression and even a “scam” cryptocurrency launched by the government.

TAKING AIM AT PAYPAL ‘SURVEILLANCE’

Such real-world usage is often ignored by naysayers, with figures including economist Nouriel Roubini and even prominent banking figures continuing to claim cryptocurrency is a ponzi scheme which “belongs” at zero.

TIME has also not always treated crypto so favorably. As recently as October, it claimed Bitcoin was “only making it worse” specifically for women to access banking services. It has also delivered controversial statements about the sector, including describing blockchain as crypto’s “more respectable cousin.”

In addition to the Venezuelan issue, meanwhile, the latest article also points the finger at a lack of privacy, which has become inherent with decreasing cash usage. Supposedly ‘innovative’ options such as PayPal’s Venmo, in fact, come with a host of caveats.

“It’s essential that we explore electronic money that can preserve the peer-to-peer quality of cash for future generations,” it continued.

  " When you pay someone with software like Venmo, you might use three or four financial intermediaries, even though the recipient
     might be standing in front of you. Each intermediary can potentially censor, surveil, and profit.

In terms of bringing Bitcoin to the masses, TIME showed a preference for the Lightning Network’s scaling solution. That innovation passed a record 500 BTC ($1.8 million) capacity this week.

Source:  https://bitcoinist.com/time-magazine-bitcoin-freedom/

[buwaytress]

Actually I don't think it's much of a surprise. Times has not been anti-Bitcoin, and you do only need to look back at several issues in past decades all the way to the mid 70s to see that it's always been critical of the current foundations of money and finance. Of course, it doesn't come close to say this Economist example that could easily be complimentary of Bitcoin.

Of note: Each intermediary can potentially censor, surveil and profit? I'd say they all do, not merely can. There are also arguments, however, that nodes can choose to do one or all of the same, though never to the same extent and always with the knowledge of its users in the network.

[hatshepsut93]

Actually I don't think it's much of a surprise. Times has not been anti-Bitcoin, and you do only need to look back at several issues in past decades all the way to the mid 70s to see that it's always been critical of the current foundations of money and finance.

"TIME has also not always treated crypto so favorably. As recently as October, it claimed Bitcoin was “only making it worse” specifically for women to access banking services. It has also delivered controversial statements about the sector, including describing blockchain as crypto’s “more respectable cousin.”"

The article they referenced: http://time.com/5431809/blockchain-financial-inclusion-gender-gap/

Pretty much the general nocoiner FUD about expensive transactions, lack of scalability, and then they also argue that Bitcoin is not inclusive because transactions are irreversible, so the new users will be losing their money when they will make some mistakes.

[squatter]

Tamper-proof transactions, lack of government control and inclusion, the publication says, mean the world should spend more time developing Bitcoin, author Alex Gladstein explains.

“If we invest the time and resources to develop user-friendly wallets, more exchanges, and better educational materials for Bitcoin, it has the potential to make a real difference for the 4 billion people who can’t trust their rulers or who can’t access the banking system,” it wrote December 28.

That's a pretty powerful statement recognizing Bitcoin's importance as a non-sovereign currency. If Bitcoin were to become a significant unit of account in global banking and commerce, that could take a great deal of influence away from actors like the US who exercise monetary hegemony over the developing world, in addition to corrupt local rulers. Today, the idea of "banking the unbanked" isn't too realistic because the network is still quite small. But in the mass adoption scenario, it could be really transformative. Entire countries who are cut off from the banking system could have a reliable means for value transfer.

[BitHodler]

Pretty much the general nocoiner FUD about expensive transactions, lack of scalability, and then they also argue that Bitcoin is not inclusive because transactions are irreversible, so the new users will be losing their money when they will make some mistakes.

It's more ignorance than fud. People don't get it that there is a price attached to the use of distributed ledgers, because every individual participating in the network has to verify and store the data basically for ever.

Scalability the same. The main networks themselves won't ever be able to handle mass use, but with second layers and side chains you can distribute the load in an as efficient manner as possible. People don't know that.

Every concern is factual at the moment, and it will take time to shift people's way of thinking. Education is important, and progress within crypto itself is as well. Time is what we need to see how things play out.

[1Referee]

It's more ignorance than fud.

I would say so. The whole thing that makes average joes think Bitcoin has "failed" is because it doesn't work exactly like their own fiat currencies. People take it way too literally, which is bad because that makes them discard the whole idea of Bitcoin. They expect something that's still in its very early years to do what the US dollar does, which is just insane.

That's also the very reason idiots like Peter Schiff start talking crap about Bitcoin, because it isn't a currency. Gold is a fantastic currency because you can spend it everywhere, which is quite funny. If you ask these dudes how you can spend Gold everywhere, they literally tell you to convert it to USD, then spend that in whatever store. Isn't that just demonstrating how useless Gold is as money? 

At least you can directly use Bitcoin (the actual asset itself) in stores and online to settle payments.