[2019-03-28] The Economist: Bitcoin revival unlikely....

[stmar]

Is Bitcoin Fundamentally Incapable of Mass Adoption? The Economist Thinks So.

An article out today in the Economist lists several reasons why Bitcoin may never have a “long-lasting” recovery. The unnamed author writes, in part:

“The bust has been correspondingly brutal. Those who bought near the top were left with one of the world’s worst-performing assets. Cryptocurrency startups fired employees; banks shelved their products. On March 14th the CBOE said it would soon stop offering Bitcoin futures.”

He or she neglects to mention that Bitcoin has previously been one of the best performing assets as well. An interesting point to make: Bitcoin over the past three years has been the best and worst performing asset to hold. Those who called the bubble and jumped ship at the top have laughed all the way to the bank, while long-term philosophical hodlers remain unfazed.

The article makes a legitimate argument that mass adoption of Bitcoin may never be forthcoming. If we view Bitcoin as a “currency,” intended for making payments of all sizes, the technology to do so hasn’t arrived yet. Bitcoin Core supporters believe expanding block size is unreasonably burdensome on miners and full nodes, while Bitcoin Cash supporters point out that even Lightning Network may not be best suited for making micro-payments.

The Economist speaks to the nature of Bitcoin’s actual transaction volume and notes a recent falsified report about the amount of value actually processed by the Bitcoin blockchain in 2018.

<....>

Read:
https://www.ccn.com/is-bitcoin-fundamentally-incapable-of-mass-adoption-the-economist-thinks-so

The Economist:
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2019/03/28/flaws-in-bitcoin-make-a-lasting-revival-unlikely

[1713303720]

1713303720

[1713303720]

1713303720

[1713303720]

1713303720

[1713303720]

1713303720

[d5000]

The "flaws" the Economist claims to have found in Bitcoins are not really flaws, I think. There are challenges, but they're not unsolvable as the article seems to claim.

And among the "flaws" mentioned there is nothing new:
- Scalability: Is a real problem, but LN isn't the only idea to solve it; LN may work great for small transactions, and for middle-to-large sized ones other ideas like sidechains could be used.
- Energy use: Is currently a problem but renewables-based mining will probably very soon predominate (in all countries where grid parity for solar/wind energy has been reached, which make already a nice number). Renewables-based mining could even become a driving force for innovations in solar/wind energy.
- Volatility: this is maybe the most difficult one to tackle. As an example for a stablecoin the Economist mentions Tether, which is a centralized stablecoin and thus its "flaw" (to be not completely backed) has to be expected. It would be more serious if the article also mentioned coins like Dai. And I think there are also other ideas worth trying, even if they wouldn't achieve fiat-like stability in the short term, they may do so in the long term.
- Scams: This cannot be viewed as a "flaw". Or is fiat flawed because there are fiat scams?

[magneto]

“The bust has been correspondingly brutal. Those who bought near the top were left with one of the world’s worst-performing assets. Cryptocurrency startups fired employees; banks shelved their products. On March 14th the CBOE said it would soon stop offering Bitcoin futures.”

Prices of bitcoin has absolutely no correlation to what the network actually does. In fact, improvements have been made during the bear market stretch.

The central bank of Italy is really stretching their arguments here. Everyone knows that the value of bitcoin fluctuates greatly on a cyclical basis, and it just so happens that the scale of the past bull market was so great that the correction was just as large in magnitude. Although it could be true that bitcoin never gets mainstream adoption on a mass scale, I don't agree with the fact that this possibility is discounted simply because of pricing reasons, and because certain institutions have halted their progress with developing products.

If we're judging something solely based on its value, then are all companies a bust whenever there is an overall bearish sentiment in the stock market? Also, a bull market is likely to emerge now that the bearish stretch seems to be done, and also due to the halving. Does that mean that bitcoin is somehow fundamentally better?

[figmentofmyass]

Is Bitcoin Fundamentally Incapable of Mass Adoption? The Economist Thinks So.

An article out today in the Economist lists several reasons why Bitcoin may never have a “long-lasting” recovery. The unnamed author writes, in part:

“The bust has been correspondingly brutal. Those who bought near the top were left with one of the world’s worst-performing assets. Cryptocurrency startups fired employees; banks shelved their products. On March 14th the CBOE said it would soon stop offering Bitcoin futures.”

so the Economist is basically declaring bitcoin dead? that's great news! this is the type of sentiment we need to put in a real long term bottom. at the top, everyone is interested. at the bottom, not so much.

this all happened in 2014-15 too. merchants were dropping bitcoin, miners were liquidating operations, banks (like citibank) were shelving their crypto plans, exchanges were shutting down or exit scamming left and right. we've seen this before.

the CBOE futures listing never gained ground against CME. they marketed and packaged it badly and a re-tooling was necessary. i'm not sure it's just the crypto winter that caused them not to re-list the contract. CME is going full steam ahead as expected.

[joniboini]

Is this the sign of a new cycle? Looks like it. So sad that I can't read the full article (it says I need to register).

- Volatility: this is maybe the most difficult one to tackle. As an example for a stablecoin the Economist mentions Tether, which is a centralized stablecoin and thus its "flaw" (to be not completely backed) has to be expected. It would be more serious if the article also mentioned coins like Dai. And I think there are also other ideas worth trying, even if they wouldn't achieve fiat-like stability in the short term, they may do so in the long term.
- Scams: This cannot be viewed as a "flaw". Or is fiat flawed because there are fiat scams?

These two points showed us that there's a bias from their side. How can you fix a scam from development side?

[bbc.reporter]

Is Bitcoin Fundamentally Incapable of Mass Adoption? The Economist Thinks So.

An article out today in the Economist lists several reasons why Bitcoin may never have a “long-lasting” recovery. The unnamed author writes, in part:

“The bust has been correspondingly brutal. Those who bought near the top were left with one of the world’s worst-performing assets. Cryptocurrency startups fired employees; banks shelved their products. On March 14th the CBOE said it would soon stop offering Bitcoin futures.”

so the Economist is basically declaring bitcoin dead? that's great news! this is the type of sentiment we need to put in a real long term bottom. at the top, everyone is interested. at the bottom, not so much.

this all happened in 2014-15 too. merchants were dropping bitcoin, miners were liquidating operations, banks (like citibank) were shelving their crypto plans, exchanges were shutting down or exit scamming left and right. we've seen this before.

the CBOE futures listing never gained ground against CME. they marketed and packaged it badly and a re-tooling was necessary. i'm not sure it's just the crypto winter that caused them not to re-list the contract. CME is going full steam ahead as expected.

The title is clickbait, however, the article is not declaring that bitcoin is dead. I reckon we should face it, bitcoin has limitiations.

One that limits bitcoin from mainstream adoption is the 21 million cap on supply. Grin however might have a solution. I know that it is open to disagreement, but we are only in the early days of cryptoeconomics.

https://github.com/mimblewimble/docs/wiki/Monetary-Policy

[Kakmakr]

Total Bullshit. How can Bitcoin be the worst-performing asset, when it was the best performing commodity and currencies in 2016 and 2017? They are looking at Bitcoin as a short-term investment and this is a flawed argument. If you bought bitcoins as a long-term investment back in 2014, it would have increased in value from a $600 average price to just over $4000 today. < I am obviously cherry picking dates now, to show it's long-term growth and profit > 

All commodities and assets has good and bad years, but you have to look at the long-term performance average to get a better picture of it's actual performance. 

[Thekool1s]

Do people actually take them seriously? Anyway, Bitcoin will always adapt to market requirements. Just look at Lightning network, It's the best example of Bitcoin adapting to the needs of its community. If Bitcoin was rigid and couldn't be expanded upon we would have already seen a collapse of the *internet money*. Anything which evolves will never be out of the picture iyam. It's the survival of the fittest, Its actually the Fait which is failing to adapt to new social values. Bitcoin's success doesn't need to be an overnight one, The more time bitcoin gets the better it will become as a currency.

[1Referee]

One that limits bitcoin from mainstream adoption is the 21 million cap on supply.

It really doesn't. The more valuable Bitcoin becomes, the more people start paying attention to satoshi units, and there is plenty enough of that to serve people in every corner of the world. On top of that, Lightning makes even satoshi units divisible, so there is even less unit scarcity than people think.

I have been playing with Lightning for over a month now due to all the new features mobile wallets added, and it's way easier to work with satoshi units than with 0.0000 whatever part of a Bitcoin. By the time Bitcoin has risen so much in value, we won't be saying 1BTC is worth $1 million for example, but a penny per satoshi.

[buwaytress]

It is accurate in some sense, within some context, and certainly for the medium term. Those who invested near the ATH are clutching at anything these days just to see some recovery (because they're not the holders, they're the ones who got in at the hype, with wholly unrealistic expectations). The article probably fails to mention that the bust is only the latest in several cycles... though of course because of the volumes and values associated, it's the one glaring back at you every time you see that chart.

It's still the best-performing asset by far, compared to anything in the past decade. But only if you got in before mid-2017.

[Lucius]

Not surprising that the media who is backed by banks&fiat society is have such a point of view when it comes to a decentralized currency. If something can not be controlled it is not good, it is something that only criminals use and it will collapse over time. In fact, it's just about profit, and since we are in bear market and there is low volatility, it's easy to see where their story goes. People who bought it at the top were not smart, but if they hold until next ATH they will make profit for sure, but this is something that The Economist will not mentioned.

Bitcoin is crashed hard few times in its short history, but each time it came back stronger. These are facts that can easily be checked, only if someone is interested in that. There is no doubt that bitcoin is expecting a long and demanding road ahead, but there is also no doubt that we can hope for a great success, it's just a matter of time.

[bbc.reporter]

One that limits bitcoin from mainstream adoption is the 21 million cap on supply.

It really doesn't. The more valuable Bitcoin becomes, the more people start paying attention to satoshi units, and there is plenty enough of that to serve people in every corner of the world. On top of that, Lightning makes even satoshi units divisible, so there is even less unit scarcity than people think.

I have been playing with Lightning for over a month now due to all the new features mobile wallets added, and it's way easier to work with satoshi units than with 0.0000 whatever part of a Bitcoin. By the time Bitcoin has risen so much in value, we won't be saying 1BTC is worth $1 million for example, but a penny per satoshi.

I was not implying only the units. I was also talking about distribution. A cap on supply encourages hoarding, it also opens bitcoin to the problem of sustainability of security on fees alone. I predict that this might become another major crisis in bitcoin.

I also made a thread about it. None of the replies had the answer.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5101017.0

[DooMAD]

"Revival" implies Bitcoin is dead or unconscious, which clearly isn't the case.  It yet another article that can only measure success and failure in terms of price, which completely misses the entire point of Bitcoin.  Each and every time I send or receive a transaction and no one manages to challenge, block or reverse it and I didn't need anyone's permission to do it, that's justification for Bitcoin's existence.  Multiply that by the number of transactions Bitcoin handles every day and I'd say it's fighting fit and doesn't require any "revival" whatsoever.  Who cares if it's not meeting The Economist's skewed criteria of how it needs to be performing?

[Carlton Banks]

I was not implying only the units. I was also talking about distribution. A cap on supply encourages hoarding, it also opens bitcoin to the problem of sustainability of security on fees alone. I predict that this might become another major crisis in bitcoin.

this was all debated years ago, you're only demonstrating that you've not done any research


you're exaggerating the issue using hyperbole too, "another major crisis" (what previous "major" crisises have there even been? Bitcoin is one big largly unmitigated success story)

Why are you making exaggerated claims about issues you have not researched?  

[coolcoinz]

It always amazes me that they claim that something is world's best or worst based on a timespan of one year. Is one year the timeframe we want to base our investments on? Overall bitcoin has been, and still is, one of the best, if not the best performing assets of the decade. It has its ups and down but is still outperforming everything including gold, oil, government bonds, you name it. Calling it one of the world's worst performing assets proves that this anonymous author did not do his research, or was paid to bash BTC.

[Betwrong]

Bitcoin may never reach mass adoption, but it doesn't mean it can't become a valuable currency. Take Japanese Yen for example. How many people, or rather what percentage of the world population, are actually using this currency? I may be wrong in my estimations, but I think we can divide the population of Japan (126,440,000) by the population of the world (7,530,000,000 ) to answer that question:

126,440,000 : 7,530,000,000 = 0.016791501

It turns out that less than 2% of the world population use JPY as currency, and yet it is regarded by many experts as one of the best currencies around.



Source: https://www.investopedia.com/trading/most-tradable-currencies/

Btw, JPY is not that stable either. Look at the chart below:



The Y-axis: Yen for 1 USD.

[cryptofonia]

The analyst proves that Bitcoin will survive all https://vk.com/wall-147244562_1337

[1Referee]

A cap on supply encourages hoarding, it also opens bitcoin to the problem of sustainability of security on fees alone. I predict that this might become another major crisis in bitcoin.

I don't see that as a problem at all. Miners will become way more efficient with how technology continues to improve, and they will eventually generate their own energy, which decreases operational cost even further.

Side chains aren't of much importance right now, but they will be as time goes by. Miners can merge mine side chains and scoop up the fees of these side chains too, so that's one more income stream for them. I strongly believe that side chain fees due to their volumes may potentially be way more rewarding than the main chain fees in the future.

As for the hoarding part; hoarding makes Bitcoin more valuable and makes satoshi fees become more valuable too, so more income for the miners.

[bbc.reporter]

I was not implying only the units. I was also talking about distribution. A cap on supply encourages hoarding, it also opens bitcoin to the problem of sustainability of security on fees alone. I predict that this might become another major crisis in bitcoin.

this was all debated years ago, you're only demonstrating that you've not done any research


you're exaggerating the issue using hyperbole too, "another major crisis" (what previous "major" crisises have there even been? Bitcoin is one big largly unmitigated success story)

Why are you making exaggerated claims about issues you have not researched?  

However, intiutively is it not going to be a bigger problem considering that there are other cryptocoins competing for cheaper transactions on the blockchain? Is it not why grin is trying a new tactic in its monetary policy?

I might have not done deep research into this issue, but I want to know more. Can you tell me what solutions were found from those debates years ago? The fee market argument leaves the issue with some open questions, I reckon.

[Carlton Banks]

Can you tell me what solutions were found from those debates years ago?

so, let me see:

• you're interested in economics
• you asked the first question that occured to you
• you opened a thread about that question
• you didn't do any research
• you want me to do the research for you

focusing on point 2; what makes you think that the first question you thought of was so original? did you really believe that no-one has ever asked that question, and that no attempt has been made to answer it?