The biggest challenge facing Bitcoin (and all cryptocurrency) this year

[HabBear]

A crucial year ahead for cryptocurrencies, from the Economist - 27 Jan 2020

This is a good article from the Economist - each of you should read it.

What concerns me though, is that as we stand on the edge of global acceptance of cryptocurrencies we risk the definition of cryptocurrency being violated by the corporate or government sponsorship needed to drive that global acceptance.

This article highlights, Libra, Facebook's cryptocurrency. To their credit, The Economist is referring to it as a "digital currency"...which is helpful, but i fear the public will forever confuse the difference. Lybra isn't a decentralized currency built on the blockchain. It's an investment vehicle, backed by a "basket of other currencies" traded over the blockchain (maybe?) but more specifically traded over the US stock markets.

I will always be a huge fan of evolution and innovation in the crypto space, i just want to make sure that these innovations don't cast a shadow within which all original cryptocurrencies are forced to live.

How can we support and fight this sentiment?

[1714614014]

1714614014

[1714614014]

1714614014

[Artemis3]

A crucial year ahead for cryptocurrencies, from the Economist - 27 Jan 2020[/url]

This is a good article from the Economist - each of you should read it.

What concerns me though, is that as we stand on the edge of global acceptance of cryptocurrencies we risk the definition of cryptocurrency being violated by the corporate or government sponsorship needed to drive that global acceptance.

This article highlights, Libra, Facebook's cryptocurrency. To their credit, The Economist is referring to it as a "digital currency"...which is helpful, but i fear the public will forever confuse the difference. Lybra isn't a decentralized currency built on the blockchain. It's an investment vehicle, backed by a "basket of other currencies" traded over the blockchain (maybe?) but more specifically traded over the US stock markets.

I will always be a huge fan of evolution and innovation in the crypto space, i just want to make sure that these innovations don't cast a shadow within which all original cryptocurrencies are forced to live.

How can we support and fight this sentiment?

Of course centralized altcoins are garbage, and can be made to submit to whatever goverments wish. Bitcoin is immune to that, it doesn't need no one's approval, it simply is, and exists.

Libra seems like it will never exist unless Zuckerberg moves it out of the country and hopefully the receiving country doesn't kill it. His business model probably depends on America so unless he can make the politicians bend, its probably worthless to him too.

Libra and Bitcoin are on opposite poles, Libra represents everything that is done wrong and by itself its showing the world why. I cannot even be born.

You see Bitcoin doesn't care if the politicians approve it, therefore is more valuable.

[HabBear]

Of course centralized altcoins are garbage, and can be made to submit to whatever goverments wish. Bitcoin is immune to that, it doesn't need no one's approval, it simply is, and exists.

You see Bitcoin doesn't care if the politicians approve it, therefore is more valuable.

With respect, i feel your comments are ignoring important parts of our history and what we need to succeed. Bitcoin isn't immune to anything. The people that don't own Bitcoin will often respond with "oh, is bitcoin still a thing?" when asked about it. That's a huge problem. The majority of the public don't see any need for bitcoin (because they don't understand how bad the system is that exists).

If Government and Facebook start touting their Digital Currencies it'll take all of one news cycle for most of the developed world to think: "Oh, finally, the people that we trust have figured out this bitcoin thing so we can use it!"

That's the level of naivety we're dealing with here and it literally will make or break the future of Bitcoin.

[DireWolfM14]

I haven't read the article, I'll get around to it, but to address the points you made in your opening post; I really don't see Libra going the way Zuckerburg thinks it will.  If he starts up a banking system similar to PayPal and uses nationalistic currencies held in his bank as backing for some type of "digital currency" I can see that working for out Facebook.  But, trying to apply the decentralized aspects of crypto to a centralized currency like Libra isn't something the US government (or any first-world government) is going to support.

Even if Libra comes to it's own, there's really nothing it can offer to quash the growth of bitcoin, quite the opposite, in my opinion.  As more and more people are lured into using digital currencies, even the centralized ones, their comfort level will increase and eventually build enough confidence to experiment decentralized coins.  The lack of understanding, and therefor confidence is probably the biggest stumbling block from which crypto suffers, currently.

[cabron]

When the world is offered with convenience, they will forget about BTC for they will get used to what is offered by Libra. If libra will one day gets a node form the people in the government, those who doesn't know Bitcoin will not even see a single BTC sign anywhere on its app but just libra and all teh government backed stablecoins.

Fighting against it will just make you look like you are not into innovation and when they all dominate again, they can ban BTC. That's a nightmare for all.

[HabBear]

Even if Libra comes to it's own, there's really nothing it can offer to quash the growth of bitcoin, quite the opposite, in my opinion.  

I appreciate this optimistic sentiment, and I hope this is the reality for bitcoin this year and beyond as the competition becomes complicated.

As more and more people are lured into using digital currencies, even the centralized ones, their comfort level will increase and eventually build enough confidence to experiment decentralized coins.  The lack of understanding, and therefor confidence is probably the biggest stumbling block from which crypto suffers, currently.

But that complication of the competitors is exactly the risk I'm talking about, that i'm fearful of.

You said "the lack of understanding, and therefore confidence is probably the biggest stumbling block."

How powerful will it be, then, when Facebook, a company that people have great confidence in and is easy to use comes out with the Libra token. These people - let's be clear, MOST OF THE PEOPLE - can say "oh yeah, i use crypto! Which one is it? Libra, i use Libra!" and never have a single thought about using something "so complicated" as bitcoin.

Most people don't know why cryptocurrency and bitcoin needs to exist, they just think it's another cute internet fad. How do we amp up the education? We need to.

[stompix]

What concerns me though, is that as we stand on the edge of global acceptance of cryptocurrencies we risk the definition of cryptocurrency being violated by the corporate or government sponsorship needed to drive that global acceptance.

Unfortunately, no matter how you try to twist words if it will ever be released Libra will be a cryptocurrency and we're going to have to live with it. But, do you think a government would play around with words if it wants to drive up acceptance and not with laws? A government (of course in some countries it would be the parliament) could simply impose its currency with a law and that's it, the crypto dollar or the e-euro are official currency and legal tender and everything else.

When the world is offered with convenience, they will forget about BTC for they will get used to what is offered by Libra.

Sad but true, people will not care about decentralization if the transactions are faster and cheaper and if you forget your private key you have someone to call and recover your wallet.

You see Bitcoin doesn't care if the politicians approve it, therefore is more valuable.

I've seen how much value and faith was put in it when single fake news about a government banning it made it lose half of its value.
What do you think the price would be tomorrow if the US congress outlaws cryptocurrency trade, mining, and ownership?

[WatChe]

Anything that can controlled and manipulated by single entities doesn't belong to the crypto world. Facebook and other companies are moving to crypto market just to grab there share from this emerging market. It will be death to the idea of decentralization if we have such tokens accepted as cryptocurrency.

[zabizana]

What concerns me though, is that as we stand on the edge of global acceptance of cryptocurrencies we risk the definition of cryptocurrency being violated by the corporate or government sponsorship needed to drive that global acceptance.

Unfortunately, no matter how you try to twist words if it will ever be released Libra will be a cryptocurrency and we're going to have to live with it. But, do you think a government would play around with words if it wants to drive up acceptance and not with laws? A government (of course in some countries it would be the parliament) could simply impose its currency with a law and that's it, the crypto dollar or the e-euro are official currency and legal tender and everything else.

When the world is offered with convenience, they will forget about BTC for they will get used to what is offered by Libra.

Sad but true, people will not care about decentralization if the transactions are faster and cheaper and if you forget your private key you have someone to call and recover your wallet.

You see Bitcoin doesn't care if the politicians approve it, therefore is more valuable.

I've seen how much value and faith was put in it when single fake news about a government banning it made it lose half of its value.
What do you think the price would be tomorrow if the US congress outlaws cryptocurrency trade, mining, and ownership?

Does that mean the existence of coins like Libra will disturb the existence of (decentralized) cryptocurrency? In other words, whether the existence of a coin like Libra will make cryptocurrency holders will mutate from (decentralized) cryptocurrency to a centralized digital currency?

[stompix]

~

Does that mean the existence of coins like Libra will disturb the existence of (decentralized) cryptocurrency? In other words, whether the existence of a coin like Libra will make cryptocurrency holders will mutate from (decentralized) cryptocurrency to a centralized digital currency?

Nobody knows and nobody will be able to answer, and if does, like the guy above it's a totally biased view.

From the very first start, libra doesn't exist, we don't know what form it will take we don't know what the incentive for using it are we don't know the pro and cons
It's like discussing the flying car vs hyperloop before both of them are up and running.
We don't know the fees of Libra we don't know who is planning on adopting it as a payment method and we don't know how bitcoin would look at that point in time.

If libra will be easier to use, it will work like a bank account where you can ask for refunds you have tech support and you won't have to worry about private keys a lot of people will use it, it's a harsh reality but for most a centralized coin is better, just how some people buy gold on paper and other buy lingots.

But from a strict holder point of view, a guy that seeks a store of value and not a daily spender, libra makes no sense.

[pakhitheboss]

People are crazy about Libra. I was going through global trends on Google in order to find out what is trending in crypto spehere and  was suprised by the amount of search Libra is generating as compared to others. There isn't a lot of correct information available on the internet about Libra and very few information pertaining comparison between Bitcoin and Libra.

It would be nice if any of the ranking website can come up with an article that can clears the doubts.

[pooya87]

i really don't think the centralized altcoins have ever been a concern and i don't think it is going to start now even with a big altcoin like Libra that has a big company with a big name behind it. there will always be confusion as it has been so far with people thinking these garbages are in the same category as bitcoin but in the end everyone will learn eventually. and those who care about decentralization will always see through it right away anyways so there isn't any challenge for bitcoin to face.

[kryptqnick]

The article indeed makes the matter confusing, because it talks primarily about centralized blockchain currency projects rather than the decentralized ones that we already have. And it seems that it does mean that digital currencies like Libra are indeed cryptocurrencies (since the article's title uses this word). I think that if such centralized projects succeed, they might become a serious competition or even win over Bitcoin (at least, they are likely to have way more users than any crypto that exists nowadays). If they fail, as the article seems to predict, for now, nothing will change for Bitcoin or it might even get more popular.