"10 Reasons Bitcoin Is A Terrible Investment" - A pathetic attack against BTC?

[sheenshane]

10 years ago, someone puts down $100 dollars and geta a LOT of coins. Today, someone puts $100 dollars down and gets 0.01 BTC.

I tend to agree. But...
Probably they really intended for it to look pathetic and stupid to gain more attractions and attention.
And IMO, considering Bitcoin as a form of investment really is something that isn't that much for them to consider.

However, we aren't here to expect Bitcoin to rise. But to support its capability to become a store of value and reach most people anticipated precious value. And considering it as an investment is almost an insult. It wasn't created to be an investment. The scheme isn't created to earn profit but to give freedom to people who wanted to proptect privacy. But now, that perspective among others is it's slowly fading.

[1714099341]

1714099341

[kryptqnick]

Thanks for this detailed review and answers to these questions. I wanted to point out something about #1, but you've already mentioned all of it . As for #5, many have tried already to prove that Blockchain is valuable rather than Bitcoin, but their cryptos turned out to be useless shitcoins. And investing in a digital fiat currency doesn't make much sense because it would be very stable and also lose value over time due to inflation. #6 is a solid point, I think (but I believe Bitcoin might actually be decades away, not years), but if a person in considering Bitcoin as an investment, it should not matter whether it ever becomes mainstream (the price can rise anyway).

[Bttzed03]

~ There are 295 articles authored by him on fool.com which mention bitcoin. For someone who writes so much about it, it's incredible that he is so consistently and fundamentally wrong about it. He's been parroting off the same arguments as in this article over and over for 7 years.

Gotta stay consistent. Since he didn't buy BTC in 2013 or earlier (which he deeply regrets I assume), he'll just have to keep on going with the same story line because it probably helps put food on the table with all those increased website clicks and other media coverage every time he writes about bitcoin.

[o_e_l_e_o]

-snip-

I find this is easier if you think in terms of satoshi rather than in terms of bitcoin. There is a limit of (slightly less than) 2,100 trillion satoshi. Global GDP is $81 trillion. Global stock markets are $70 trillion. Even global derivatives markets (which aren't really money) have an upper limit of somewhere around $1,200 trillion. So even if bitcoin becomes a global currency, there will still be plenty to go around.

And even then, the 8 decimal limit can be changed. Lightning already works with 11 decimal places, with the smallest unit being milli-satoshi. With a hard fork we could introduce more decimal places in to the base layer, if the demand for it became great enough.

[DougM]

I wouldn't listen to a single word this author says about bitcoin.

Here he is in 2019 calling bitcoin "fundamentally flawed" - https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/06/25/3-reasons-bitcoin-is-fundamentally-flawed-as-an-in.aspx
Here he is in 2018 calling bitcoin "a gigantic failure" - https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/02/14/is-bitcoin-destined-to-be-a-gigantic-failure.aspx
Here he is in 2017 calling bitcoin "a fraud" - https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/09/18/bitcoin-is-a-fraud-according-to-the-ceo-of-the-lar.aspx
...
Here he is as far back as 2013 calling bitcoin a "fictitious token" - https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/04/13/this-is-the-real-danger-of-the-irrational-exuberan.aspx

There are 295 articles authored by him on fool.com which mention bitcoin. For someone who writes so much about it, it's incredible that he is so consistently and fundamentally wrong about it. He's been parroting off the same arguments as in this article over and over for 7 years.


I did get a chuckle out of the first two paragraphs though. Paragraph 1 - It isn't really scarce! Paragraph 2 - It's too scarce to be useful!

Nicely stated!
Ironic when Bloomberg is predicting bitcoin to reach $100K by 2025. Let's see if this fool or Fidelity/Bloomberg have it right. 

Bitcoin Trajectory Should Approach Gold-like Status: Report By David Jones

According to Bloomberg's October 2020 Crypto Outlook report, Bitcoin is likely to do well if stock market volatility persists.

https://decrypt.co/45239/bitcoin-trajectory-should-approach-gold-like-status-report

In brief
- A Bloomberg report said that Bitcoin is on track to reach $100,000 by 2025.
- Volatile stock performances are driving greater interest in the cryptocurrency.
- However, institutional investors still want greater regulatory clarity and increased market cap, another analyst told Decrypt.

The report notes that the price of Bitcoin, which surged over a four-year period from about $1,000 in 2013 to $10,000 in 2017, could reach the $100,000 mark by 2025. That means Bitcoin could reach its 2019 high of $14,000 as early as this year. "Or," it says, "the new technology could fail, but our demand indicators are positive."

[Zionatin]

So much of what this person says makes little sense or is simply not true. "the currency of choice for criminals" yes we heard that 5 years ago it was old then it's dead now. Get over it.
This person claims to be so intelligent yet the say things like "There just isn't enough bitcoin to go around" then states some useless fiat facts.... Did this man never go to school and learn about decimals and fractions?
Even if there was only 1 bitcoin you can split it into any number you wish. The very idea that this clown cannot fathom that tells us all we shouldn't pay attention to anything they have said. They have basically just made it very clear they are foolish and nothing more.

These are horrific arguments to be making. Try again....

[buwaytress]

I find this is easier if you think in terms of satoshi rather than in terms of bitcoin. There is a limit of (slightly less than) 2,100 trillion satoshi. Global GDP is $81 trillion. Global stock markets are $70 trillion. Even global derivatives markets (which aren't really money) have an upper limit of somewhere around $1,200 trillion. So even if bitcoin becomes a global currency, there will still be plenty to go around.

And even then, the 8 decimal limit can be changed. Lightning already works with 11 decimal places, with the smallest unit being milli-satoshi. With a hard fork we could introduce more decimal places in to the base layer, if the demand for it became great enough.

Nice tip using satoshi, easier to think about yeah, and goes back to why I said I slightly agree with the point on scarcity. It's a bit silly how some people say you should buy Bitcoin now before it runs out because virtually very little new ones will be produced after a few more halvings but since Bitcoin is divisible and you can get fractions -- even sub-satoshi possible as you say -- then it's really not a problem anymore that there won't be enough to go around. As far as the mind can conceive, there always will be =)

[tranthidung]

Please allow me to bring satoshi's words back to our lively discussion. He is a genius, we all know that but this explanation increases my admiration on him and his works. Things he did all was done very logically from his thought flow.

Another mystery why he chose halving days in years with President elections. 

From: Satoshi Nakamoto <satoshin@gmx.com>
Date: Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 10:44 PM
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Hi Mike,

I’m glad to answer any questions you have. If I get time, I ought to write a FAQ to supplement the paper.

There is only one global chain.

The existing Visa credit card network processes about 15 million Internet purchases per day worldwide. Bitcoin can already scale much larger than that with existing hardware for a fraction of the cost. It never really hits a scale ceiling. If you’re interested, I can go over the ways it would cope with extreme size.

By Moore’s Law, we can expect hardware speed to be 10 times faster in 5 years and 100 times faster in 10. Even if Bitcoin grows at crazy adoption rates, I think computer speeds will stay ahead of the number of transactions.

I don’t anticipate that fees will be needed anytime soon, but if it becomes too burdensome to run a node, it is possible to run a node that only processes transactions that include a transaction fee. The owner of the node would decide the minimum fee they’ll accept. Right now, such a node would get nothing, because nobody includes a fee, but if enough nodes did that, then users would get faster acceptance if they include a fee, or slower if they don’t. The fee the market would settle on should be minimal. If a node requires a higher fee, that node would be passing up all transactions with lower fees. It could do more volume and probably make more money by processing as many paying transactions as it can. The transition is not controlled by some human in charge of the system though, just individuals reacting on their own to market forces.

Eventually, most nodes may be run by specialists with multiple GPU cards. For now, it’s nice that anyone with a PC can play without worrying about what video card they have, and hopefully it’ll stay that way for a while. More computers are shipping with fairly decent GPUs these days, so maybe later we’ll transition to that.

A key aspect of Bitcoin is that the security of the network grows as the size of the network and the amount of value that needs to be protected grows. The down side is that it’s vulnerable at the beginning when it’s small, although the value that could be stolen should always be smaller than the amount of effort required to steal it. If someone has other motives to prove a point, they’ll just be proving a point I already concede.

My choice for the number of coins and distribution schedule was an educated guess. It was a difficult choice, because once the network is going it’s locked in and we’re stuck with it. I wanted to pick something that would make prices similar to existing currencies, but without knowing the future, that’s very hard. I ended up picking something in the middle. If Bitcoin remains a small niche, it’ll be worth less per unit than existing currencies. If you imagine it being used for some fraction of world commerce, then there’s only going to be 21 million coins for the whole world, so it would be worth much more per unit. Values are 64-bit integers with 8 decimal places, so 1 coin is represented internally as 100000000. There’s plenty of granularity if typical prices become small. For example, if 0.001 is worth 1 Euro, then it might be easier to change where the decimal point is displayed, so if you had 1 Bitcoin it’s now displayed as 1000, and 0.001 is displayed as 1.

Ripple is interesting in that it’s the only other system that does something with trust besides concentrate it into a central server.

Satoshi

[Silberman]

they can attack bitcoin, whatever, whenever or however they want it to, but for those who are crypto users esp long timers, they won't be affected by these negativities anymore.
 we all know how to secure our funds to avoid losing funds but a lot of us are still hard-headed to leave coins in vulnerable sites like exchanges and 3rd party apps
they can influence the mindset of those noncrypto users but once they educate themselves about the true nature of bitcoin or crypto, they will also change their minds. it will take time for them to get a hold of those right info, but if they will not give up in knowing the truth, they will finally learn how crypto is really changing the lives of many people for the better

It is obvious the attack described on the post of the OP is not against us, they know they cannot convince us, they know we can see through their lies, that attack against cryptocurrencies and specifically bitcoin are for the ones that could be doubtful about investing in this market since they want to scare people away, why? Because that is the only tactic they have left, they know they cannot kill bitcoin like they have done with other similar attempts to create a free currency in the past, they know bitcoin is better than their fiat counterparts, and they know a crisis is coming that could force many people to take the decision to adopt bitcoin, so they are trying to delay the inevitable until they can think of a way to kill bitcoin.

[pawanjain]

More than reading how questions it was fun reading the answers in the OP. Right on point for each answer.
TMF is surely has some kind of grudge against bitcoin else he would not be saying so many things against it.
May be didn't get the opportunity to buy BTC at cheaper price 
Jokes aside, we have seen many such people speaking against bitcoin but that doesn't change anything since the power still lies in the people.
Until there are many supporters for bitcoin, nobody can do anything about bitcoin. It will stay for long and probably shut many mouths as time goes by.

[Artemis3]

So, the author of this "article" is a long known Bitcoin basher, for no particular logical reason, except it might be a popular read to sometimes bash something popular and some "journalists" actually live from that...

The true title should be: "10 Reasons you cannot trust anything written by Motley Fool".

[Renampun]

This kind of bad assumption of Bitcoin, is difficult to avoid...
Plural societies have different views. I am sure those who think badly of Bitcoin are those who never owned Bitcoin at all. No need for us to worry about IMO, because Bitcoin is a future investment and will silence them in the future when the price of Bitcoin breaks $ 100k.

[Cryptoreflector_666]

I find this is easier if you think in terms of satoshi rather than in terms of bitcoin. There is a limit of (slightly less than) 2,100 trillion satoshi. Global GDP is $81 trillion. Global stock markets are $70 trillion. Even global derivatives markets (which aren't really money) have an upper limit of somewhere around $1,200 trillion. So even if bitcoin becomes a global currency, there will still be plenty to go around.

And even then, the 8 decimal limit can be changed. Lightning already works with 11 decimal places, with the smallest unit being milli-satoshi. With a hard fork we could introduce more decimal places in to the base layer, if the demand for it became great enough.

Nice tip using satoshi, easier to think about yeah, and goes back to why I said I slightly agree with the point on scarcity. It's a bit silly how some people say you should buy Bitcoin now before it runs out because virtually very little new ones will be produced after a few more halvings but since Bitcoin is divisible and you can get fractions -- even sub-satoshi possible as you say -- then it's really not a problem anymore that there won't be enough to go around. As far as the mind can conceive, there always will be =)

I think it seems that at some point the division should stop, because there is a chance that bitcoin will completely devalue. Although I do not see this as a big problem, since there are a huge number of alternative currencies that are more interesting for me personally in terms of use and investment. Of course, bitcoin is a huge locomotive that drags all other cryptocurrencies with it, but I would argue that it is not changeable.

[buwaytress]

I think it seems that at some point the division should stop, because there is a chance that bitcoin will completely devalue. Although I do not see this as a big problem, since there are a huge number of alternative currencies that are more interesting for me personally in terms of use and investment. Of course, bitcoin is a huge locomotive that drags all other cryptocurrencies with it, but I would argue that it is not changeable.

Hmm, I think if people do further divisions, as in, make changes to the hard code or go second layer, it won't be because of price change but because the price of the smallest unit will already be so high they NEED to make the split. And it won't affect price at all, if anything prove that demand is such.

Change is always possible, if enough people vote for it (or enough don't vote against).

[Anonylz]

I wouldn't listen to a single word this author says about bitcoin.

Here he is in 2019 calling bitcoin "fundamentally flawed" - https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/06/25/3-reasons-bitcoin-is-fundamentally-flawed-as-an-in.aspx
Here he is in 2018 calling bitcoin "a gigantic failure" - https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/02/14/is-bitcoin-destined-to-be-a-gigantic-failure.aspx
Here he is in 2017 calling bitcoin "a fraud" - https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/09/18/bitcoin-is-a-fraud-according-to-the-ceo-of-the-lar.aspx
...
Here he is as far back as 2013 calling bitcoin a "fictitious token" - https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/04/13/this-is-the-real-danger-of-the-irrational-exuberan.aspx

There are 295 articles authored by him on fool.com which mention bitcoin. For someone who writes so much about it, it's incredible that he is so consistently and fundamentally wrong about it. He's been parroting off the same arguments as in this article over and over for 7 years.


I did get a chuckle out of the first two paragraphs though. Paragraph 1 - It isn't really scarce! Paragraph 2 - It's too scarce to be useful!

For someone who had spent such a long time trying to smeared the name of btc before the whole world and still end up failing woefully, i would expect him to be a btc maximalist by now ,   or just quit, by saying i give up  (i mean look at the time this guy has been on the tail of btc trying to bring it down)
i consider him the btc stalker, but too bad till now he is not able to raise any dust with his continuous attempt to discredit the work of a genius,  but, 7 years is enough for him to come up with a technology to counter all his so-called btc flaws i.e if he can.

[Gotumoot]

For me let them attack Bitcoin it is still publicity for crypto good or bad publicity is still a publicity and we could attract people from it.
We could also say the same on any investment all investment have their own down side it is up to us if we would accept all the risk.

[o_e_l_e_o]

The true title should be: "10 Reasons you cannot trust anything written by Motley Fool".

He is essentially like an altcoin shiller from here or Reddit, albeit one with a decent grasp of the English language and access to a spell checker. He simply shills whatever he himself is currently holding, over and over and over. Go in to any recent article of his and pick a random company, and then do a search for his name and that company. I picked "Exelixis", for example, a stock he even admits he holds himself. Every article he writes on Exelixis says the exact same thing, just slightly reworded so its not an exact copy and paste. Here are 4 articles from the last month alone:

https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/10/17/4-stocks-robinhood-investors-should-buy-and-hold-f/
https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/10/07/these-are-the-3-biggest-bargains-in-biotech/
https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/10/02/the-3-best-stocks-to-invest-100-in-right-now/
https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/09/21/the-best-stocks-to-invest-1000-in-when-the-market/

Of course, bitcoin is a huge locomotive that drags all other cryptocurrencies with it, but I would argue that it is not changeable.

What do you mean "it is not changeable"? Bitcoin has the most ongoing development and most useful new features of any crypto.

[TedMosby]

“Blockchain is years from being mainstream“
Agree with you OP that this one is more like on the opposite side for me.
It’s good to be a long-term investment then.
With that statement, it seems like he is a “hit and run” investor.

So, the author of this "article" is a long known Bitcoin basher, for no particular logical reason, except it might be a popular read to sometimes bash something popular and some "journalists" actually live from that...

The true title should be: "10 Reasons you cannot trust anything written by Motley Fool".

Or..
“10 reasons why you should love bitcoin when you have many doubts about it” 
Because most of the point he explained are contradictive.

[jerry0]

Some of the points do make sense though.