The most irritating bitcoin misconception that needs explaining?

[Bitcoin For Dummies]

We are looking for a topic for the second video of our series "Bitcoin For Dummies" (first one here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWYVktImeTk)

With each episode we will try to answer as simple as possible popular bitcoin question or misconception. All videos will be short and to the point.
The idea is that next time someone asks you stupid question about bitcoin, you just send him the relevant video and let the girl do the talking.

So far one of the ideas that we consider is to explain why bitcoin is not a Ponzi. Unless you come up with more popular and irritating ignorant believe?



edit:
13 days later here is the video result of this thread
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kImBgWDgIlA&feature=youtu.be

[1715344428]

1715344428

[1715344428]

1715344428

[1715344428]

1715344428

[MashRinx]

Please refer to "Tulip Mania"  (or Beanie Baby Mania, for that matter) and differentiate.  Every time I see that comparison I chalk it up to the person stating it as having no idea what they are talking about and just regurgitating what they've heard other people say, but it's still irritating.

[hilariousandco]

About it being 'untraceable' or pyramid/ponzi scheme.

[Bit_Happy]

Please refer to "Tulip Mania"...

If you bought only $50 to $100 of BTC in early 2010 and sold in late 2013 you would have ~$12,000,000 (12 Million) USD for every small purchase 3 years earlier.
No matter how great (and different) Bitcoin is, the "Tulip Mania" references are rational and fair.

[hilariousandco]

Please refer to "Tulip Mania"...

If you bought only $50 to $100 of BTC in early 2010 and sold in late 2013 you would have ~$12,000,000 (12 Million) USD for every small purchase 3 years earlier.
No matter how great (and different) Bitcoin is, the "Tulip Mania" references are rational and fair.

I don't think so. If Bitcoins become worthless, then you can call it Tulip Mania.

[K128kevin]

This is a pretty awesome idea! I think the ponzi scheme myth is a good one. I feel like when people say bitcoin is a ponzi scheme it just shows that they really don't know what bitcoin is and they also don't know what a ponzi scheme is lol... and too many people hold this irrational belief.

[bountygiver]

This is a pretty awesome idea! I think the ponzi scheme myth is a good one. I feel like when people say bitcoin is a ponzi scheme it just shows that they really don't know what bitcoin is and they also don't know what a ponzi scheme is lol... and too many people hold this irrational belief.

from what I heard, lots of people define a stuffs as a ponzi scheme if it satisfies this property
1) pay stuffs at low price
2) go home and wait
3) get more money later with what you bought earlier

Which covers pretty much every act of investment.

[Bit_Happy]

Please refer to "Tulip Mania"...

If you bought only $50 to $100 of BTC in early 2010 and sold in late 2013 you would have ~$12,000,000 (12 Million) USD for every small purchase 3 years earlier.
No matter how great (and different) Bitcoin is, the "Tulip Mania" references are rational and fair.

I don't think so. If Bitcoins become worthless, then you can call it Tulip Mania.

I'm referring to the speculative mania, and you cannot deny the similarities.

[hilariousandco]

Please refer to "Tulip Mania"...

If you bought only $50 to $100 of BTC in early 2010 and sold in late 2013 you would have ~$12,000,000 (12 Million) USD for every small purchase 3 years earlier.
No matter how great (and different) Bitcoin is, the "Tulip Mania" references are rational and fair.

I don't think so. If Bitcoins become worthless, then you can call it Tulip Mania.

I'm referring to the speculative mania, and you cannot deny the similarities.

Then why not just call it a speculative investment? You can deny the similarities until it tanks and becomes worthless because it's not a valid comparison.

[Bit_Happy]

Please refer to "Tulip Mania"...

If you bought only $50 to $100 of BTC in early 2010 and sold in late 2013 you would have ~$12,000,000 (12 Million) USD for every small purchase 3 years earlier.
No matter how great (and different) Bitcoin is, the "Tulip Mania" references are rational and fair.

I don't think so. If Bitcoins become worthless, then you can call it Tulip Mania.

I'm referring to the speculative mania, and you cannot deny the similarities.

Then why not just call it a speculative investment? You can deny the similaraties. If not you could call stocks and shares Tulip Mania then.

Have you ever read the Tulip chapter in this book?
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds

People used Bitcoin to turn $100 into $12 Million, so IMO it cleary can be compared to Tulip Mania.   

[hilariousandco]

Please refer to "Tulip Mania"...

If you bought only $50 to $100 of BTC in early 2010 and sold in late 2013 you would have ~$12,000,000 (12 Million) USD for every small purchase 3 years earlier.
No matter how great (and different) Bitcoin is, the "Tulip Mania" references are rational and fair.

I don't think so. If Bitcoins become worthless, then you can call it Tulip Mania.

I'm referring to the speculative mania, and you cannot deny the similarities.

Then why not just call it a speculative investment? You can deny the similaraties. If not you could call stocks and shares Tulip Mania then.

Have you ever read the Tulip chapter in this book?
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds

People used Bitcoin to turn $100 into $12 Million, so IMO it cleary can be compared to Tulip Mania.   

Well then that's a good investment, not a tulip mania. Are profitable stocks and shares Tulips too? You can compare Bitcoin to Tulip Mania when Bitcoin becomes essentially worthless, and until it does you shouldn’t be propagating this negative comparison.

[K128kevin]

Well then that's a good investment, not a tulip mania. Are profitable stocks and shares Tulips too? You can compare Bitcoin to Tulip Mania when Bitcoin becomes essentially worthless, and until it does you shouldn’t be propagating this negative comparison.

I think the idea of the comparison is that it is behaving the way tulips did when they were skyrocketing in value, and therefore it isn't illogical to predict that they might crash like tulips did. I don't think this will be the case but I can see how people would make the comparison. It doesn't have to have already crashed for the analogy to work.

[Twilight_Sparkle]

Bitcoins are anonymous.

Bitcoins cannot be fractionally reserved.

YOU, yes YOU, person with just one 300$ laptop can mine bitcoins (or alternatively, that mining is possible for the average person).

Bitcoins have no transfer fees! (too old?)

exchanges are banks.

Bitcoin is centralized. or has a ceo. or created arbitrarily and handed out, or.....

Bitcoin public/private keys can be brute forced.

I can not hold a bitcoin, therefore it is worthless. If you don't hold it, you don't own it. (This reply by gold-bugs particularly bugs me. That saying is for the fact that reciving iou's from banks/exchanges/ETF(s?) means that you may never actually receive the gold they promise you. The same logic applies to bitcoin. Any coins that you don't have in your own privately owned private keys count in the "If you don't hold it, you don't own it." mantra. see:mtgox)

Companies that deal in bitcoin, also have to deal with bitcoin volatility.

Mining is bad for the environment cause of all the electricity it uses.

Bitcoin would be worthless if it was not tied/pegged to fiat. If all fiat and gold vanished, you would have no way of knowing how much a bitcoin is worth.

Because it is deflationary, no one spends it, and will never be adopted by merchants.

[zimmah]

Please refer to "Tulip Mania"...

If you bought only $50 to $100 of BTC in early 2010 and sold in late 2013 you would have ~$12,000,000 (12 Million) USD for every small purchase 3 years earlier.
No matter how great (and different) Bitcoin is, the "Tulip Mania" references are rational and fair.

by that logic, facebook and twitter and pretty much every successful company is a tulip mania.

[EternalWingsofGod]

That Bitcoin is volitaile and scary without explaining adoption S Shaped curves and emerging technology

[twiifm]

Please refer to "Tulip Mania"...

If you bought only $50 to $100 of BTC in early 2010 and sold in late 2013 you would have ~$12,000,000 (12 Million) USD for every small purchase 3 years earlier.
No matter how great (and different) Bitcoin is, the "Tulip Mania" references are rational and fair.

by that logic, facebook and twitter and pretty much every successful company is a tulip mania.

Wrong FB & TWTR are companies.  Their stock value can be fundamentally derived from things like earnings per share.  They generate revenue so thats why they have value.  However you are correct that sometimes these companies stock price get too far ahead of their valuation.

Bitcoin's value can't be derived from fundamentals.  It should be treated more like a commodity like gold.  Except gold has a history as money haven in crisis and actual intrinsic value for jewelry & electronics.

Bitcoin is a binary bet.  If it becomes mainstream then it will be of great value.  But it could also disappear and be zero value. 

The problem with bit coin is that it is not a well designed currency.  By its design it will fail at mass adoption.

[K128kevin]

by that logic, facebook and twitter and pretty much every successful company is a tulip mania.

That's not really the same logic. Facebook and Twitter are companies not currencies. Also they both have intrinsic value, which is probably the biggest difference.

[hilariousandco]

Well then that's a good investment, not a tulip mania. Are profitable stocks and shares Tulips too? You can compare Bitcoin to Tulip Mania when Bitcoin becomes essentially worthless, and until it does you shouldn’t be propagating this negative comparison.

I think the idea of the comparison is that it is behaving the way tulips did when they were skyrocketing in value, and therefore it isn't illogical to predict that they might crash like tulips did. I don't think this will be the case but I can see how people would make the comparison. It doesn't have to have already crashed for the analogy to work.

Yeah, that's what he's saying, but then you could call any investment that showed very fast returns Tulip Mania. If Bitcoin collapses quicker than it came, then the comparison will be apt but it's not until it does.

[K128kevin]

Yeah, that's what he's saying, but then you could call any investment that showed very fast returns Tulip Mania. If Bitcoin collapses quicker than it came, then the comparison will be apt but it's not until it does.

But it's not just that it's rising quickly - it's also that it doesn't have intrinsic value, like tulips. A share of a company that rises quickly in value has intrinsic value in that it means you own a portion of the company. Bitcoin's value comes only from the trust that we share - the trust that if someone gives you bitcoins for a real product, you can spend them elsewhere to get other real products.

[Beliathon]

The most common misconception I hear from friends and family is that Bitcoin has "peaked" in value, and that they're "too late" to benefit from investing now.

I've tried my best to explain why that's illogical, but the argument comes from an emotional place (regret, envy of early investors), and people seem largely immune to logical arguments.