Bitcoin's Last Stand

[BitcoinPanther]

This is the title of an article[1] that I wanted to share and to discuss with you.  I find it full of FUD and misleading that is why I wanted  to show you the article and get your sentiment on the topic discussed.  As written, it was stated that:

• Bitcoin is rarely used for legal transactions

Explanation:

Bitcoin was created to overcome the existing monetary and financial system. In 2008, the pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto published the concept. Since then, Bitcoin has been marketed as a global decentralised digital currency. However, Bitcoin's conceptual design and technological shortcomings make it questionable as a means of payment: real Bitcoin transactions are cumbersome, slow and expensive. Bitcoin has never been used to any significant extent for legal real-world transactions.

My Reaction:

The author simple generalization of Bitcoin usage is mediocre.  He jump in a conclusion without doing any research of his own topic.  If he could have known how to type and search legal company that accept Bitcoin, he would be ashamed of what he just stated. 

One major proof to refute the claim of the author about Bitcoin never been used for legal-transaction is the number of company that accept Bitcoin.  Some of them are already listed on this article: https://99bitcoins.com/bitcoin/who-accepts/  and many more unmentioned company and retail stores that accept BTC.

• Regulation can be misunderstood as approval

Large investors also fund lobbyists who push their case with lawmakers and regulators. In the US alone, the number of crypto lobbyists has almost tripled from 115 in 2018 to 320 in 2021. Their names sometimes read like a who's who of US regulators.

But lobbying activities need a sounding board to have an impact. Indeed, lawmakers have sometimes facilitated the influx of funds by supporting the supposed merits of Bitcoin and offering regulation that gave the impression that crypto assets are just another asset class. Yet the risks of crypto assets are undisputed among regulators. In July, the Financial Stability Board (FSB) called for crypto assets and markets to be subject to effective regulation and supervision commensurate with the risks they pose - along the doctrine of "same risk, same regulation".

My Reaction:

Who cares about Government regulation, what matters is the adoption of masses since Bitcoin is already fair as it is and does not need the approval of the government to operate.  As a matter of fact, the mediatory action of government often messed up a system that is fine in itself.  And Bitcoin is fine as it is but government wanted to have a piece on the pie reason why they intended to regulate Bitcoin in order to milk it either of tax or rob it via confiscation. 

Furthermore, regulation has two function, either regulation to ban it or regulation to limit and coexist with the Bitcoin system. The latter is the acknowledgement of Bitcoin and approval of its existence with some tweak via implementing regulation to the Bitcoin influence.  So my take, regulation is a double standard word where one is to totally limit it while the other is to compromise and approved Bitcoin existence by limiting the objects influence.

• Promoting Bitcoin bears a reputational risk for banks

Since Bitcoin appears to be neither suitable as a payment system nor as a form of investment, it should be treated as neither in regulatory terms and thus should not be legitimised. Similarly, the financial industry should be wary of the long-term damage of promoting Bitcoin investments - despite short-term profits they could make (even without their skin in the game). The negative impact on customer relations and the reputational damage to the entire industry could be enormous once Bitcoin investors will have made further losses.

My Reaction:

This one I agree, despite of his reasoning, Promotion of Bitcoin expose banks of its shortcomings and how they cheat their client so YES! Promoting Bitcoin bears a reputational risk for banks because they will be exposed of their fraud.

All in all the writer is obviously anti-Bitcoin but his explanation on the selected topic to convince people are all moot.  So what is your take on the subject of discussion?  Do You agree with what the author stated?


[1] THE ECB BLOG | Bitcoin’s last stand

[1714589001]

1714589001

[1714589001]

1714589001

[1714589001]

1714589001

[1714589001]

1714589001

[BlackHatCoiner]

Wow. The European central bank doesn't want bitcoin. Now that's some news. Buy signal!

The link doesn't load from Tor. Apparently, they neither want Internet privacy.

Bitcoin is rarely used for legal transactions

That absolutely tells me nothing. It's a neutral currency. By the same reasoning, the euro is rarely used legally as well, and so, it's in its last stand. It is well known that there were black markets before 2009. Laws don't tell much about the currency either. In China, North Korea, and wherever else there's communism, as far as I'm concerned, it's illegal to use Bitcoin. Not to buy drugs and guns. Just to use it. In that case, any transaction involving bitcoins is illegal.

[sstephan]

The author simple generalization of Bitcoin usage is mediocre.  He jump in a conclusion without doing any research of his own topic.  If he could have known how to type and search legal company that accept Bitcoin, he would be ashamed of what he just stated. 

One major proof to refute the claim of the author about Bitcoin never been used for legal-transaction is the number of company that accept Bitcoin.  Some of them are already listed on this article: https://99bitcoins.com/bitcoin/who-accepts/  and many more unmentioned company and retail stores that accept BTC.

most companies that accept bitcoin do that just to be "cool". they convert the payment to real  money straight away .

you can argue as much as you want , but paying with bitcoin is truly inconvenient .
cash is also inconvenient .
i prefer paying with my smartphone or a watch , this is the "new" way.

[BitcoinPanther]

Wow. The European central bank doesn't want bitcoin. Now that's some news. Buy signal!

The link doesn't load from Tor. Apparently, they neither want Internet privacy.

Bitcoin is rarely used for legal transactions

That absolutely tells me nothing. It's a neutral currency. By the same reasoning, the euro is rarely used legally as well, and so, it's in its last stand. It is well known that there were black markets before 2009. Laws don't tell much about the currency either. In China, North Korea, and wherever else there's communism, as far as I'm concerned, it's illegal to use Bitcoin. Not to buy drugs and guns. Just to use it. In that case, any transaction involving bitcoins is illegal.

True, whether Bitcoin transaction is illegal or legal depends on the existing law in a country.  Pretty much those that make Bitcoin illegal can say any transaction made in Bitcoin is illegal.

The author simple generalization of Bitcoin usage is mediocre.  He jump in a conclusion without doing any research of his own topic.  If he could have known how to type and search legal company that accept Bitcoin, he would be ashamed of what he just stated.  

One major proof to refute the claim of the author about Bitcoin never been used for legal-transaction is the number of company that accept Bitcoin.  Some of them are already listed on this article: https://99bitcoins.com/bitcoin/who-accepts/  and many more unmentioned company and retail stores that accept BTC.

most companies that accept bitcoin do that just to be "cool". they convert the payment to real  money straight away .

you can argue as much as you want , but paying with bitcoin is truly inconvenient .
cash is also inconvenient .
i prefer paying with my smartphone or a watch , this is the "new" way.

How many watch or smartphone can you bring?  If you think you can pay with your smartphone or a watch in every purchase you do, I think it is cumbersome, and the problem would be how would the seller give you change after you pay with your gadget?  

Kidding aside, You can transact with Bitcoin via smartphone, it is pretty convenient with the use of LN since there are already an apps that  integrate LN for fast payment.  Ever heard of the Pouch wallet project on Boracay Island making it a Bitcoin Island where retail store can accept Bitcoin via LN transaction through their apps.  Here is the thread[1] if you haven't known it yet.


[1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5419576.0

[Dunamisx]

• Bitcoin is rarely used for legal transactions

By now i expect people to have believed about bitcoin and it effectiveness in the role it played in the economy, if some people still doubt the means through which they can make use of bitcoin as digital currency and make payment transactions through it, that means they are only in for attack on bitcoin since they did not support the adoption because by now p2p network isn't more any difficult thing to understand, but yet some believed in its manipulated abilities, but we will continue to emphasize on bitcoin ad digital currency and it continued in serving us this same purpose over years and the transaction made are evident to be legal since blockchain technology is not having a loophole for manipulation.

[BitDane]

Bitcoin is rarely used for legal transactions

I think this depends on what country the person is residing.  If we base our point on El Salvador, all transaction of Bitcoin is legal and we can prove that it isn't rarely used for a transaction but if we based it on country's that hasn't recognized Bitcoin as legal tender, but does not banned it, it is on a neutral stance while when talking about countries that banned Bitcoin  then by all means all bitcoin transaction is illegal, thus this statement depends on the point of reference.

[Elias03r]

The author simple generalization of Bitcoin usage is mediocre.  He jump in a conclusion without doing any research of his own topic.  If he could have known how to type and search legal company that accept Bitcoin, he would be ashamed of what he just stated. 

One major proof to refute the claim of the author about Bitcoin never been used for legal-transaction is the number of company that accept Bitcoin.  Some of them are already listed on this article: https://99bitcoins.com/bitcoin/who-accepts/  and many more unmentioned company and retail stores that accept BTC.

most companies that accept bitcoin do that just to be "cool". they convert the payment to real  money straight away .

you can argue as much as you want , but paying with bitcoin is truly inconvenient .
cash is also inconvenient .
i prefer paying with my smartphone or a watch , this is the "new" way.

No thanks I will never ever adapt to this lifestyle, you seem like one of those modern day hippies thats just asking to get robbed/mugged, why would you use your 400$ watch as your wallet? Your philosophy is rubbish.

[NotATether]

They're only getting a last stand because I haven't debunked them on Twitter yet!

No seriously, I had an avalanche of work to do for the whole week and I couldn't spend as much time tweet-slaying as I wanted to.

[Accardo]

In July, the Financial Stability Board (FSB) called for crypto assets and markets to be subject to effective regulation and supervision commensurate with the risks they pose - along the doctrine of "same risk, same regulation".

Steven Maijoor, now, is completely concerned about cryptocurrency regulations across border, noting that it'll be difficult for national bodies to observe the activities of cryptocurrency if its not regulated across border. Meaning that FSB will have to go beyond sectorial boundaries in the coming regulation on crypto and the tightening of Stable coins. I'd say that the problem with cryptocurrency and the regulatory sector is the constant failure of cryptocurrency projects. Because Maijoor, in his speech pointed at the recent incident of FTX and referred it the fall of Bank of Amsterdam 300 years ago, insisting that FSB must learn from the past.

Large investors also fund lobbyists who push their case with lawmakers and regulators. In the US alone, the number of crypto lobbyists has almost tripled from 115 in 2018 to 320 in 2021. Their names sometimes read like a who's who of US regulators.

I think the author is correct here as this action dulls the consistent effort of the SEC, FSB and the authorities behind the regulation of cryptocurrency. Considering that these sectors can easily regulate cryptocurrency like the traditional finance, it's quite clear that these lobbyists are stretching the process by making it difficult for them to execute their plans. They are hundreds of legitimate news on the internet about the cryptocurrency regulation, yet it seems like nothing is done about it. So if cryptocurrency must stay unregulated, they must be lesser ill activities attached to the market. Because it draws the attention of the authorities.

https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2022/11/17/crypto-will-soon-threaten-global-financial-stability-fsb-official-says/

[casinotester0001]

my 2030 machine is saying:

wrong

[Darker45]

Is anyone still bothered by this kind of article?

This appears to me a recycled opinion. This has been raised countless of times before. Last stand, last gasp, death, end, dying, bursting, and the likes have been the keywords used against Bitcoin for many years. What's funny is that this was already used when the price was just less than $10. Today, it's $17,000 and still "last gasp." LOL! I'm seeing Bitcoin falling from $100,000 to $75,000 soon and these hard-headed die-hard fiat fanatics would still publish an article describing the correction as Bitcoin's "last stand."

Wrong at $0.002, still wrong at $1,000,000. When will they learn?


https://twitter.com/pete_rizzo_/status/1583060560362426369


https://twitter.com/pete_rizzo_/status/1591440709105889281

When Mt. Gox failed, it was a crucial player in the Bitcoin market. Its role was vital, but Bitcoin survived. FTX's role today isn't even comparable to Mt. Gox's way back then. FTX is just one among many big players in the market.

[bittraffic]

Bitcoin's Last Stand sound like BTC is dead once again. The author's take will still convince many people around the world to think BTC is still a currency for criminals and they will push the CBDC for the people.

Regulation can be misunderstood as approval

Why are they going to regulate crypto if it isn't for approval?  China bans it, so why not just ban it like them if they are not approving.

[Edwardard]

Bitcoin's Last Stand sound like BTC is dead once again. The author's take will still convince many people around the world to think BTC is still a currency for criminals and they will push the CBDC for the people.

Things have changed along the way, we have matured, we are getting stronger and better, we are gaining more attention and reputation from the world. A new world order in the making!

2010- No one uses it, they said.
2012- Only computer nerds use it.
2013- Only drug dealers use it.
2014- Only money launderers use it.
2017- Only gamblers use it.
2019- Only a small percentage of the population uses it.
2020- Only small companies use it.
2021- Only small institutions
2022- Small countries...

and so on..

China bans it, so why not just ban it like them if they are not approving

They cant completely ban it if they are involved too. 😁

[BitDane]

Bitcoin's Last Stand sound like BTC is dead once again. The author's take will still convince many people around the world to think BTC is still a currency for criminals and they will push the CBDC for the people.

Well, they think that Bitcoin is currently at the last stand because of the current centralized exchange and services fiasco.  And by writing the article, they think that they are putting the last nail on the coffin which is somehow laughable.

Regulation can be misunderstood as approval

Why are they going to regulate crypto if it isn't for approval?  China bans it, so why not just ban it like them if they are not approving.

True, I understand regulation as accepting and coexist with it while setting limiting parameters.

[franky1]

Regulation can be misunderstood as approval

Why are they going to regulate crypto if it isn't for approval?  China bans it, so why not just ban it like them if they are not approving.

True, I understand regulation as accepting and coexist with it while setting limiting parameters.

the game many countries are trying is not a complete forever-ban.

its a ban-to-control phase

banning it alone is just saying "we dont want to be involved we dont want the risk we wash our hands with it and dont want liability"

ban-to-control:
banning then permitting(licencing), is where banning it stops anyone openly using it. and then setting a permit(licence) to limit who or how a business and its customers can then use it. thus then controlling the gateways in and out of the thing. plus they can make profit on the licence fees and penalties

[PrivacyG]

my 2030 machine is saying:

wrong

But according to their little evil plan, by 2030 you will own nothing and you should be overly excited about it.

Of course to them Bitcoin is in its last stand, they hate knowing we have ownership over our finances.  It gives us a level of control they wish we did not have.  They are slowly losing territory as Bitcoin keeps winning.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

[noorman0]

most companies that accept bitcoin do that just to be "cool". they convert the payment to real  money straight away .

It's way too much of a risk for them just to be considered cool, I think their intentions are more than that. Bitcoin is a global, uncensored payment method that simply reaches customers from all corners of the globe. And bitcoin management doesn't always have to be cashed out immediately.

i prefer paying with my smartphone or a watch , this is the "new" way.

My understanding, barter is the most ancient trade method in the world, not something new.

[Yatsan]

my 2030 machine is saying:

wrong

But according to their little evil plan, by 2030 you will own nothing and you should be overly excited about it.

Of course to them Bitcoin is in its last stand, they hate knowing we have ownership over our finances.  It gives us a level of control they wish we did not have.  They are slowly losing territory as Bitcoin keeps winning.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

With that huge span, many things could happen.

Regulation can be misunderstood as approval

Why are they going to regulate crypto if it isn't for approval?  China bans it, so why not just ban it like them if they are not approving.

True, I understand regulation as accepting and coexist with it while setting limiting parameters.

the game many countries are trying is not a complete forever-ban.

its a ban-to-control phase

banning it alone is just saying "we dont want to be involved we dont want the risk we wash our hands with it and dont want liability"

ban-to-control:
banning then permitting(licencing), is where banning it stops anyone openly using it. and then setting a permit(licence) to limit who or how a business and its customers can then use it. thus then controlling the gateways in and out of the thing. plus they can make profit on the licence fees and penalties

Definitely something which is not understood by many of us. Prohibitiosn is simply failing to get what they want from this industry which is to tax every transaction because of the impression of "big profit" earned by many investors. Well, governments are not aware of how long profit will take to be earned. Given how volatile the market is, there are only periods of uprise movement; thought being disregarded because profit is more emphasized. Regulation on the other hand would be made possible through third party wallets but as given in this industry, there are centralized and decentralized exchangers which keeps investors safw from taxes. And in these instances, governments decides to prohibit its usage.

[NotATether]

i prefer paying with my smartphone or a watch , this is the "new" way.

My understanding, barter is the most ancient trade method in the world, not something new.

I don't think he means giving a smartphone in exchange for a service, but rather, using your phone like a credit card, via something like Apple Pay or Google Pay. It'll forward the payment to your card.

[WeThePe0ple]

Who cares about Government regulation, what matters is the adoption of masses since Bitcoin is already fair as it is and does not need the approval of the government to operate.  

But mass adoption can only be accomplished via government regulation, in my opinion.

At this point BTC is a store of value similar to gold. You can hold it in anonymity and it is likely to keep having value.
But to acquire mass adoption, BTC would have to be used as a currency. And for it to be a currency, it needs government approval. Goods and services paid in BTC, which generates demand, which generates value.

In my ideal world, working citizens would get paid in BTC. Not in a failing currency. I see countries legalizing BTC for payment but I haven't seen any of them paying citizens their wages in BTC. They continue to pay them in failing currencies, until their savings are reduced to 0 and they no longer have power to buy any BTC.

I'm European, I have savings and a masters degree. But I get paid in a currency that gets devalued by crooked bankers. The cost of living rises rapidly until the entire society is bankrupt. Which is when I expect governments to step in and install some kind of fascism.
The 20 year mortgage plan for a property is in a debased currency and nobody getting paid in a failing currency has a guarantee that they can make it. In fact it is unlikely that they will. Inflation just has to rise a few more years.
You'd have to have a whole lot of BTC to compensate for a failing currency.

But how can BTC adoption grow while citizens get paid in crashing currencies, default on all their payments and have 0 savings to collect BTC?