Bitcoin is Still Economically Useless = Economist

[KiaKia]

I've come a long way with crypto and Bitcoin to start reacting to what someone said about Bitcoin no matter who they are or who they claimed to be, I don't care, Bitcoin is decentralised in a centralised world, of cos it will look like its economically useless, only those who understand the usefulness of decentralisation will consider Bitcoin, mind you, I won't be ssurpise if this fella have some Bitcoin too but pretending like its useless.

If Bitcoin is that useless I wonder why billionaires around the world are buying, are they stupid? Let's forget this for a second and ask yourself if Bitcoin is uselful for you, as for me its more than useful, this is the most legit innovation for me since I was born, I abandoned my bank totally, I stored my money in Bitcoin and since the past years now I never regret that I did, my country's currency keeps going down and down, and I feel extremely safe, thanks to Bitcoin .

[pooya87]

FYI credit card transactions take months to become finalized.

Wow, seriously? You've never used a credit card before? Because if you had, you'd know a transaction takes a few seconds typically, not "months".

Try reading my post again.

If you are just interested in transaction being made and don't care about reversibility, then it takes a second for a bitcoin transaction to be made and propagate through the majority of the network.
On the other hand most credit card companies give you more than 6 months time to "reverse" your transaction.

[hd49728]

If you are just interested in transaction being made and don't care about reversibility, then it takes a second for a bitcoin transaction to be made and propagate through the majority of the network.
On the other hand most credit card companies give you more than 6 months time to "reverse" your transaction.

Reversibility or charge-back is very big risk with bank transfers, Paypal and credit cards.

With Bitcoin, there is almost no risk of reversibility. In theory, there is risk but in reality, the risk is almost zero. Because Bitcoin network is very decentralized and cost of 51% attack to reverse Bitcoin transactions is very costly and risk of wasting money for an attack while does not succeed to gain anything is very high.

• https://blog.lopp.net/how-many-bitcoin-confirmations-is-enough/
• Calculators
  
  • https://github.com/jlopp/bitcoin-confirmation-risk-calculator
  • https://web.archive.org/web/20181231045818/https://people.xiph.org/~greg/attack_success.html

[legiteum]

If you are just interested in transaction being made and don't care about reversibility, then it takes a second for a bitcoin transaction to be made and propagate through the majority of the network.

On the other hand most credit card companies give you more than 6 months time to "reverse" your transaction.

I don't understand. I've had hundreds of transactions reversed in my years of using a credit card, and it's never taken more than a few minutes after the person in charge of doing so initiates the reversal. This process is way faster with a credit card than it is with Bitcoin because the transaction speed of a credit card is 10-100x faster than Bitcoin.

And no Bitcoin transaction takes "a second", they can take up to 30 minutes which is exactly what Bitcoin and blockchain were designed to do. And each transaction can cost up to $30, whereas the most expensive credit card transaction only costs a dollar or two.

Satoshi never envisioned Bitcoin replacing mainstream credit card transactions, and the blockchain architecture makes that impossible.

The only digital currency system that can compete with worldwide credit card transactions is Haypenny, which completes safe, decentralized, redundantly stored transactions in approximately two milliseconds of internal time. This is a system designed to handed many billions of transactions per say, and do so at a fixed price of $0.005 now and forever. But the architecture is very different than blockchain as it must be.

[Marykeller]

This guy may have made sense, though I suspect he's a Democrat. Apart from early holders making a killing off Bitcoin, how has it benefitted the world economy? Your opinion though...

Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman said that Tech-bro's support for Trump and Vance seems to be related to cryptocurrency/ He said that in reality. Bitcoin is still economically useless and useful just for money laundering and extortion. He described Trump's call for the creation of some kind of national Bitcoin reserve as equivalent to the government rescuing a scandal-ridden, value- and environment-destroying industry.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/29/opinion/vance-trump-cryptocurrency.html 

This is a scrapped reasoning for one who doesn't know what Bitcoin stands for and aims at.

As I have had so many useful financial encounters with Bitcoin, I can't follow others to give a condemnable remark on Bitcoin all because people are using Bitcoin for money laundering and extortion. That would be so weird of me

What I can deduce from this, people easily give negative remarks about Bitcoin when they fall victim to a scam or hear news of how people use it wrongly. They will hate it because of that, without trying to know other useful part of it of how it has helped people's financial status.

Nevertheless, the opinion of economist, Paul Krugman doesn't count and it doesn't have any single weight to disrupt Bitcoin from reaching its goal of being widely accepted globally in the future

[cr1776]

This guy may have made sense, though I suspect he's a Democrat. Apart from early holders making a killing off Bitcoin, how has it benefitted the world economy? Your opinion though...

Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman said that Tech-bro's support for Trump and Vance seems to be related to cryptocurrency/ He said that in reality. Bitcoin is still economically useless and useful just for money laundering and extortion. He described Trump's call for the creation of some kind of national Bitcoin reserve as equivalent to the government rescuing a scandal-ridden, value- and environment-destroying industry.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/29/opinion/vance-trump-cryptocurrency.html  

Krugman is a hack.  "I’m on the transitory side, although not with high certainty" - May 2021.  He dismissed concerns about a housing bubble in the 2000s.  Duh.  Krugman keeps arguing that deficits (and consequently debt) don't matter.  He opposed letting people keep more of the money they make.  Trump's election in 2016 "would trigger a global recession “with no end in sight.”"

And the best (most idiotic) from 1998:

“The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in ‘Metcalfe’s law’—which states that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the square of the number of participants—becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other! By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s.”

He is a good contrary indicator to what is good for the world and freedom.  "Do the opposite."

[Luzin]

I don't know much about Paul Krugman, but scientifically it seems that he is indeed an economist and is famous for his accuracy in his predictions. I read on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman.

Is his opinion correct? I think that's just a small part. There are still many users who are helped by crypto. There are still many people whose economic conditions are getting better. We just need to see evidence of how Bitcoin develops in the future.

[Silberman]

This guy may have made sense, though I suspect he's a Democrat. Apart from early holders making a killing off Bitcoin, how has it benefitted the world economy? Your opinion though...

Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman said that Tech-bro's support for Trump and Vance seems to be related to cryptocurrency/ He said that in reality. Bitcoin is still economically useless and useful just for money laundering and extortion. He described Trump's call for the creation of some kind of national Bitcoin reserve as equivalent to the government rescuing a scandal-ridden, value- and environment-destroying industry.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/29/opinion/vance-trump-cryptocurrency.html 

This is a scrapped reasoning for one who doesn't know what Bitcoin stands for and aims at.

As I have had so many useful financial encounters with Bitcoin, I can't follow others to give a condemnable remark on Bitcoin all because people are using Bitcoin for money laundering and extortion. That would be so weird of me

What I can deduce from this, people easily give negative remarks about Bitcoin when they fall victim to a scam or hear news of how people use it wrongly. They will hate it because of that, without trying to know other useful part of it of how it has helped people's financial status.

Nevertheless, the opinion of economist, Paul Krugman doesn't count and it doesn't have any single weight to disrupt Bitcoin from reaching its goal of being widely accepted globally in the future

This goes beyond that, economists are part of the system and most of them do not see how the economy could work other than by employing the same concepts governments implement right now, so bitcoin that does not follows those principles is alien to them, and if we add that many governments still view bitcoin with suspicious eyes due to its nature, then it is obvious the majority of the economists will be against it too, so I am not surprised when reading someone like him making those kind of statements.

[headingnorth]

Paul Krugman is the economist who predicted that the internet would have no more impact on the economy than the fax machine and that it would die out by 2005.

I think Krugman should be forced to return his Nobel Prize for making such an idiotic statement. The internet has had a massive impact on the worldwide economy, and it has certainly not died out.


www.businessinsider.com/paul-krugman-responds-to-internet-quote-2013-12

[legiteum]

Paul Krugman is the economist who predicted that the internet would have no more impact on the economy than the fax machine and that it would die out by 2005.

I think Krugman should be forced to return his Nobel Prize for making such an idiotic statement. The internet has had a massive impact on the worldwide economy, and it has certainly not died out.


www.businessinsider.com/paul-krugman-responds-to-internet-quote-2013-12

Einstein very had bad marriage advice. Should he return his Nobel in physics because of that?

Many millions of people failed to predict... thousands of things. What did you buy your Bitcoin at, anyhow? If it's anything more than $0.10 per Bitcoin, then you are the same as Krugman.

[kawetsriyanto]

This man is a Bitcoin hater. He has been spreading negative statements about Bitcoin since many years ago. So, it is not surprising if he keeps criticizing Bitcoin until now. There are some big questions related to this article, why the media blow up his statement? and why the media asks him about Trump-Vance strategy supporting Bitcoin? I smell something suspicious with the media, they are likely trying to reduce Trump-Vance popularity. This is all related to the political issue of the American presidential election.  

Here are Paul Krugman's statements since many years ago:
1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/markrogowsky/2014/10/05/krugmania-as-bitcoins-price-falls-the-nyt-pundit-takes-a-very-premature-victory-lap/
2. https://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/news/2014/10/06/why-economist-paul-krugman-still-hates-bitcoin.html
3. https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/currencies/paul-krugman-nyt-bitcoin-crypto-digital-payments-fraud-ponzi-scheme-2022-9
4. https://www.investopedia.com/news/what-paul-krugmans-problem-bitcoin/

By the way, it is non sense if he said Bitcoin is economically useless. There will be no big players in Bitcoin investment if it is useless. Microstrategy, Tesla, and other big companies won't be interested in holding Bitcoin if it doesn't bring any value in economical aspect. Just ignore any statements of Paul Krugman, he only wants to spread the hates and negative perception on Bitcoin!

[The Great Kardoko]

I do not expect a nobel prize-winning economist to say something like this. They will not know anything about bitcoin but prefer to start misinforming people and feeding them with wrong information.

Yeah, with all that fancy learnin book knowledge.

[Abiky]

This is a scrapped reasoning for one who doesn't know what Bitcoin stands for and aims at.

As I have had so many useful financial encounters with Bitcoin, I can't follow others to give a condemnable remark on Bitcoin all because people are using Bitcoin for money laundering and extortion. That would be so weird of me

What I can deduce from this, people easily give negative remarks about Bitcoin when they fall victim to a scam or hear news of how people use it wrongly. They will hate it because of that, without trying to know other useful part of it of how it has helped people's financial status.

Nevertheless, the opinion of economist, Paul Krugman doesn't count and it doesn't have any single weight to disrupt Bitcoin from reaching its goal of being widely accepted globally in the future

Opinions are opinions. What matters is what Bitcoin truly is and what benefits it provides to holders. I believe most so-called experts and wealthy individuals tag Bitcoin as a "useless cryptocurrency" out of pure hate. They don't care if BTC continues to grow in mainstream adoption and market price. All these people want is to destroy Bitcoin so Fiat continues to dominate the world as usual. They're all sided with banks and governments.

I'd just ignore these jerks and keep buying and holding Bitcoin as usual. We'll be the ones laughing at the end once the world becomes "hyperbitcoinized". Who knows if BTC will go as far as becoming legal tender in every country in the world? With how fast Bitcoin's been growing since day one, anything's possible. Hold on tight as this is going to be a wild ride.

[MainIbem]

People like this when you respect them better when you see them from afar. That way you'll continue to rate based on what they have done and the views you see than portray, but when you go deeper and see where they stand you might get disappointed.
We have a noble prize winner from my country too whom the whole country looked up to. Growing up he was used as the SI unit of intelligence (if you know what I mean). Fast forward to now, he's a strong supporter of our current government which is a disgrace. The government is so bad that whoever defends it sounds stupid and that's what this noble prize winner has turned to.

Another thing is these men are pretty old school and have refused to evolve. They believe in the traditional way of things. I read through the article and he makes sense to a certain degree and that's what I've come to conclude that it's just his opinion. I strongly always say that we shouldn't give people too much relevance in the Bitcoin space, not politicians like Trump. not Tech billionaires like Elon Musk, not Financial sector billions like Jamie Dimon, and certainly not noble prize winners like Paul Krugman.
Each of these people has their own opinions and their opinions are shaped by different things but its just their opinion, they're not bitcoin.

Looking at the OP's topic, I was forced to open the thread and go through the message he was trying to pass and all I've got to say is that the so called economist and noble price whatever is saying thrash I'm even wondering how he won the noble price, I think he's a one of those Bitcoin haters who can't stand it's decentralization and is still hoping it would be controlled by the government. Well, if my instincts are right about him then he's a loser cause Bitcoin is a decentralised crypto asset that is ran by it's miners and everyday users without the control of any institution, financial sectors or the government and that's one way it's benefited the world economically not to talk of the transaction speed when carrying out transactions anywhere at any point in time. Moreover when it comes to asset class Bitcoin has proved over time to be a very good asset for investment and I won't be suprised if such hypocrite called Paul Krugman is holding Bitcoin currently.

[headingnorth]

Paul Krugman is the economist who predicted that the internet would have no more impact on the economy than the fax machine and that it would die out by 2005.

I think Krugman should be forced to return his Nobel Prize for making such an idiotic statement. The internet has had a massive impact on the worldwide economy, and it has certainly not died out.


www.businessinsider.com/paul-krugman-responds-to-internet-quote-2013-12

Einstein very had bad marriage advice. Should he return his Nobel in physics because of that?

What a dumb comparison, even dumber than Krugman's prediction about the internet.
Marriage advice has nothing to do with Einstein's profession which was physics. Dear God.

Did you flunk out of kindergarten? You have the reasoning and intellect of a 2 year old.

[Pandu Geddon]

Looking at the OP's topic, I was forced to open the thread and go through the message he was trying to pass and all I've got to say is that the so called economist and noble price whatever is saying thrash I'm even wondering how he won the noble price, I think he's a one of those Bitcoin haters who can't stand it's decentralization and is still hoping it would be controlled by the government. Well, if my instincts are right about him then he's a loser cause Bitcoin is a decentralised crypto asset that is ran by it's miners and everyday users without the control of any institution, financial sectors or the government and that's one way it's benefited the world economically not to talk of the transaction speed when carrying out transactions anywhere at any point in time. Moreover when it comes to asset class Bitcoin has proved over time to be a very good asset for investment and I won't be suprised if such hypocrite called Paul Krugman is holding Bitcoin currently.

he would rather not have it and be a slave to the bank forever.
his view on Bitcoin is valid, because he may not like Bitcoin. but of course, it will get strong opposition from all of us who have felt how to get economic benefits from investing and using Bitcoin.
I wonder how he would feel if in the future the government would finally legalize Bitcoin as legal tender in most parts of the world. would he still hold on to his opinion?

[EarnOnVictor]

This guy may have made sense, though I suspect he's a Democrat. Apart from early holders making a killing off Bitcoin, how has it benefitted the world economy? Your opinion though...

Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman said that Tech-bro's support for Trump and Vance seems to be related to cryptocurrency/ He said that in reality. Bitcoin is still economically useless and useful just for money laundering and extortion. He described Trump's call for the creation of some kind of national Bitcoin reserve as equivalent to the government rescuing a scandal-ridden, value- and environment-destroying industry.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/29/opinion/vance-trump-cryptocurrency.html 

For real, this guy is making a point, but the issue is that people do not look at it from the economics perspective but from the investment perspective that can only enrich some sectional individuals (if it works because there are risks involved) but not a country. Can Bitcoin be used to adjust a country's inflation? No. Can it be reasonably used to secure a national reserve? No.

Trump is just a desperate person who is using people's weakness against them. I wonder how a country would feel if it had a $100B domicile in Bitcoin in its reserve and Bitcoin dropped significantly as it does during the bearish season. Such an amount could have devalued to $25B in some situations if we consider the past record to judge. Now tell me, do you think the National Reserve is a joke? Think of it, some central banks are using the reserve to adjust their FX deficit most time where they could remove about $2B at times for the national economic stability.

How would they feel if they were selling their Bitcoin at a cheap price when they bought it expensive and they couldn't wait because the matter is of pressing national need? These are just a few of many reasons to discourage any economist from going in the way of Trump and Bitcoin bigots. Notwithstanding, Bitcoin still has its usefulness aside from what Paul Krugman claimed.

[cr1776]

I don't know much about Paul Krugman, but scientifically it seems that he is indeed an economist and is famous for his accuracy in his predictions. I read on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman.

Is his opinion correct? I think that's just a small part. There are still many users who are helped by crypto. There are still many people whose economic conditions are getting better. We just need to see evidence of how Bitcoin develops in the future.

Krugman is often wrong.  And not just because he is anti-liberty, but because his predictions are often way off-base.  Of course he has to say certain things because his masters want power and they need people like him to help them obtain it and keep it.

[coolcoinz]

And no Bitcoin transaction takes "a second", they can take up to 30 minutes which is exactly what Bitcoin and blockchain were designed to do. And each transaction can cost up to $30, whereas the most expensive credit card transaction only costs a dollar or two.

I'm not going to educate you here because the more things you say, the better.
I've already proven how little you know about politics in other threads and now I see you ranting about bitcoin.

Technically, you can pay a million dollars for a bitcoin transaction, but it won't change the fact that you can get a first block confirmation for under $10. The tx will get propagated within seconds. If you think it's reversible after a few seconds because it hasn't been confirmed yet, just prove it. Send me some BTC, pay $6, which is going to be 5x lower fee than what you claim it costs to send a tx, so you'll have a very slow confirmation time and then reverse it, because according to you it takes up to 30 minutes to send a tx paying $30, so you'll have 5x that time of time to get your money back. More than enough if you ask me, should be easy

[legiteum]

Technically, you can pay a million dollars for a bitcoin transaction, but it won't change the fact that you can get a first block confirmation for under $10.

Certainly for very large transactions, Bitcoin can be cheaper than a bank transfer sometimes. And faster. But that is perhaps 0.01% of the world's daily transactions.

The tx will get propagated within seconds. If you think it's reversible after a few seconds because it hasn't been confirmed yet, just prove it.

Bitcoin transactions are "reversible" in the same way credit card transactions are: you issue a new transaction to counteract the first one.

If you understood basic technical stuff, you'd understand that a bank does not delete records when they "reverse a transaction". I'm not going to spend a bunch of time trying to explain it all here, but if you google it, you'd learn that... that's not how it works.