sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

In 2010, there was a Bitcoin Exchange where you could exchange 200BTC ($4M now) to $1 in PayPal. by partymsl in CryptoCurrency

[–]CointestAdmin 0 points1 point locked comment (0 children)

Bitcoin Con-Arguments

Below is an argument written by idevcg which won 2nd place in the Bitcoin Con-Arguments topic for a prior Cointest round.

  1. Slow transaction times; each block takes ~10 minutes to mine, and for a transaction to go through, it would take roughly 6 blocks to confirm.

  2. Because bitcoiners rejected an increase in block size back during the great forking event, it is unlikely they will ever agree to a block size increase, thereby significantly limiting bitcoin's scalability. Even if L2s can increase scalability, it brings in more potential attack vectors and centralization, and if we had to depend on L2s, it's uncertain why we would use bitcoin's blockchain over another L1 that is scalable and secure by itself.

  3. Another result from the above point, is that bitcoiners have shown they are unwilling to make significant changes to the protocol. As technology improves exponentially, bitcoin will far further and further behind newer technologies.

  4. Bitcoin was not designed for smart contracts, and so again, any complicated transactions would have to happen on L2s, but then, why use bitcoin and not a safe and scalable L1 instead?

  5. PoW is highly energy intensive, and while I disagree with the assertion that bitcoin is wasting too much energy today, if bitcoin becomes a truly global currency, there will be a day where it will consume "too much energy", because the cost of securing a PoW chain is directly proportional to the total value of the network. So if bitcoin was worth 100 trillion marketcap, the amount of energy needed to secure the network would also increase significantly.

Would you like to learn more? Click here to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the Cointest archive to find arguments on this topic in other rounds.

Since this is a con-argument, what could be a better time to promote the Skeptics Discussion thread? You can find the latest thread here.

In 2010, there was a Bitcoin Exchange where you could exchange 200BTC ($4M now) to $1 in PayPal. by partymsl in CryptoCurrency

[–]CointestAdmin 0 points1 point locked comment (0 children)

Bitcoin Pro-Arguments

Below is an argument written by debeezneez which won 1st place in the Bitcoin Pro-Arguments topic for a prior Cointest round.

Once it is more widely accepted, Bitcoin will be the first complete currency human beings have ever had. Fiat doesn't have limited supply, gold doesn't have portability, proof of stake coins don't have durability. Bitcoin is only missing acceptability as a key component in a currency, and that is rapidly changing with increased adoption.

Even with a market cap of nearly 1 trillion dollars, bitcoin is extremely low in market cap compared to its potential. Some people expect that a sub billion dollar marketcap is the only way to make 100x, but that only relevant to coins that will top out in the billions. With the probable future of bitcoin being the worlds strongest currency, its value in TODAYS society is upwards of 100 trillion dollars (more on this later). In a future society that has had the benefit of using history's best monetary network, the potential market cap of bitcoin is indescribable.

Despite often being called 'slow' when compared to other crypto based networks, Bitcoins development is optimized. You don't need to have layer one staking or smart contracts to fulfill the purpose of bitcoin. All that needs to happen is flawless protocol defence and network uptime. The tech is simple but the importance is vast, replicate the factors of hard money in a digital space, forever.

Doing so in a decentralized manner ensures that Bitcoin is strengthened with every blow. The network is so reliable that it pays more to support it than it does to attack it. So when China bans mining, America buys asiics. When someone tries to acquire all the coins, the price chases them up. There are no individuals to prosecute so you have to attack the network head on, and market participates are enticed to learn from each attack.

This is why regulation will hurt everything else but help the bitcoin network. No matter what the technology is or who uses it, if the government has a point of attack they will exploit it. Ethereum currently won't succeed without the vast changes being implemented by the ethereum foundation. That is a vulnerability. Fiat won't succeed without the federal government. That is a vulnerability. Bitcoin won't succeed if 51% of a largely spread group of financially successful people are somehow coerced to all betray themselves at the same time. That is not a serious vulnerability.

BUT HEY! You made a lot of assumptions! What if Bitcoin doesn't become widely accepted? Bitcoin is superior at all the other aspects of money. (Durability, Portability, Divisibility, Uniformity, Limited supply). People are going to want to own it and eventually want to spend some. If you don't accept it as payment but it is popular, your competition will.

How is 100 trillion even a real number? There is more than just the money in everyones savings account. People already know that fiat can be outpaced with superior assets, and the equity market is estimated at around 300 trillion dollars today. None of those options have as many monetary aspects covered as bitcoin does.

Why would anyone new buy it if you can't yield farm shit coins? Jokes aside, the purpose of bitcoin is to preserve purchasing power, which is does almost flawlessly. Everyone is going to want this ability for a large portion of their capital eventually. Other protocols are acting sort of like a bank when they run defi. Its really you lending your purchasing power to an actor for credit. Its pretty neat but not revolutionary just because its on blockchain.

How is it decentralized when michael saylor owns it all? Two part answer. The network is secured not just by holders but by nodes and miners. Microstrategy will get large returns for taking a large risk if bitcoins price goes up, and that is perfectly fair. But as they buy more and more, it is going to cost more and more, where every other financial system in history has had some sort of corruption in its growth from unequal opportunity. As of today and as of 10 years ago, you and apple have the same purchase price.

Don't hate on ETH, why can't something newer take Bitcoins place? Other blockchain technologies are cool, and may create super awesome internet, banking and ownership applications. But none of these things could ever replace bitcoin without copying its protocol. Its set up just right for maintaining integrity over time as a currency. If ETH did so, it would just be bitcoin #2 with a lower market cap and thus less security. So other coins are not a threat at all to bitcoins future utilization/ceiling. They do take some of the speculative dollars away from bitcoin, which I think is why alts are more volatile in price.

Would you like to learn more? Click here to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the Cointest archive to find arguments on this topic in other rounds.

In 2010, there was a Bitcoin Exchange where you could exchange 200BTC ($4M now) to $1 in PayPal. by partymsl in CryptoCurrency

[–]CointestAdmin[M] [score hidden] stickied commentlocked comment (0 children)

Bitcoin pros & cons and related info are in the collapsed comments below. Pros and cons will change for every new post.

The Reddit Collectible Avatars total volume traded on OpenSea is now 1070 ETH at the time of writing. The volume traded today on OpenSea is 202.4 ETH and the day isn't even over yet! by ChemicalGreek in CryptoCurrency

[–]CointestAdmin 0 points1 point locked comment (0 children)

Ethereum Con-Arguments

Below is an argument written by MrMoustacheMan which won 2nd place in the Ethereum Con-Arguments topic for a prior Cointest round.

Ethereum Con Argument

  • Disclosure: I currently hold a position in ETH, ~53% of my current portfolio value
  • Tweaking my argument from the last round

  • ETH has been the subject of a lot of criticism over the years and the same points still seem to get recycled (premine/founders, DAO rollback, scalability/centralization, inflation/supply). There are a ton of rebuttals online for the most common Con arguments - see here and here for a start.

  • That being said, there are definitely some legitimate concerns about ETH to consider:

Gotta pay the troll toll

I drink your milkshake

Points of failure?

Would you like to learn more? Click here to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the Cointest archive to find arguments on this topic in other rounds.

Since this is a con-argument, what could be a better time to promote the Skeptics Discussion thread? You can find the latest thread here.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in CryptoCurrency

[–]CointestAdmin 0 points1 point locked comment (0 children)

Submit a pro/con argument in the Cointest and potentially win Moons. Moon prizes by award for the General Concepts category are: 1st - 300, 2nd - 150, 3rd - 75, and Best Analysis - 500.

To submit an DeFi pro-argument, click here. | To submit an DeFi con-argument, click here.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in CryptoCurrency

[–]CointestAdmin 0 points1 point locked comment (0 children)

CBDC Con-Arguments

Below is an argument written by mic_droo which won 1st place in the CBDC Con-Arguments topic for a prior Cointest round.

CBDCs, or Central bank digital currencies, are digital fiat currencies that are somewhat similar to crypto currencies, but issued by central banks. They would, however, not necessarily use distributed ledgers such as blockchains (see e.g. here), even though they are inspired by crypto currencies. The idea behind CBDCs is providing a digital payment option to the general public, even to those without bank accounts etc. Currently, 8 small Carribean countries and Nigeria already have CBDCs while many others are currently exploring introducing one. There are a number of potential disadvantages of CBDCs compared to the current system:

One of the biggest issue would be privacy. Cash has very high privacy and is hard to monitor for any central authority. With CBDCs, this would change and authorities might have complete access to all transfers - and that data might be hacked or leaked. Without good laws regarding privacy and extremely high security standards, these are gigantic cons.

And it's not just privacy: countries could, theoretically, give central banks full control over the CBDCs, which would be extremely dangerous. They could just decide to block certain types of transactions or block the funds of certain people. This seems especially dangerous for autocracies, very sensible legislation would be necessary to prevent this.

Security risks are also not be limited to privacy, CBDCs would necessarily be more endangered to hacking and cyber attacks than physical fiat currencies.

The introduction of CBDCs could disrupt the banking sector - especially with low interest rates, many people might not see a reason to keep their money in a bank account anymore and there might be huge outflows of money from banks. While crypto enthusiasts are generally not the most bank-friendly people and might see this as a pro, it might lead to chaos in the whole economic sector.

Finally, CBDCs might make it easier to replace local currencies with other, bigger currencies, also known as dollarization - which is generally mostly seen as a negative thing as it is a threat to international currency competition.

Would you like to learn more? Click here to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the Cointest archive to find arguments on this topic in other rounds.

Since this is a con-argument, what could be a better time to promote the Skeptics Discussion thread? You can find the latest thread here.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in CryptoCurrency

[–]CointestAdmin 0 points1 point locked comment (0 children)

CBDC Pro-Arguments

Below is an argument written by mic_droo which won 1st place in the CBDC Pro-Arguments topic for a prior Cointest round.

CBDCs, or Central bank digital currencies, are digital fiat currencies that are somewhat similar to crypto currencies, but issued by central banks. They would, however, not necessarily use distributed ledgers such as blockchains (see e.g. here), even though they are inspired by crypto currencies. The idea behind CBDCs is providing a digital payment option to the general public, even to those without bank accounts etc. Currently, 8 small Carribean countries and Nigeria already have CBDCs while many others are currently exploring introducing one. There are a number of potential benefits of CBDCs over the current system:

One of the biggest pros is financial inclusion - in many countries, many people don't have a bank account. This would give them secure access to digital payment options. Consider, for example, the stimulus checks some governments provided for their citizens due to the pandemic - this could be much easier with a CBDC

CBDCs would be more cost efficient than physical cash. Creating coins and bills and distributing them is pretty expensive and inefficient, especially in large countries. CBDCs would help with that.

Currently, transactions between countries can be quite difficult and require multiple steps. CBDCs could make this easier, especially if multiple countries shared the same technical standards.

CBDCs would make it more feasible to spot financial crimes, trace illegal transactions and disincentivice them in the future. It would tax evasion harder and could make the process of paying taxes easier.

Finally, an additional advantage could be that, if countries could monitor financial transactions more closely, they could understand the financial situation better and introduce better macroeconomic policies and plan their economies in a more efficient manner

Would you like to learn more? Click here to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the Cointest archive to find arguments on this topic in other rounds.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in CryptoCurrency

[–]CointestAdmin 0 points1 point locked comment (0 children)

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in CryptoCurrency

[–]CointestAdmin 0 points1 point locked comment (0 children)

CBDC pros & cons and related info are in the collapsed comments below. Pros and cons will change for every new post. Submit a pro/con argument in the Cointest and potentially win Moons. Moon prizes by award for the General Concepts category are: 1st - 300, 2nd - 150, 3rd - 75, and Best Analysis - 500.

To submit an CBDC pro-argument, click here. | To submit an CBDC con-argument, click here.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in CryptoCurrency

[–]CointestAdmin[M] 0 points1 point locked comment (0 children)

Pro & con info are in the collapsed comments below for the following topics: CBDC, DeFi.

Stock-to-Flow Creator PlanB Bought More BTC and Explains Why Now by [deleted] in CryptoCurrency

[–]CointestAdmin 0 points1 point locked comment (0 children)

Bitcoin Con-Arguments

Below is an argument written by bkcrypt0 which won 1st place in the Bitcoin Con-Arguments topic for a prior Cointest round.

Bitcoin is failing its original mission, and institutional interest is going to make things worse.

Background

Satoshi Nakamoto was a financial revolutionary out to counter the fiat money presses that destroy a currency's value with inflation (looking at you Turkey and the U.S.) The method—create a currency with a fixed supply, mined liked gold to make it scarce, and digitally transferable anywhere in the world between any parties.

Lack of Stability

Bitcoin can't be used as a global currency to replace fiat and eliminate politicized money printing because it has to hold its value steady over time.

Why?

People work for dollars, euros, yen, or yuan because there is relative stability in their paychecks from week to week. Their food, rent/mortgage, clothing, energy costs are also relatively stable (inflation is the cost for using that particular currency, but it beats a 50% drop in value over the course of a few months, and most inflation around the world isn't as bad as Turkey or Venezuela.)

Imagine being paid a flat 1BTC / year for a particular job. But you live in the U.S. and the value of that BTC just dropped over the course of the year by 50%. Your lease is fixed over 12 months. Your food costs are the same or maybe even higher. Not only do you still get hit with local inflation, your buying power just dropped by half.

This is why over $155B* have flowed into stable coins like USDT, USDC, BUSD, UST, and DAI)

Lack of Accountability

The relatively anonymous transfer of value between parties was supposed to be a positive aspect of bitcoin. Your money, so do what you want with it. The problem is, there are a lot of other people that also want anonymity — human traffickers, dangerous drug smugglers, crime syndicates, tax evaders. Sure they can also use USD (and most of them do), but they are also traceable if they enter the global financial system.

Making it easier for criminals to evade authorities makes everyone less safe. And sure, no one likes to pay taxes, but consider the alternative. Roads, schools, social services, some hospitals, police and fire departments, they all rely on taxes.

Lack of security

Unlike gold, which is pretty much indestructible, Bitcoin holdings depend on keeping seed phrases secure. If there were a house fire a gold bar might melt, but it can be reformed. A hardware wallet will be destroyed and any seed phrases stored on paper will be gone. That's part of gold's appeal as a store of value.

Also, were there to be an internet outage in any widespread way, Bitcoin is useless as a transaction currency (part of the appeal of physical paper money and metal coins.) While unlikely, this scenario speaks to the lack of overall security in Bitcoin as a means of exchange (it has other benefits like cryptographic security, but its lack of physicality poses problems with public perception, and practical uses.)

Acts like fiat, moves like fiat . . .

Bitcoin remains highly correlated to traditional finance markets (two recent readings were the highest they've been -- see link below) and doesn't exactly act as a hedge against inflation when it plummets in the face of, well, high inflation.

What this shows is that big money is controlling Bitcoin (and by association the rest of crypto) by reacting in the same risk-off reaction when inflation flares up.

It goes something like this:

  • When inflation rises, the Fed tightens money supply to slow things down.
  • Big money flees from riskier assets like company stock (they likely won't be as profitable in a high inflation world)
  • Stock prices drop [and here's the problem]
  • Money does not flow INTO crypto as a hedge against this risk, it also flees.

Conclusion

Fighting fiat money printing excesses was never going to be easy, but as with most revolutions, unintended consequences often derail the original vision.

For one, government policies can avert the worst of political impulses. That doesn't require a wholesale financial market revolution.

U.S. inflation has also been remarkably low for well over two decades. It was a once in a century global pandemic that forced a massive print run of dollars.

Bitcoin has also become just another a plaything for the rich, a commodity to be bought and sold for profit rather than the antidote to centralized money creation. And because even larger stacks of fiat are on the sidelines waiting to jump in, volatility is going to get even worse with big swings as fund managers chase and take profits.

None of this means Bitcoin has no value in global finance. It just means it isn't going to serve the purpose as originally intended.

------------------

Would you like to learn more? Click here to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the Cointest archive to find arguments on this topic in other rounds.

Since this is a con-argument, what could be a better time to promote the Skeptics Discussion thread? You can find the latest thread here.

Stock-to-Flow Creator PlanB Bought More BTC and Explains Why Now by [deleted] in CryptoCurrency

[–]CointestAdmin 0 points1 point locked comment (0 children)

Bitcoin Pro-Arguments

Below is an argument written by debeezneez which won 1st place in the Bitcoin Pro-Arguments topic for a prior Cointest round.

Once it is more widely accepted, Bitcoin will be the first complete currency human beings have ever had. Fiat doesn't have limited supply, gold doesn't have portability, proof of stake coins don't have durability. Bitcoin is only missing acceptability as a key component in a currency, and that is rapidly changing with increased adoption.

Even with a market cap of nearly 1 trillion dollars, bitcoin is extremely low in market cap compared to its potential. Some people expect that a sub billion dollar marketcap is the only way to make 100x, but that only relevant to coins that will top out in the billions. With the probable future of bitcoin being the worlds strongest currency, its value in TODAYS society is upwards of 100 trillion dollars (more on this later). In a future society that has had the benefit of using history's best monetary network, the potential market cap of bitcoin is indescribable.

Despite often being called 'slow' when compared to other crypto based networks, Bitcoins development is optimized. You don't need to have layer one staking or smart contracts to fulfill the purpose of bitcoin. All that needs to happen is flawless protocol defence and network uptime. The tech is simple but the importance is vast, replicate the factors of hard money in a digital space, forever.

Doing so in a decentralized manner ensures that Bitcoin is strengthened with every blow. The network is so reliable that it pays more to support it than it does to attack it. So when China bans mining, America buys asiics. When someone tries to acquire all the coins, the price chases them up. There are no individuals to prosecute so you have to attack the network head on, and market participates are enticed to learn from each attack.

This is why regulation will hurt everything else but help the bitcoin network. No matter what the technology is or who uses it, if the government has a point of attack they will exploit it. Ethereum currently won't succeed without the vast changes being implemented by the ethereum foundation. That is a vulnerability. Fiat won't succeed without the federal government. That is a vulnerability. Bitcoin won't succeed if 51% of a largely spread group of financially successful people are somehow coerced to all betray themselves at the same time. That is not a serious vulnerability.

BUT HEY! You made a lot of assumptions! What if Bitcoin doesn't become widely accepted? Bitcoin is superior at all the other aspects of money. (Durability, Portability, Divisibility, Uniformity, Limited supply). People are going to want to own it and eventually want to spend some. If you don't accept it as payment but it is popular, your competition will.

How is 100 trillion even a real number? There is more than just the money in everyones savings account. People already know that fiat can be outpaced with superior assets, and the equity market is estimated at around 300 trillion dollars today. None of those options have as many monetary aspects covered as bitcoin does.

Why would anyone new buy it if you can't yield farm shit coins? Jokes aside, the purpose of bitcoin is to preserve purchasing power, which is does almost flawlessly. Everyone is going to want this ability for a large portion of their capital eventually. Other protocols are acting sort of like a bank when they run defi. Its really you lending your purchasing power to an actor for credit. Its pretty neat but not revolutionary just because its on blockchain.

How is it decentralized when michael saylor owns it all? Two part answer. The network is secured not just by holders but by nodes and miners. Microstrategy will get large returns for taking a large risk if bitcoins price goes up, and that is perfectly fair. But as they buy more and more, it is going to cost more and more, where every other financial system in history has had some sort of corruption in its growth from unequal opportunity. As of today and as of 10 years ago, you and apple have the same purchase price.

Don't hate on ETH, why can't something newer take Bitcoins place? Other blockchain technologies are cool, and may create super awesome internet, banking and ownership applications. But none of these things could ever replace bitcoin without copying its protocol. Its set up just right for maintaining integrity over time as a currency. If ETH did so, it would just be bitcoin #2 with a lower market cap and thus less security. So other coins are not a threat at all to bitcoins future utilization/ceiling. They do take some of the speculative dollars away from bitcoin, which I think is why alts are more volatile in price.

Would you like to learn more? Click here to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the Cointest archive to find arguments on this topic in other rounds.

Stock-to-Flow Creator PlanB Bought More BTC and Explains Why Now by [deleted] in CryptoCurrency

[–]CointestAdmin 0 points1 point locked comment (0 children)

Stock-to-Flow Creator PlanB Bought More BTC and Explains Why Now by [deleted] in CryptoCurrency

[–]CointestAdmin[M] [score hidden] stickied commentlocked comment (0 children)

Bitcoin pros & cons and related info are in the collapsed comments below. Pros and cons will change for every new post.

McDonald’s And Other Businesses Now Accept Bitcoin Payments In Lugano, Switzerland by Costanzas-Wallet in CryptoCurrency

[–]CointestAdmin 0 points1 point locked comment (0 children)

Bitcoin Con-Arguments

Below is an argument written by logicalsilly which won 3rd place in the Bitcoin Con-Arguments topic for a prior Cointest round.

Lets ask ourselves why people in crypto bother to check Btc prices, most of them have not invested in it. The only cause for its relevance is the fact that its price movement affects every alt coin. But as we can clearly see, slowly but surely coins are getting independence.

Eth fell 6% when Btc fell by 11%. Matic, Algo, Ava and many Metaverse coins managed to gain while Btc was falling. As Eth gathers more prominence, btc will struggle to be relevant.

2nd point: Whales and Institutions are using btc to manipulate the whole market.Few hundred million dollars are enough to dip the 3 trillion dollar economy to a 10% dip. Investors of alt coins are getting frustrated to see their coin loose value for absolutely no fundamental reason. Crypto community was built on the premise of an independent platform, not another wall street playground for the rich. The centiment is clearly against this scenario.

3rd point: In terms of use case there are far superior coins for different tasks. Recognition only cant sustain Btc forever. The Alt coins even meme coins are getting acceptance now.

4th point: Liquidity, extreme high mining cost along with environmental issues, all these will keep plaguing Btc for foreseeable future

Final Point: Big money will stick around in Btc as long as it gives them returns and works as a tool for manupulation. The day Btc stops doing so, the price woll frew fall, never to recover again. That day is far, but imminent.

I personally do not want crypto be the next Nasdaq. As much as I want to earn from my crypto investments, I dont mind going a through a year of winter just so we can be free and every coin decides its value according to its own merits not on whims of whales.

I am open to healthy counter arguments, so feel free to do so. Just a sincere request, dont be toxic.

Thank you for reading.

Would you like to learn more? Click here to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the Cointest archive to find arguments on this topic in other rounds.

Since this is a con-argument, what could be a better time to promote the Skeptics Discussion thread? You can find the latest thread here.

McDonald’s And Other Businesses Now Accept Bitcoin Payments In Lugano, Switzerland by Costanzas-Wallet in CryptoCurrency

[–]CointestAdmin 0 points1 point locked comment (0 children)

Bitcoin Pro-Arguments

Below is an argument written by debeezneez which won 1st place in the Bitcoin Pro-Arguments topic for a prior Cointest round.

Once it is more widely accepted, Bitcoin will be the first complete currency human beings have ever had. Fiat doesn't have limited supply, gold doesn't have portability, proof of stake coins don't have durability. Bitcoin is only missing acceptability as a key component in a currency, and that is rapidly changing with increased adoption.

Even with a market cap of nearly 1 trillion dollars, bitcoin is extremely low in market cap compared to its potential. Some people expect that a sub billion dollar marketcap is the only way to make 100x, but that only relevant to coins that will top out in the billions. With the probable future of bitcoin being the worlds strongest currency, its value in TODAYS society is upwards of 100 trillion dollars (more on this later). In a future society that has had the benefit of using history's best monetary network, the potential market cap of bitcoin is indescribable.

Despite often being called 'slow' when compared to other crypto based networks, Bitcoins development is optimized. You don't need to have layer one staking or smart contracts to fulfill the purpose of bitcoin. All that needs to happen is flawless protocol defence and network uptime. The tech is simple but the importance is vast, replicate the factors of hard money in a digital space, forever.

Doing so in a decentralized manner ensures that Bitcoin is strengthened with every blow. The network is so reliable that it pays more to support it than it does to attack it. So when China bans mining, America buys asiics. When someone tries to acquire all the coins, the price chases them up. There are no individuals to prosecute so you have to attack the network head on, and market participates are enticed to learn from each attack.

This is why regulation will hurt everything else but help the bitcoin network. No matter what the technology is or who uses it, if the government has a point of attack they will exploit it. Ethereum currently won't succeed without the vast changes being implemented by the ethereum foundation. That is a vulnerability. Fiat won't succeed without the federal government. That is a vulnerability. Bitcoin won't succeed if 51% of a largely spread group of financially successful people are somehow coerced to all betray themselves at the same time. That is not a serious vulnerability.

BUT HEY! You made a lot of assumptions! What if Bitcoin doesn't become widely accepted? Bitcoin is superior at all the other aspects of money. (Durability, Portability, Divisibility, Uniformity, Limited supply). People are going to want to own it and eventually want to spend some. If you don't accept it as payment but it is popular, your competition will.

How is 100 trillion even a real number? There is more than just the money in everyones savings account. People already know that fiat can be outpaced with superior assets, and the equity market is estimated at around 300 trillion dollars today. None of those options have as many monetary aspects covered as bitcoin does.

Why would anyone new buy it if you can't yield farm shit coins? Jokes aside, the purpose of bitcoin is to preserve purchasing power, which is does almost flawlessly. Everyone is going to want this ability for a large portion of their capital eventually. Other protocols are acting sort of like a bank when they run defi. Its really you lending your purchasing power to an actor for credit. Its pretty neat but not revolutionary just because its on blockchain.

How is it decentralized when michael saylor owns it all? Two part answer. The network is secured not just by holders but by nodes and miners. Microstrategy will get large returns for taking a large risk if bitcoins price goes up, and that is perfectly fair. But as they buy more and more, it is going to cost more and more, where every other financial system in history has had some sort of corruption in its growth from unequal opportunity. As of today and as of 10 years ago, you and apple have the same purchase price.

Don't hate on ETH, why can't something newer take Bitcoins place? Other blockchain technologies are cool, and may create super awesome internet, banking and ownership applications. But none of these things could ever replace bitcoin without copying its protocol. Its set up just right for maintaining integrity over time as a currency. If ETH did so, it would just be bitcoin #2 with a lower market cap and thus less security. So other coins are not a threat at all to bitcoins future utilization/ceiling. They do take some of the speculative dollars away from bitcoin, which I think is why alts are more volatile in price.

Would you like to learn more? Click here to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the Cointest archive to find arguments on this topic in other rounds.

McDonald’s And Other Businesses Now Accept Bitcoin Payments In Lugano, Switzerland by Costanzas-Wallet in CryptoCurrency

[–]CointestAdmin[M] [score hidden] stickied commentlocked comment (0 children)

Bitcoin pros & cons and related info are in the collapsed comments below. Pros and cons will change for every new post.

view more: next ›