Oso planning to go pro
Wow, I'm very concerned for Benny. Being able to mimic Myron Medcalf's writing so closely implies an oncoming case of dementia.
Forbes.com ran a contributor piece this morning titled "Three Lies Bitcoin Skeptics Tell Themselves." The contributor/author is a cryptoid (read: crypto fan/owner/promoter) who is responding to another contributor piece titled "Seven Lies Bitcoin Fans Tell Themselves (And Anyone Who Will Listen)" that ran in December.In short, the three lies that skeptics tell themselves (according to the first piece) are:1) Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme2) Bitcoin is not secure3) Bitcoin cannot be used as moneySo here you have a cryptoid who's had over a month to respond to a "Bitcoin fan lies" article with his own "skeptic lies" article, yet these are the only three he could conjure? Moreover, I don't know of any crypto skeptic who has claimed Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme, so really, there are only two "lies" here, and both of the remainder are - at best - half lies (or half untruths?), i.e. granted Bitcoin is not not secure, but wallets and keys aren't always secure & Bitcoin can be used as money at some merchants, but it can't be used like money at all merchants.Moreover, half of his references are citing information coming from pro-crypto sources, e.g. coindesk, 99bitcoins, the author's previous work, etc.I'm actually working on a white paper discussing both sides of cryptos, and frankly, I've got 6 pages debunking the hype and explaining why cryptos are to be mostly avoided, but it's proving to be quite difficult to gather anything objective/empirical that would indicate a positive future for cryptos (not the future of blockchain... that's a different story) or its place in the global financial system just so I can present both sides. In fact, I'm having a hard time finding anyone who doesn't hold Bitcoin (or isn't being incentivized to promote it) who will suggest - or even speculate - that cryptos are a good investment.So I'm just going to be transparent here because evidently Benny's mad skillz are fading and trolling you cryptos in the hopes that you'll bombard me with something meaningful I can use simply isn't working. Someone please help me out here... make the case for cryptos without citing hype because the only thing I've seen is a WSJ link that Heisey posted which is actually more con/neutral than pro-crypto.Something peer-reviewed from another country would be ideal (preferably written or translated to English), but at this point I'd settle for anything written by anyone with any sort of objectivity with a Master's in any discipline so long as it's a notch about U of Phoenix.
Down 1 w 5 seconds left. Doable.
Jamie Dimon called Bitcoin a Ponzi Scheme a few months ago.As far as anything peer-reviewed, you will likely have to wait. As far as objective with a notch above U of Phoenix, there are a couple of decent blog posts by some good economists: https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2017/11/bitcoin-and-bubbles.htmlhttp://aswathdamodaran.blogspot.com/2017/10/bitcoin-backlash-back-to-drawing-board.htmlAnd FWIW, Nouriel Roubini--one of the few non-Austrian economists who predicted the burst of the Housing Bubble--claims that the crypto bubble will find its end (though he is bullish on blockchain technology more generally).
Bearish on bitcoin (or cryptos in general) and bullish on blockchain is code for "I don't understand what I'm saying." Nouriel is certainly in this camp. It's like being bullish on the internal combustion engine and bearish on the automobile. One is the technology and the other is the app. They need each other to work.
That?s simply not true. Just as the combustion engine has managed to find other applications outside the automobile (planes, boats, electrical generation, etc.), the excitement about blockchain technology from crypto skeptics comes from the realization of its potential for other applications (healthcare records, rights management, etc.) It certainly doesn?t need cryptos to be a successful technology.
Jamie Dimon seems to be backing off his statements that Bitcoin is a fraud.https://www.marketwatch.com/story/all-the-times-dimon-may-regret-bashing-bitcoin-in-one-chart-2018-01-09
Surprised it took this long for this story to be written ...Is Bitcoin Racist? (Review of "The Politics of Bitcoin")https://extranewsfeed.com/is-bitcoin-racist-2a548fc86e5f
Earlier this week (above) we had stories about South Korea cracking down on cryptoexchanges and China cracking down on miners. Both stories were not exactly true. South Korea is looking a regulation, not ban, ditto China and miners. (also see the Ethereum post above, a solution to the power usage of mining might be here)On the flipside, Venezuela is starting a cryptocurrency called the Petro and now Ukraine is thinking of getting in the game.https://news.bitcoin.com/calls-for-legal-bitcoin-in-ukraine-as-natsbank-mulls-e-fiat/Ukraine, now serious about crypto regulation, is setting up a special working group to oversee the completion of the necessary framework. Dedicated legislation has been making its way through parliament since October. The National Bank is considering plans to emit ?e-hryvnias?, while the justice minister says bitcoin is a fact and calls for its legalization.Why is this important? Two reasons1) The US is a laggard in cryptos. The third world and Asia are leading the charge into the area.2) If the third world and Asia are adopting cryptos, it becomes impossible to ban them. Because if you ban them, using these examples, then you are telling the American financial system they can no longer do business is Venezuela and Ukraine (and whoever else follows them). If you ban a country's currency, whatever form they decide it to be, then you ban US commerce from happening in that country.
Reasons are twofold. Americans and the rest of the world use the Dollar as a reserve currency so they will be slower to adopt. If Asia can exploit this and make BTC a reserve currency, it levels the playing field.
Not going to happen. Countries will not give up their control over currency. If anything, you will see nations create their own cryptos (like Venezuela and Ukraine) and we will see the US convert their currency over to a crypto...meaning the dollar stays and it is still the reserve currency, but the way transactions are handled will be shifted to a blockchain like model. That model will be altered substantially, to allow greater centralized control over the monetary system. If the dollar is not the reserve currency (a crypto dollar or the conventional dollar), it will be because the UN creates their own global crypto currency that will be a universal reserve currency.Currency manipulation by centralized governments is the bedrock of our economic system and the bedrock of capitalism. They will ensure it stays.
The highlighted part, that the Fed and/or Treasury will create a digital dollar is often given as a reason for why bitcoin or other non-government backed cryptos will die. But, if you think about it, this can never happen.While creating a Fed/Treasury-backed digital dollar, the Fed/Treasury would also have to offer a way to acquire and store them, like an electronic wallet. A Fed/Treasury-backed electronic wallet would end traditional banking and credit cards. If a Government-backed electronic wallet did exist, the need for a checking account (to store money) and/or a third party to transfer money (i.e., a debit or credit card) goes away. This function would be done for free by the Government's electronic wallet putting them in direct competition with banks and credit card companies. And since the Fed/Treasury has the best credit rating making them the safest financial institution, and would do it for no fee, banks would lose. If they charged a fee, they would be accused of supporting the banking system because the cost of running an electronic wallet is so low that they should charge no fee. This would be a political issue that they would not want to get into. I could see Liz Warren hammering them for not allowing the poor to have a free Fed electronic wallet on their mobile phone. Could the Fed create a digital currency and not offer a way for the public to acquire and transfer it? In other words, force someone to use a bank. Again, I think this would be politically difficult. A Government created digital currency, and ensuing electronic wallet would be embraced by lefties who want it to become a genuine alternative to banks, much like the Japanese postal savings system. Conservatives, led by the big banks, would rail against it as they see it as government competition with the private sector.Given that a government-backed digital currency would inflame both the left and the right, I do not see the Fed/Treasury wanting to step in the middle and willing become the punching bag of both sides.That said, the existing payment system really looks like an oligopoly that extracts massive rents from merchants (especially small ones) and it would be great to see someone try and disrupt it. As I wrote a few pages back, the ability to transfer money instantly, at no fee, and in micro-payments, is what the internet desperately needs. The financial system will never offer that. So they are ripe to be disrupted by something like a blockchain crypto.