4 ms·
If you look at how WSJ treats any subject, particularly bitcoin, you'll see that they are just a media company catering to their paying advertisers/audience. T
by blunte 9y ago
If you look at how WSJ treats any subject, particularly bitcoin, you'll see that they are just a media company catering to their paying advertisers/audience. The substance of what they write is often questionable, if not out-right wrong.
With respect to bitcoin, WSJ was slightly curious, then quite suspicious, then outright negative, then cautiously optimistic, then very bullish, then "DO YOU HAVE A BLOCKCHAIN?!", and now reigning in some of their foolish enthusiasm (about how blockchains will revolutionize _everything_).
Like any successful politician, telling different stories at different times will satisfy more people.
- consz 9y agoIsn't this just an artifact of different writers having differing opinions on Bitcoin? I see no reason why a magazine with N > 1 writers should have a consistent opinion across the board on bitcoins (or anything).
- jankotek 9y agoI think OP complains about quality, not consistency. > So is a single bitcoin worth $500,000, $5,000, $500 or $0? I’m inclined to say $0 > The digital currency’s value depends on it becoming digital gold—or on criminals This is opinion (aka bu*hit).