3 ms·
> Since then, bitcoin has thrived, and so has cryptocurrency in general. BTC is up 100x since Peter posted his original article. This kind of argument shows up
by AlexandrB 5y ago
> Since then, bitcoin has thrived, and so has cryptocurrency in general. BTC is up 100x since Peter posted his original article.
This kind of argument shows up a lot, but is a classic example of "appeal to popularity". Whether bitcoin goes to $0 or $1,000,000 is mostly irrelevant when discussing technological and practical merits of bitcoin.
Where the price of bitcoin is relevant is when discussing it as a speculative investment. So what tends to happen is a conversation that was supposed to be about blockchain technology turns into one about blockchain speculative investing. This and appeals to greed/FOMO ("have fun staying poor") tend to drive me nuts about a lot of blockchain discussions.
> A lot of anti-bitcoin crowd gets ego invested in their opposition, and the result is articles like this, which misunderstand the fundamentals of bitcoin.
If a "no-coiner" has high ego investment in their position, what level of ego investment does someone holding cryptocurrency have? And what specifically does this article misunderstand about the fundamentals of bitcoin? Just stating that the article misunderstands something is not a very strong argument or rebuttal.
- audleman 5y agoThe article claims that bitcoin transactions are reversible, which they are not. He substitues the feds seizing the private keys and making new transactions as reversals.
- lxgr 5y agoSure, that is what the article literally says ("the Feds can move your Bitcoin without your private keys!"), but I think the point he's trying to make is more along the lines of "in-system transaction finality isn't everything".
- exolymph 5y agoThe point is that he's so wrong about the highest-order bit, and unable to admit it, that it makes no sense to listen to him about the details.