Anyone who thought the Chinese government were going to ignore a mechanism that allowed people to bypass capital controls with impunity was pretty naive.
Bitcoin fanboys have classic tunnel vision - they're so enamoured of the libertarian ideal of an anonymous crypto-currency that's not controlled by any government, that they ignored all the practical, economic and legal challenges it would need to overcome before it could become a real currency.
It's a bit like the people who watched the moon landings on TV and believed that we'd have moonbases by the end of the 20th century. Technology needs time to develop and mature, and there typically needs to be a compelling commercial case for its adoption.
The technological principles that underpin Bitcoin will see more widespread adoption within the next few years but they'll be deployed within the pre-existing financial context, perhaps as a mechanism for OTC trading or to support real-time gross settlement in the wholesale markets. In the retail market, I envisage an M-Pesa-style digital payments/money-transfer solution that complements the the traditional banking and payments systems. We might see alternative currencies built on Bitcoin-style infrastructures but based on something that people value in a different way from dollars and cents (e.g. the rainforest).
But Bitcoin itself is too flawed from an economic perspective, too inefficient and too big a step to be able to function effectively as a currency within the current AML/sanctions-focused regulatory environment.
Bitcoin fanboys have classic tunnel vision - they're so enamoured of the libertarian ideal of an anonymous crypto-currency that's not controlled by any government, that they ignored all the practical, economic and legal challenges it would need to overcome before it could become a real currency.
I am always amazed by the condescending tone of know it all speculators who think they've got it all figured it out. Labeling bitcoin enthusiasts as fanboys is a trite rhetorical tactic to marginalize their opinions, but what's really hilarious is that your tense (they ignored all challenges, an obvious falsehood btw) seems to imply that you've somehow definitively demonstrated that bitcoin is destined for failure. Guess what? Bitcoin was chugging along just fine before the Chinese hit the scene, in fact, black market merchants had no problem accepting bitcoin as their primary source of payment long before the financial world had even heard of bitcoin. I applaud your risky predictions though (bitcoin will fail, the price will drop if a government clamps down on bitcoin, bitcoin technology will be used in future financial systems), truly marked insight, you should recommend a reading list.
Anyway, I expect you to headline the inevitable "Bitcoin Once Again Breaks 1k" thread with a post linking to your comment here, explaining why you were full of shit... Though, I won't hold my breath since intelligent individuals like yourself will always find a reason to consider bitcoin a failure until its adopted as legal tender (something that the "fanboys" realize is completely unnecessary for the success of bitcoin).
Blaming statements are pretty easy to spot if you know the signposts for them. Indicating a current outcome is 'predictable' because you said it was going to happen is a form of confirmation bias. Making a self referential comment to bolster his opinion sets the tone for the rest of the blaming argument that follows. Also, there the fact he didn't actually publicly call it first: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6818680.
As you point out, the terms 'fanboy', 'tunnel vision' and 'libertarian' can be tactics to market a particular opinion. Ad hominem arguments are always a good indication someone is making blaming statements. I'm personally enamored with the fact that cryptocurrencies instantiate trust at their core because trust is important to me. That's not necessarily a libertarian viewpoint, so clumping me in with a group of libertarians effectively blames me for something that I'm not guilty of. FWIW, I don't have a beef with Libertarians, and may be one for all I know.
BTW, making a coy remark about his 'intelligence' and speaking for his future actions are blaming statements in themselves. It isn't helping the conversation much by doing that.
BTW, making a coy remark about his 'intelligence' and speaking for his future actions are blaming statements in themselves. It isn't helping the conversation much by doing that.
I admit, that part of my response was intentionally provocative, though, just to clarify, I wasn't being sarcastic when I regarded him as intelligent, my intent was to highlight the fact that intelligent individuals like the GP who are convinced they can conclude the definitive future of bitcoin will continue to do so because their intelligence drives a hubris that less confident (i.e. intellectually honest) individuals lack. The people who are used to telling everyone how finance really works can't help but bash all the fanboys over the head with their intelligent conventional wisdom.
Indeed it's predictable that if the biggest buyer stops buying the prices will drop. You don't have to be a genius to figure that out.
The adoption of p2p technology, a protocol or a network has less to do with the quality of the technology itself, and more with the size of the network. Couldn't there be a better social network than FB? A better snapchat? A better Twitter? A better protocol than http?
Besides, too flawed from an economic perspective? Too inefficient? This is the rhetorical equivalent of "Spray and Pray"..
The current regulatory environment will not just disappear but itself. Bitcoin might win, bitcoin might lose, but there will be blood.
I think the comparison to moon bases is a little dramatic. The infrastructure exists already for Bitcoin, and there is a thriving Bitcoin ecosystem. Whether or not it continues to grow is the question.
My tendency is to not agree with you, mostly due to your tone - see my note to vectorpush below for clarification.
Regardless, I hear you in that there challenges to be overcome to effect wide-spread adoption of this technology platform into the current financial markets. There is always a constant challenge in architecting, securing and operating financial networks. Innovation in these areas never stops, and it is unreasonable to assume we're going to adopt something long term that is insecure or outright broken. We are driven by trust, greed and fear, after all. I don't trust you and I think you are going to steal my money. I love my money, so I will take measures to protect it long-term.
Bitcoin is complex, and I've observed people having difficulty digesting the details on how it works. One thing of value that appears to be overlooked is the fact that Bitcoin is being secured by individuals (miners) putting power into the system. That power is used to compute the encryption used to secure the coins. Some have put the time to crack a single bitcoin key at 82 billion years.
The fact that Bitcoin is secured via power put into the system, currently around 7 quadrillion hashes per second, needs to be considered when discussing adoption trends. The value brought to this market by that computing power cannot be ignored.
It is, to put it succinctly, a platform of trust powered by the most massive compute engine humanity has ever built.
I feel that the moon bases analogy is incredibly unfair. Bitcoin's utility has already been demonstrated, and, through that, the utility of decentralized digital currency in general. The remaining question isn't so much the long-term viability of this model as much as it is how far can it go?
Comparing it to the notion of a "moon base" is extreme on multiple levels, I guess one of them being that the actual demand for such is clearly minimal where as Bitcoin's adoption continues.
Bitcoin being banned by someone somewhere was a wholly inevitable and arguably necessary outcome. The positive spin on this news is that Bitcoin is on the radar at all to even be banned by anyone to begin with.
""they ignored all the practical, economic and legal challenges it would need to overcome before it could become a real currency""
Bitcoin is born liberated and will continue to, irrespective of governments giving their stance. What else would a 'fanboy' expect from established players?
Why are you patting yourself on the back for one of the most obvious predictions imaginable? What's next, a brilliant prediction that if the US government bans electric cars, Tesla's stock will crash?
Dreamers will dream, the grounded will copy and implement the best of their ideas, and some people will just look for something to claim is broken and stupid and pointless and doomed.
But even China can't stop bitcoin from being used in China. They just made it harder, that's all.
Bitcoin keeps getting adopted, the infrastructure is getting built, better software is being written. Whether you like it or not, it's getting more popular, that's just a fact.
I predict it will take Western Union and Money Gram and many smaller money transferers out of business in a few years. I'm sort-of confident it will take a significant portion of Paypal's business as well.
In some sense, I think the opposite. Bitcoin will succeed everywhere that PayPal and MoneyGram currently are failing. I suspect Bitcoin will replace a lot of cash and "valuables".
It may someday replace more "developed nations"/consumer-facing stuff like PayPal, but that will be a slow, politicized process fought in the arena of public sentiment. It will spread like wildfire in the arenas where there is currently no good means of transfer.
Anyone who thought the Chinese government were going to ignore a mechanism that allowed people to bypass capital controls with impunity was pretty naive.
Bitcoin fanboys have classic tunnel vision - they're so enamoured of the libertarian ideal of an anonymous crypto-currency that's not controlled by any government, that they ignored all the practical, economic and legal challenges it would need to overcome before it could become a real currency.
It's a bit like the people who watched the moon landings on TV and believed that we'd have moonbases by the end of the 20th century. Technology needs time to develop and mature, and there typically needs to be a compelling commercial case for its adoption.
The technological principles that underpin Bitcoin will see more widespread adoption within the next few years but they'll be deployed within the pre-existing financial context, perhaps as a mechanism for OTC trading or to support real-time gross settlement in the wholesale markets. In the retail market, I envisage an M-Pesa-style digital payments/money-transfer solution that complements the the traditional banking and payments systems. We might see alternative currencies built on Bitcoin-style infrastructures but based on something that people value in a different way from dollars and cents (e.g. the rainforest).
But Bitcoin itself is too flawed from an economic perspective, too inefficient and too big a step to be able to function effectively as a currency within the current AML/sanctions-focused regulatory environment.