Bitcoin is dead..because you're to dumb!


I love a good read for lunch.

Bitcoin is dead. Bitcoin is dead, cry the critics. Like vultures at a funeral, financial pundits are circling. Each one is vying to print their “I told you, so”‘s before the other – fighting like starving dogs over table scraps.

Benign Parsimony

Bitcoin is dead, they say again. Miner’s are shutting down. Services are running off with customer’s coins. Bitcoin is a Ponzi Scheme. The Bitcoin CEO was arrested. Bitcoin is for drugs and money laundering. The price is falling, the price is falling.

Hey… Henny Pennying is big business but I don’t picture these individuals as Chicken Littles. To me, they’re a pit of hungry vipers lashing out where ever their gut tells them.

The article continues with:

Ignorance is Not Tied to the Price of a Bitcoin.

No matter how badly the critics try to frame it that way. To most critics, this technology may as well be magic. Basing their opinion on the price instead of the technology reveals their ignorance. And that is not their fault. Computer Science is a specialized, creative, field. Most users of technology choose to ignore the happenings “under the hood” of their devices and software. That should not deprive them of their opinions of the devices or software.

However, to manufacture clamorous opinions and present them to others while maintaining that ignorance is not only irresponsible but insidious – the literal pretense of knowledge and deliberate misinformation.

The critics sell themselves short. They ignore the nascent technology that grew an $8b market cap. They forget that wealth is a side effect of innovation, a creative process, and anything but finite.

Bitcoin the technology is alive, well and here to stay. Bitcoin the price is just a side effect.

Read the full article on: CryptoCoinNews


Good read, (just your quoted sections) - writer is right, if they don’t take the time to understand what it is they’re attacking, they can’t help but do themselves a disservice by ignoring it. Then again, for many of us to grasp the potential for this technology we had to have had a motive and reason for doing so in the fist place :slight_smile:


Of course and you can’t expect everyone to become a blockchain geek. That’s just not realistic and who wants to be as smart as @Daffy or @AnimoEsto anyway :stuck_out_tongue:

However, the author reflected a lot of my thoughts and opinions in this article which is a good thing. Means I’m not as delusional as I thought :stuck_out_tongue:


Nope, certainly not delusional, plenty of people in crypto still having the flashing dollar signs in their eyes though. Like the write up on Bitbay too, btw. Interesting looking and I like the idea of collaboration between two different coins. I suppose I could have posted that comment over there though :slight_smile:


The points made are good, but there are many sides to this equation. Innovation for it’s own sake is fun, but ultimately worthless. For the block-chain to really thrive, for it to take over the world the way so many of us claim to want, it needs utility also - innovation with direction.

This is why price is important. Not so much for the trading, or for making money, but because, imperfect though it may be, price is a measure of the block-chain’s value to humanity. If it’s useful, people will use it, and when they do, the price tends to go up. Price is a barometer, letting us know if we’re bringing features to cryptocurrency that people need and want. Could I implement image transport on the block-chain, allowing people anywhere to share wonderful cat pictures with each other in a decentralized way? Probably, I have the programming skills required. Would that be an innovative feature? Most definitely - no one’s doing that yet, as far as I know. However, image transport via block-chain wouldn’t be a very useful feature, as we already have several technologies for sending images to each other, and the addition of the block-chain doesn’t really bring any added benefit. I would not expect the price of a coin to rise upon the announcement of such a feature.

We can discard price as an end goal, in cryptocurrency, and truly would be better off doing so. We can, and should, do so with every technology. However, we cannot ignore what the price tells us about the direction that technology is moving.


In theory you could but it would bloat the chain even more than it is already. You could however build this on a side-chain running on top / side by side with the blockchain. On the other hand, we got the bit-torrent protocol for that.

We can discard price as an end goal, in cryptocurrency, and truly would be better off doing so. We can, and should, do so with every technology. However, we cannot ignore what the price tells us about the direction that technology is moving.

Agree again. The price is certainly an indicator for the direction or popularity of the technology. Though you still have the speculators moving it around a lot and lets not forget dumps of stolen coins and so on. Bitcoin still has a lot of vulnerabilities that go beyond double spending or other exploits. Security, storage and so on.

Though in most cases it’s a short coming of those operating the hot wallets which is mind blowing since you would think that companies like Bitstamp for example would have the resources to prevent such things from happening.


Agreed. There’s not much need to innovate something with block-chain technology when we have an existing technology that already meets the need in a better way.

This is true, and most of the “hacks” that we see in crypto seem to stem from ignorance of the technologies involved, a mad rush to market, or plain old poor understanding of security in general. These aren’t really the block-chain’s fault, but until the various crypto service providers step up their security game a bit, it’s still going to appear to the outside world as if cryptocurrency is “insecure”.


What me baffles most is that bitcoin really is not evolving with all the rest. There are many coins out there that have very nice features build into their blockchain most of them are really not worth anything but the technology used is certainly innovative. So why does bitcoin not evolve take the interesting and good parts of all the alt-coins in existance and incorporate those into bitcoin. My first change would be implementing “kimoto gravity well difficulty algorithm” and reduce the block time to 1 minute and at the same time reduce the block reward to 2.5. Yes I know it would require a hard fork. Also where are the so called blockchain 2.0 features in bitcoin do they exist? Why not?


You pretty much said it all @Daffy. Main reason (imho) is that the Bitcoin Foundation has become fat and lazy, the other one is the hard-fork you’ve mentioned, They are scared of it. (Yes, it’s silly). However, you can still develop on top of the BTC chain or on a side-chain or at least make the alt SHA-256 that can be merge-mined.


I’ve seen many coins hardfork and if it is planned correctly there really is no problem. I remember talking to the coindev of nanotokens and even helped him a bit to do a hardfork and change the diff calculations to one block instead of the slower type I think it was 1000 blocks. It really is no big deal. If you plan it correctly and you inform the major players like the exchanges it will go off without a glitch.


I agree, still think that they are scared of doing it :slight_smile: