To ask a very amateur question, why do people think Bitcoin specifically will succeed? Aren't there dozens of coins out there which have fixed some of it's most glaring flaws?
Out of all the coins, Bitcoin has the longest history of being an OK place to park money. History is probably the largest factor in people's decisions about which coin to park their money in. The fact that other coins solve various technical problems will continue to be a small factor as long as Bitcoin continues to avoid running into a disastrous technical problem.
First mover advantage is one rationale. It's a household name around the world, far moreso than any other crypto. My 80 year old grandpa who doesn't even know how to use a mouse or send an email is aware of the hype around Bitcoin.
There are also some advantages to being "simple". Competitors (like Ethereum) have more sophisticated features (such as smart contracts) and may scale better. But none are as battle hardened. Andreas Antonopoulos did a great talk "Bitcoin Security: Bubble Boy and the Sewer Rat"[1] describing how the platform has survived what's now ten straight years in the wild, exposed to the continuous pressure of hostile attacks. It's scarred and ugly as a result (with amputated opcodes and inelegant hacks) but he argues those are symptoms of resilience. And it is still being improved upon to adopt new ideas emerging from the space (eg. Lightning, Schnorr signatures) just at a slow and very cautious pace.
I can run (and sync) a full node on regular hardware, which isn't easy for more I/O intensive coins that have accreted a magnitude of order larger blockchain history. The HN crowd might appreciate the more traditional, native-looking UI of its client software over some of the Electron-like alternatives from other coins (which sometimes lack basic features like viewing history). It focuses on doing a few things well, namely being a wallet and sending and receiving units. That will always be a use case for transacting or storing wealth, and if that's all I'm doing, then I'd rather not have any other cruft.
You asked a really good question, and I personally suspect Bitcoin will eventually get supplanted by something else over the long term (as happens with any tech!). At some point the advantages gained from a clean, ground-up rewrite will surpass the stickiness of its global adoption. But I've come to believe that will take a lot longer than I initially anticipated.
We're already seeing vastly improved power efficiency out of alternative consensus mechanisms like Proof of Stake, and its still very early days for this industry and its technology.
While most of my comparisons above contrast Bitcoin to Ethereum (its biggest competitor) you are correct there are oodles of alternatives to pick from. Some purport cleaner tech stacks and demonstrate superior transaction volume scalability (like EOS).
Analysts have said crypto today is reminiscent of the plethora of startups seen during the dot-com bubble. The survivors were companies that hadn't even been invented yet (like Twitter, Netflix, Google depending when is your cutoff) and the boring but steadfast ones (like Amazon, eBay, Yahoo). So if you accept Bitcoin as falling in the latter camp there's some comfort in placing your bets there compared to newer, more "unknown" options.
In context, this just looks like a poorly worded sentence. I think they meant that Ray Dalio is a Bitcoin skeptic who is part of the hedge fund industry.
Either way, I don't see anything newsworthy in this article.
I see Tether and USDC market cap has been increasing considerably last weeks while DAI has not.
Do you think this is because Tether/USDC are more easily to be printed (aka not backed by real USD) compared to DAI that is decentralized?
The fact the article doesn’t cover this at all except for a passing mention of USDT as “pegged” (talk about legitimizing!) is really all you need to know about the fluffiness of this article. We are at cotton candy levels of writing here.
Well, Bitcoin's stability increases all the time and it will continue attracting more risk averse investments. Institutions are also more strategic in their investments, which will increase but also stabilize the price even further. That's basically the story why it's attractive for speculators right now. It might be 'get rich quick scheme' but also becoming a stable store of value.
The most positive thing I can say about that chart is that volatility was higher when price last was at these levels, but I wouldn't claim a downtrend.
Lol, old thinkers who are towing the party line and are also grumpy they missed out. Most "trustworthy" financial news outlets are all pushing messaging that Bitcoin is too risky and to avoid it like the plague. However in a "Great Reset" environment coming upon us fast having ways to move wealth with fewer restrictions suddenly become very attractive. Compare the price charts of gold and bitcoin for this year. They rise together pretty well until the election. Then suddenly gold flatlined and Bitcoin started trending upwards again. Regardless of your theory of what a Biden administration means for the country, the market says people want freedom and independence from whatever is coming.
No, people want to get rich quick and that’s it. Nobody is buying Bitcoin as a store of value. Everybody buys because they put a bet on the narrative "Bitcoin could easily be worth 100k-200k". This is 100% speculation and nothing else.
Regardless of your theory of what a Biden administration means for the country, the market says people want freedom and independence from whatever is coming
I think that's an odd way to read BTC pricing. The number of people buying because bitcoin represents freedom is significantly lower than the number of people buying simply because they're speculating that the price will go up some more. If those people decide to cash out their gains the price will go down again. There's nothing inherently more free about bitcoin at $18000 than there is at $12000. The value is not linked to the politics.
[+] [-] dddbbb|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] frank2|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rkagerer|5 years ago|reply
There are also some advantages to being "simple". Competitors (like Ethereum) have more sophisticated features (such as smart contracts) and may scale better. But none are as battle hardened. Andreas Antonopoulos did a great talk "Bitcoin Security: Bubble Boy and the Sewer Rat"[1] describing how the platform has survived what's now ten straight years in the wild, exposed to the continuous pressure of hostile attacks. It's scarred and ugly as a result (with amputated opcodes and inelegant hacks) but he argues those are symptoms of resilience. And it is still being improved upon to adopt new ideas emerging from the space (eg. Lightning, Schnorr signatures) just at a slow and very cautious pace.
I can run (and sync) a full node on regular hardware, which isn't easy for more I/O intensive coins that have accreted a magnitude of order larger blockchain history. The HN crowd might appreciate the more traditional, native-looking UI of its client software over some of the Electron-like alternatives from other coins (which sometimes lack basic features like viewing history). It focuses on doing a few things well, namely being a wallet and sending and receiving units. That will always be a use case for transacting or storing wealth, and if that's all I'm doing, then I'd rather not have any other cruft.
You asked a really good question, and I personally suspect Bitcoin will eventually get supplanted by something else over the long term (as happens with any tech!). At some point the advantages gained from a clean, ground-up rewrite will surpass the stickiness of its global adoption. But I've come to believe that will take a lot longer than I initially anticipated.
We're already seeing vastly improved power efficiency out of alternative consensus mechanisms like Proof of Stake, and its still very early days for this industry and its technology.
While most of my comparisons above contrast Bitcoin to Ethereum (its biggest competitor) you are correct there are oodles of alternatives to pick from. Some purport cleaner tech stacks and demonstrate superior transaction volume scalability (like EOS).
Analysts have said crypto today is reminiscent of the plethora of startups seen during the dot-com bubble. The survivors were companies that hadn't even been invented yet (like Twitter, Netflix, Google depending when is your cutoff) and the boring but steadfast ones (like Amazon, eBay, Yahoo). So if you accept Bitcoin as falling in the latter camp there's some comfort in placing your bets there compared to newer, more "unknown" options.
[1] https://youtu.be/810aKcfM__Q
[+] [-] hiimtroymclure|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sunshinerag|5 years ago|reply
It continues to function as it set out to be.
[+] [-] dest|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WoodenChair|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] azinman2|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ravenstine|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anonytrary|5 years ago|reply
"Keeping track of who owns what" is the "something" that Bitcoin purports to do.
[+] [-] janpen|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] schemescape|5 years ago|reply
Either way, I don't see anything newsworthy in this article.
[+] [-] pembrook|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Nursie|5 years ago|reply
Looking like a last-ditch attempt to fleece the unwary from here.
[+] [-] leoplct|5 years ago|reply
- Tether: https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/tether/
- USD Coin: https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/usd-coin/
- DAI: https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/multi-collateral-dai/
[+] [-] creeble|5 years ago|reply
It seems like if they were the fraud people frequently report, the would have bust long ago.
[+] [-] ordinaryradical|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] csomar|5 years ago|reply
USDT going bust was a nice story. Many of the big exchanges now support USDC, and so people could easily switch if they thought Tether was not solid.
[+] [-] leoplct|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Geee|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] T-A|5 years ago|reply
Does it?
https://www.tradingview.com/symbols/BVOL24H/
The most positive thing I can say about that chart is that volatility was higher when price last was at these levels, but I wouldn't claim a downtrend.
[+] [-] saul_goodman|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WA|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gruez|5 years ago|reply
OT: isn't the expression "toeing the party line"?
[+] [-] onion2k|5 years ago|reply
I think that's an odd way to read BTC pricing. The number of people buying because bitcoin represents freedom is significantly lower than the number of people buying simply because they're speculating that the price will go up some more. If those people decide to cash out their gains the price will go down again. There's nothing inherently more free about bitcoin at $18000 than there is at $12000. The value is not linked to the politics.