Common criticisms of bitcoin that don't stack up


#1

Hi all,

I’ve written an article about how common, but misguided, criticisms of bitcoin can obscure its true significance.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-four-mistaken-criticisms-bitcoin-mask-its-true-reuben-heller/

It would be great to get your comments, I know there are a lot of crypto and fintech experts in this forum!

Thanks,
Reuben


#2

@mirow I think the jury is out on bitcoin vs Bitcoin. As a comparison, OED has sterling without a capital letter. For example ‘prices in sterling are shown’. The Guardian’s style guide has bitcoin as its rule and never uses Bitcoin. Thanks for reading anyhow!


(Change Works) #3

If it’s bitcoin you’re interested in, you might like this.

Don’t ask me, though. It’s all just words to me.


#4

SIX Interbank Clearing which maintains the tables, history and ongoing discussion for ISO 4217, the ISO standard that defines international currency and cryptocurrency codes. They define currencies as all begining with a capital letter.

It should also be noted that the traditional currency symbol for XBT is a upper case capital B with crossmarks not a lower case b.

The Bank of England is inconsistent! Their working groups use upper case capital letter e.g. “Working Group on Sterling Risk-Free Rate” but press releases use lower case!


(Excited about Christmas) #5

Very interesting - thanks Reuben! I’ve just started reading Blockchain Revolution by Tapscott and Tapscott. A lot of similar themes…


#6

Thanks Will, much appreciated! That’s an amazing book which blew my mind. I can’t imagine how much research the Tapscotts must have done on it. Don Tapscott also has a TED talk which is worth a watch.


(Stephen Spencer) #7

In a wonderful Freudian slip you’ve misspelled bitcoin as bitcon half way down


(Louis Otto) #8

This is no historical data to look at.

^^ Did you mean ‘There’?

Also, shouldn’t talk about finite amounts without discussing forks and their impact on the ultimate number of coins in circulations through different channels.

Great example with GeoCities, btw.

You should probably also state for clarity in the article, whether you hold positions in any cryptocurrencies at all.

Like the article, pretty much no-nonsense :+1:


#9

Ha, well spotted! Not my subconscious belief, I promise.


#10

Thanks! And I really appreciate you picking up on the typo, I always check my articles twice but somehow a few mistakes get through. Good point about forks and including a disclosure too.


(Excited about Christmas) #11

Just a question: Would Reuben’s holdings in certain cryptos influence whether you thought his article was valid or not? If so, would size matter? How?


(Change Works) #12

What would matter more would be if he had holdings and failed to declare them after providing a positive assessment of the sector.


(Allie) #13

Personally, I think Bitcoin is broken beyond repair for its marketed purpose as a currency. We shall see :slight_smile:


(Louis Otto) #14

Always good to question things. It’s useful to know on many levels

Suppose the author has zero holdings whatsoever. Why write a positive, debunking article and not be involved?

Suppose he held a lot of bitcoin from years ago, then we know more about the purpose of the article. Especially given the recent dips, ‘optimistic marketing’ is doubling down to get buying power back.

Suppose the author held other crypto currencies, but not bitcoin itself. Then I’d like to know what they were, and research them as well.

It’s all just for added perspective, not gospel. I like to know as many facts in the article as I know about who wrote it and why, but that’s just me personally.