266
267

10 Good Reasons To Buy Bitcoin Now (medium.com)

Technom4ge が 投稿

全 75 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]b_lumenkraft [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Surprisingly well written article even tho the title looks like clickbait.

[–]AnalyzerX7 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

he took his time on this article - has some solid reasons for his opinions.

[–]YRuafraid 26ポイント27ポイント  (11子コメント)

I was expecting some fluff garbage but the author makes some great points

[–]Technom4ge[S] 9ポイント10ポイント  (7子コメント)

Thanks! Appreciated.

[–]sophistihic [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

What are you talking about this article delivers all the fluff and BS that the title promises and I am very pro Bitcoin.

"The graph I chose to show you looks kind of like the graph around the time Bitcoin went to the moon." This is the kind of stupid arguments for buying Bitcoin that we don't need.

[–]YRuafraid [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

points #2, #6-9 are all legitimate points imo and exactly why I'm speculating on bitcoin's price.

[–]imagine_grey [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

"...smart contracts which are believed to change the world."

Not only is the article rife with baseless conjecture like this (WHY are they going to change the world? WHAT are they? This article is supposed to be for people who aren't already following the tech...) but the grammar and composition itself is quite poor.

I opened this thread and am stunned by the glowing compliments touting a quality article. If the point is to hype the next price rise, then sure, it's a decent article. If the point is an objective analysis for uninformed but curious investors, yikes, missed the mark a decent bit.

[–]Mrpotatoeking [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

the pump is strong in this one

[–]Tergi [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

Some what related, but i have a question. Lets say the US were to trigger a huge depression like seen before, or maybe worse. If people cannot afford electricity or internet at their homes, how will bitcoin be useful them? I suppose had they kept them on paper wallets in small denominations, then sure maybe you could trade them but how could you verify your not just trading pretty paper? (ironically that's what we do now! haha)

[–]cryptomars [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Spending my bits will be the least of my worries if electrical grid goes down.

[–]jmw74 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

If people cannot afford electricity or internet at their homes, how will bitcoin be useful them?

Very poor african countries have mobile phones, even where they do not have electricity. In a scenario where the US crashes so far as to be worse off than sub-saharan africa, well, we'll have way bigger problems than keeping bitcoin going.

[–]SIMPalaxy [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

You kinda answered your own question.

The value of currency is a concept, one that is regulated (decentralized regulation for Bitcoin) and thus recognized.

If people can trust a dollar, to use Bitcoin they have to trust the system it uses and the programs for them.

You could get a thumb drive, and sell the bits physically to someone as well.

[–]wildmaiden [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

You wouldn't trade a paper wallet the way we trade paper money. Instead, you would use the information on the paper wallet to create a transaction. Without power to validate the transaction though, there isn't much you can do. If the US collapses, paper dollars will also be worthless.

[–]SinoScot [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

I'll never forgive myself for not jumping on the gravy train back in 2011. But being a college student meant I had no money to buy. :P

[–]zouave1 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I'm there now. A few months back I was on the fence when it was around $500 CAD. Now it's obviously much higher and I'm kicking myself. That said, I feel like if I buy now I'm just going to follow the hype before the crash...

[–]jmw74 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

That's what everyone was saying in early 2013 too. There are no guarantees. If you think (for example) bitcoin has a 10% chance of reaching $10000, then you should make the bet at whatever level you can afford to lose.

[–]RaginglikeaBoss [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Meh, that's not a good way to trade or even "store value."

If you wanted Bitcoin as a store of value, the same argument then applies as it does now. But if you wanted to speculate or trade, you can't lives with regrets on "what you could've made" otherwise you'll never be happy and will always be gambling. You'll never learn when to takes profits to then be able to enter the market with more capital giving yourself a stronger position. Regardless of whether or not your goal is Bitcoin or even a fiat of your choosing.

[–]worstkeptsecrets 8ポイント9ポイント  (9子コメント)

#9!!!!!!!

[–]bobthesponge1 [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Rootstock contracts are 10x smarter than Ethereum's.

[–]ManDrone [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

THEIR IQ IS OVER 9000!

[–]lalu_ [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Hum, could you elaborate ... I don't see much on their website, and as far as I know there is no hardfork ready to enable sidechain yet. Am I wrong ?

[–]RaginglikeaBoss [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Everything related to BTC is automatically better than anything else - I think was his argument.

He really should have provided at the very least an ounce of evidence rather than just hyping something that isn't available yet.

[–]OmniEdge [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Really valid points in the article but regarding #9 I am still pondering on it. IMHO, BTC is and will be used as a store of value while ether is and will be consumed by applications. Both have their intrinsic strength and could become fully interconnected.

Rootstock could change this but currently it does not exist. Blockstream, a company I respect and trust, even had to change direction to federated sidechains because they could not figure out a fully decentralised sidechain. Ethereum in the meanwhile has the first mover advantage with decentralised potential and is moving forward.

Bring into the picture counterparty with their EVM and the horizon becomes even more confusing. That being said, really exciting to see so much innovation in the space.

[–]harda [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Blockstream, a company I respect and trust, even had to change direction to federated sidechains because they could not figure out a fully decentralised sidechain.

That's not how a remember it. Federated pegged sidechains were described in the original paper (appendix A, page 17) with the introduction, "Fortunately, by adopting some additional security assumptions at the expense of the low trust design objective, it is possible to do an initial deployment in a completely permissionless way."

This is what was done with the Elements Project: an initial deployment done in a completely permissionless way (i.e. no changes to the Bitcoin consensus rules). So I think that was the plan all along.

Even without creating a public two-way peg, sidechains has already been valuable to Bitcoin. It was in Elements that the current consensus-enforced sequence numbers and OP_CSV opcode were tested, as well as where the first variant of segregated witness (a hard-fork option) was initially implemented even before it was discovered how to implement it in Bitcoin mainnet as a soft fork. And I think it's great that confidential transactions is getting a nice long shakedown cruise before my coin history starts to depend on it.

Adding the necessary new opcode (or expanded scripting capabilities) for Bitcoin to support SPV pegging is still on the horizon as far as I know, it just isn't a priority right now. Maybe Rootstock.io and possibly Bloq will help fund development and review of that so it can get in sooner than later.

Ethereum's scripting language seems to me to be more of a hype machine than something currently needed, and some of the opcodes already available in the Elements Project are quite useful on their own and very well tested (and much easier to verify that they work as expected, so adding them to Bitcoin should be straight forward with segwit's allowed script versioning). They include the 'reactivated' OP_CAT which Pieter Wuille used to create tree signatures and the new OP_ DETERMINISTICRANDOM which can be used for provably fair gambling or sub-satoshi payments.

[–]Amichateur [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

2-way sidechain has the same effect as block size increase: Miners need to validate Bitcoin blockchain AND sidechain data (otherwise they cannot verify coin transfers from Sidechain to Bitcoin blockchain), i.e. need to receive, transmit, process (much) more data.

Will bitcoin-core really allow this? (rhetorical question)

[–]b_lumenkraft [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

+1

[–]baddogesgotoheaven [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It doesn't even make sense though.

[–]mpkomara [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

"The price development of bitcoin has repeated a similar pattern many times. That does not prove the same pattern will repeat in the future but it does increase the likelihood of it happening again."

It does?

[–]desnudopenguino [スコア非表示]  (11子コメント)

"3. The creation rate of new bitcoins is halvening"... shouldn't the proper term be halving?

[–]Drunkenaardvark [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I believe the author is being cheeky by using "halvening" as a clever play on words, as in "It's happening".

[–]ForkiusMaximus [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It's a hobbitish way of saying it, like "eleventy-first."

[–]Technom4ge[S] [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

Good question. I've seen both used and I've seen the exact opposite argument, in that "halvening" is correct. That's why I used halvening. But I don't actually know the answer.

[–]Kitten-Smuggler [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

The 'halvening' was basically a meme that was picked up by the bitcoin community. Similar to 'hodl' or 'hodling' in reference to holding. Or at least that has been my impression over the last few years.

[–]Technom4ge[S] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

That's actually new to me, lol. Edited the article. My intention was to use the correct term but I didn't know what is correct.

[–]cebrek [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Yes, it actually started in the Dogecoin subreddit.

[–]ManDrone [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

This is gentlemen.

[–]NuOfBelthasar [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

I did a double take.

The author uses "halvening" several times as if it's the proper term for Bitcoin's halving.

I'm not complaining, it was just surprising to see in an otherwise serious article.

Edit: And, right, "halving" is correct; "halvening" is a neologism from "halving" and "happening," as in M. Night Shyamalan's masterpiece, "The Happening."

[–]Technom4ge[S] [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

The term has been fixed in the article. It's now halving.

[–]NuOfBelthasar [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Oh, cool. Wasn't sure if it was a joke or not.

And, yeah, I can't blame anyone for assuming it's the "technical" term given how often we use it (I always think of it as "the halvening" in my head).

[–]biscoito1r [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

11 - It might be your last chance to buy bitcoins in the U$700's, deejay-vou.

[–]tling [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Upvote if you're long bitcoin!

[–]jeffthedunker [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

haha, Bitcoin price stable. Good shit, right there.

[–]Lite_Coin_Guy [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

" Investing at the bottom is very difficult since it is hard to find faith in that particular instrument at that time but it is already much easier to invest in something that is rising from the bottom."

true words. it took some years but now i do exactly that all the time.

[–]JeremyGraemeredditor for 1 month [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Except lots of things rise from the bottom only to fall back down to the bottom.

I think personally it's a problem to say "invest" in bitcoin. Real currencies get used. We shouldn't be pushing people to "invest" in something, we should be directing them to use it.

[–]Flupkees1 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

For most people there are not a lot of reasons to use it, but there are to invest. Once invested, the step towards using is easier.

I personally recommend everyone to educate themselves, to buy a small amount to play around with (also part of the education) and then to invest if they feel confident. I also explain them that I use Bitcoin both as an investment as well as a currency.

[–]Technom4ge[S] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Indeed this is how most people start Bitcoin. It's an experiment and a small investment at first and then grows to become perhaps a larger investment and a currency. Rarely do regular people actually buy bitcoins first because they want to use it, at least not yet. There are some use cases like that though and they are increasing, which is good.

[–]petskup [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Bitcoin is the first universal currency and that reality is getting more real day by day https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgcovIu3k9o

[–]BTCRabbit95redditor for 3 months [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

very well done. I was surprised as well.

[–]pgrigor [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It's disheartening that both segregated witness and lightning network are cited as solutions to the "technical limitations" of Bitcoin.

First, while the limitations are "technical" they're certainly not theoretical; second, the solution is much simpler than SW or LN: removal of the block limit.

BTW, the block limit will be what ends up being removed. :)

[–]NicolasDorier 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

am I the only one who fears clicking on the article for not firing a crash ?

[–]StevenndStevenredditor for 3 months [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Really nice approach on things, I like most of them.

[–]churninbutter [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

A few things regarding his first 3 points that I don't really understand.

1) he claims Bitcoin is more stable than ever. Ok, well that's great, except it really isn't compared to a actual currency like the usd. Last October it rallied 100% and then promptly turned around and fell 40%. This happened in less than 2 weeks

2) he claims the global economy is unstable. I actually agree with him here, except putting your money in Bitcoin would still be gambling, as Bitcoin is anything but safe. Also if the economy collapses people will want to own the dollar, not Bitcoin, as the dollar won't fail. The dollar rallied in 08.

3) if you look at the last year sure it looks good, because it conveniently fit the authors narrative. Look at the year before that and Bitcoin lost like 67%

So can anyone tell me why I would EVER use Bitcoin as a proxy currency with how unstable it is? I can understand investing it instead of a different risky asset, but that's all it would be, is a high risk high reward bet. That's not generally what you're looking for in a currency.

[–]Technom4ge[S] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

1) It's 100 % true that it is more stable than ever. I didn't claim it's stable, which it certainly isn't. If it was like the USD I would certainly not recommend it as an investment, either.

2) The next crash is actually potentially about the currencies themselves. Bitcoin has a good chance of being one of the big winners as it's simply immune to a lot of the potential issues of national currencies.

3) For the whole 7,5 years that Bitcoin has existed, the price has been higher than the current price for approximately 9 months or so. Think about that for a bit. If I'd pick a timeframe that looked especially bad, that would be skewed.

Generally speaking Bitcoin is not going to be truly stable for a long time. And it may not become USD level stable ever, since that is artificial. But becoming more stable is a clear sign of growth.

[–]jungle [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Not to mention that his arguments of stability and also imminent explosion contradict each other. Also, playing pareidolia games with the price graph is nice but useless. As somebody else in this thread said, "the pump is strong in this one". I'm just surprised at how many people candidly fall for it.

[–]Technom4ge[S] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

They are not in contradiction, whatsoever. The point about stability was about the general long term trend of increasing stability and the long stable period that has preceded the current short term rally.

Historically the price has always been fairly stable preceding large explosions. It's simply the pattern which Bitcoin has grown with. Big rally, downtrend, stability. Repeat. My opinion is that we're now in the beginning stages of the next big rally.

That is strongly tied to some of my arguments in point 10. The market has a cycle and the stable phase is important. People need to forget the downtrend and start feeling optimistic again, for a new rally to be possible. That is now happening.

The decreased volatility in the long run, as seen in the graph, is a result of the growing market value of bitcoin. It is getting bigger in terms of exchange liquidity, trading volumes and so on. That allows bigger players to enter the market, to fuel the next big rise.

From a fundamental perspective the possibilities of investing in bitcoin in 2013 were nowhere near what they are now. This time it's possible for almost anyone, even institutions, to invest in bitcoin. This is a major factor in what is going to happen in the near future.

[–]churninbutter [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Yeah that was honestly my first thought too, I bet the dude has a lot of Bitcoin he needs to unload

[–]quadrilliondollars [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

He is co-founder on many bitcoin start-ups, he is a Hodler. I liked the article, very good points with solid backing and well written.

[–]Essexal [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Have another: I'm long.

[–]wrongtoothbrush [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I do very much want to own Bitcoin again but out of principal I can not support Blockstream. Other than running my classic node, this is the most powerful statement I can make.

[–]Amichateur [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Nice article, but I think nb. 7 and nb. 9 need some more research - I want to believe what Henry writes but from all I understand and know I just cannot agree, unfortunately, I have severe doubts and think these two items are not fully thought through by Henry:

On Nb.7 - Scaling:

  • The text misses to mention the easiest of all scaling options, which is an increase of the the block size. Not excessively! But careful increase in agreement with technological progress absolutely makes sense, and keeping it at 1 MB (as some stakeholders seem to want it to be) just suffocates Bitcoin's full potential at today's early stage. The fact that bitcoin core is postponing this natural step without convincing reasons makes me worry a lot. Not mentioning this tuning screw with a single word makes me worry that the author considers the 1 MB as final as well, which would be very bad, esp. because... see next items:

  • The article misses to mention that the +80% capacity increase due to segwit is a THEORETICAL value only, because only valid when assuming that all users use segwit. However, it is more likely that segwit adoption will be rather slow, hence ACTUAL capacity increase will take a along time to reach nearly 80%.

  • The article misses to mention that capacity increase via LN is a whole new thing: LN is not a simple capacity increase of Bitcoin, but means that Bitcoin characteristic and usage will change fundamentally from what we as users are today used to:

    • Users using LN would have to lock a certain amount of bitcoins in a payment channel and cannot react quickly and flexibly on price swings for example, without extra penalty. So they are not as liquid as they are today with their Bitcoin wallet (and if they do react and close the channel [which of course they can at any time] they pay overly high TX fees compared today).
    • LN means that users use central organizations (that offer the LN payment channels), and thereby Bitcoin loses a lot of its value as a DECENTRALIZED payment system! Controlling flows of Bitcoins is much easier for state authorities if most users use LN, because "LN operators" can be expected to be monitored closely by the state authorities.
    • LN offers more attack vectors that are not possible and unknown today! --> If a timeout is missed (e.g. due to DoS), funds can be lost. Or if the end-user's wallet misses the time to close the payment channel in due time (e.g. because his smartphone was lost), funds may be lost, while today nobody can lose Bitcoins due to inactivity. All this is not considered in the article, the author only follows the general public "propaganda" that LN is a capacity increase of Bitcoin without dealing with the details of the differences and possible problems and drawbacks! He introduces himself as an expert following Bitcoin since 2011 on a daily basis. So do I, and I would encourage the author to be more differentiated on these topics.

On Nb. 9 - Sidechains:

  • The article pretends that the Rootstock sidechain will materialize. This is far from clear. The article misses details on two-way-peg-sidechains that would have to be mention in an article like this to avoid misinformation: If such a 2-way sidechain is implemented, it means that Bitcoin nodes (incl. Bitcoin miners) need to receive, transmit, forward and process not only the data of the Bitcoin blockchain, but also the data of the sidechain(!), because otherwise the miner could not validate whether a locked bitcoin should be unlocked due to a "transfer" of coins from sidechain to Bitcoin's blockchain. But this means that the EFFECTIVE blocksize (i.e. total amount of data) increases!! It is very similar (effectively nearly equivalent) to an increase of the block size, with the corresponding consequences on decentralization etc.!!! I personally think that the danger to decentralization is largely overestimated, but today's small-block proponents that have the final say in bitcoin-core will NOT accept 2-peg-sidechains for the very same reasons they reject block size limit increase. So the notion that Rootstock 2-peg-sidechain is just around the corner is far too optimistic and misleading!

[–]aman27deep [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

How likely is another crash?

[–]Toy_Cop [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

damn, I couldn't afford them at $300 and definitely can't afford them at $575..lol

[–]aulnet [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Dorian Nakamoto should start receiving royalties for his face on products.

[–]gol64738 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Only coinkite, in all their asswipery, are using his image without his permission.

[–]sacrelege [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Self proclaimed experts ftw yaaay

[–]AgelessProphet [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Just speculative nonsense. Bitcoin is rubbish and I wish the thing would die already. Those at the top of the pyramid are getting rich off idiots and I wish that people who recommend buying Bitcoins were jailed for the scammers they are. They're just salespeople for one of the lamest scams I've seen in recent times.

[–]loewan [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Well, you got to praise the snake oil merchant if the ware do in fact get rid of your back pain and gives you a roaring erection.

BTC works as a unit of account no matter how dodgy it all sounds.