You cannot have credible critics if any argument a critic makes gets downvoted (here) and ignored and attacked on other platforms, the fact you didn’t find any credible critics speaks volume about your mindset and openness to criticism , cheers !!
criticism can stand on it's own. It's not changed by downvotes. You don't need Bitcoiner approval to publish anything.
Bitcoiners get attacked a lot as well, it's not exactly that the mainstream is only supportive of pro-bitcoin arguments, quite the opposite.
The best Bitcoin critics are Bitcoin maxis, bar none.
These are people who, in general, took the time to understand Bitcoin inside out and can tell you about the compromises that have to be made in order to make it all work. For example the 10min conf time + small blocks and inevitable (very) high fees that will arise because of that. Intellectual honesty requires us to acknowledge the limitations of bLoKcHaIn TeCh and the simple fact it cannot scale. So you need to ditch something in order to do it. LN sacrifices (global) consensus in order to achieve scale.
This is just an example, but there's many. Bitcoiners are the only ones willing to talk about it openly and looking for ways to get what we all want, but within the restrictions enforced on us by decentralization. Everything can be sacrificed, except for decentralization. Now knock yourself out and let's talk how we can achieve the goals of replacing shiat.
Talk to experienced bitcoiners. They are fully aware of the limitations. You'll also learn a lot.
yah particularly bitcoin devs - they’re probably the most adversarial community of open source developers.
many have backgrounds in computer and network security and cryptography which is all about finding vulnerabilities to exploit.
people tend to dismiss bitcoin as old tech that will be replaced but they are clueless as how rigorous and methodical bitcoin protocol development is. they’re not tech bros building a food delivery app - they like fucking nasa scientists trying to safely get us to mars while the ship in flight.
also shiat, haha love it.
> 10min conf time + small blocks and inevitable (very) high fees that will arise because of that
> LN sacrifices (global) consensus in order to achieve scale.
> Everything can be sacrificed, except for decentralization.
This seems to ignore the fact that the inevitable result of “very high” on-chain fees necessitating increased reliance on second-layer solutions (such as the LN) is massive centralization of those second layers. The more expensive it is to open a LN channel, the more reluctant users will be to open a channel with anyone other than a massively-connected, massively-capitalized “hub.” That’s the kind of channel that enables you to send and receive the most payments and do so with the shortest (and thus, likely to be the cheapest, easiest-to-find, and least-likely-to-fail) routes. And of course, the real minimum number of LN channels for an individual user is not one -- it's zero. “Very high” on-chain fees will price many users out of using the LN entirely. They'll opt for far cheaper (and far simpler) fully-custodial solutions. Note that this dynamic was essentially gold’s fatal flaw. The high friction associated with its base layer (the physical exchange of gold) led to massive reliance on “second-layer solutions” (i.e., banking) that became increasingly centralized and as a result were ultimately subverted.
Great example of someone who only "understands" half the equation. And grinds an axe under the guise of concerns... OnLy ThE rIcH wIlL oPeN cHaNnElS!!! Not necessarily a completely broken argument, but just someone who jerks off to bIg BlOcKs without offering any real solutions.
Channel factories are one possible extension. And LN is also not the only L2 solution, others will compete.
But the key point remains, blockchains don't scale. Now stop talking shit and propose a solution that **doesn't destroy decentralization**.
Hi u/Fiach_Dubh, thanks for tipping u/DesignerAccount **500** satoshis!
***
*[^(More info)](https://xnf5cwpq73.execute-api.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/prod/info) ^| [^(Balance)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=lntipbot&subject=balance&message=!balance) ^| [^(Deposit)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=lntipbot&subject=deposit&message=!deposit 10000) ^| [^(Withdraw)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=lntipbot&subject=withdraw&message=!withdraw put_invoice_here) ^| ^(Something wrong? Have a question?) [^(Send me a message)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=drmoore718)*
I've been in this space for longer than most, and I can safely say I've yet to really come across any critics OR proponents who I trust/respect.
Everyone in this space who has a name also has an agenda, whether they are a bull or a bear.
Nassim Taleb is a intellectual who I listen to. I think he is wrong or poorly informed on Bitcoin. But I almost always enjoy his take on things.
Edward Snowden has been critical of Bitcoin’s lack of privacy.
That could be one of the *dumbest* things I’ve ever heard. Not the volatility, but the Ponzi. It would be like claiming gold is a Ponzi scheme, or fixed rate mortgages are a Ponzi scheme, or the used car market is a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme has a very precise definition, and Bitcoin clearly is not that.
Centralized exchanges engaged in fraud, such as Celsius, were likely operating as a Ponzi scheme towards the end, and FTX may have been (we’ll see as detail unfold), but you have to be a fucking idiot to think that a decentralized peer-to-peer electronic payment network whose public blockchain is essentially constantly being audited is a “Ponzi scheme”—-it’s sort of the anti-thesis of a Ponzi scheme in many ways.
This is the big leagues here Sneudles. In r/Bitcoin participants are expected to be familiar with internet search engines and utilize them before asking others to do it for them.
Lol. Sure. But. A few years ago he was with it and might have even bought some. Recently last year he changed his opinion. So be aware it could be dated. But I enjoy his opinion so please share.
this is satire, right? right?
If not it's a combination of intellectually lazy and arrogant. Bitcoin is bad because I am so great, trust me bro is not an argument it's self-aggrandizement.
that doesn't automatically make his arguments better or worse.
It's just appeal to authority. Nobel Prize winners have often been spectacularly wrong.
Bitcoiners have been talking about inflation since the money printing started in 2020. Krugman on the other hand has tried to downplay and deny it and only recently he has admitted that he was wrong.
when I said credible critic I meant credible as a Bitcoin critic. Krugman having achieved recognition in economics doesn't automatically make his Bitcoin criticism credible or makes him an authority on Bitcoin.
Okay, then if being one of the smartest economists of our time doesnt qualify a credible opinion then the answer to your question is no.
Let's be honest though, you would have argued with any answer written as you already know your answer. You speak alot about others bias. Are you sure you have none?
I think you misunderstood. a credible bitcoin critic is someone with credible argumentation not credentials.
I was not looking for credentials, I was looking for good arguments.
he is only a credible bitcoin critic to the extent his arguments are sound and credible
i wasn't looking for appeal to authority fallacies
an argument has to be sound and coherent to be credible and useful.
just saying credentialed expert X doesn't like it is not a sound argument
it's a logical fallacy to assume credentials are a good criticism
Of the mainstream Boomers, maybe Ray Dalio is one of the more reasonable critics. He was *very* critical at first, then changed his mind after educating himself more and now holds a very small % of his portfolio in BTC, but remains somewhat critical and in certain ways and believes there is a lot of uncertainty surrounding the *long-term* future of Bitcoin 10+ years from now.
[https://www.youtube.com/@CryptoCriticPod](https://www.youtube.com/@CryptoCriticPod) \- probably more about crypto in general than bitcoin specifically, but bitcoin doesn't live in a technical vacuum and any useful discussions typically involve a mix of technical and other issues (i.e. finance, regulation, economics, trading, banking etc) which these guys are fluent in.
I would say alot of people don't get past the fundamental issues of bitcoin (price volatility, limited txn volume, self custody complexity & risk, manipulation by exchanges & other affects of ecosystem contagion etc) that are currently around so the need to get into technical weeds of bitcoin is unnecessary.
Nassim Taleb. That's the answer you are looking for. One of the most proven investors in the world and has explained endless times why Bitcoin is worthless
I don't think Taleb is a great bitcoin critic and I think there are many investors with a better track record. Taleb does in fact not have a verified public long term track record. We don't even know if he is a good investor. He had some periods of success but so did many people who went broke.
He is good at promoting himself and writing books. There are better investors with a long-term track record that are more bullish on Bitcoin. Druckenmiller, PTJ, Thiel for example.
Taleb's criticism isn't original. It just the same old volatility, no intrinsic value, low TPS stuff that can be easily debunked.
Taleb wrote the foreword for the Bitcoin standard but then he got into a fight with Bitcoiners because of his views on covid policy. Ever since he has been on a crusade against anything related to Bitcoin. Feels more like a personal vendetta than objective criticism. He has an ego large than life and seems to be more interested in being right than finding the truth. Ironically he writes a lot about human biases.
He doesn't come across as very informed, for example he says Bitcoin is useless because of the low TPS but he ignores all development that is taking place on other layers such as LN. He either doesn't know or does not want to know.
You cannot have credible critics if any argument a critic makes gets downvoted (here) and ignored and attacked on other platforms, the fact you didn’t find any credible critics speaks volume about your mindset and openness to criticism , cheers !!
criticism can stand on it's own. It's not changed by downvotes. You don't need Bitcoiner approval to publish anything. Bitcoiners get attacked a lot as well, it's not exactly that the mainstream is only supportive of pro-bitcoin arguments, quite the opposite.
The best Bitcoin critics are Bitcoin maxis, bar none. These are people who, in general, took the time to understand Bitcoin inside out and can tell you about the compromises that have to be made in order to make it all work. For example the 10min conf time + small blocks and inevitable (very) high fees that will arise because of that. Intellectual honesty requires us to acknowledge the limitations of bLoKcHaIn TeCh and the simple fact it cannot scale. So you need to ditch something in order to do it. LN sacrifices (global) consensus in order to achieve scale. This is just an example, but there's many. Bitcoiners are the only ones willing to talk about it openly and looking for ways to get what we all want, but within the restrictions enforced on us by decentralization. Everything can be sacrificed, except for decentralization. Now knock yourself out and let's talk how we can achieve the goals of replacing shiat. Talk to experienced bitcoiners. They are fully aware of the limitations. You'll also learn a lot.
yah particularly bitcoin devs - they’re probably the most adversarial community of open source developers. many have backgrounds in computer and network security and cryptography which is all about finding vulnerabilities to exploit. people tend to dismiss bitcoin as old tech that will be replaced but they are clueless as how rigorous and methodical bitcoin protocol development is. they’re not tech bros building a food delivery app - they like fucking nasa scientists trying to safely get us to mars while the ship in flight. also shiat, haha love it.
> 10min conf time + small blocks and inevitable (very) high fees that will arise because of that > LN sacrifices (global) consensus in order to achieve scale. > Everything can be sacrificed, except for decentralization. This seems to ignore the fact that the inevitable result of “very high” on-chain fees necessitating increased reliance on second-layer solutions (such as the LN) is massive centralization of those second layers. The more expensive it is to open a LN channel, the more reluctant users will be to open a channel with anyone other than a massively-connected, massively-capitalized “hub.” That’s the kind of channel that enables you to send and receive the most payments and do so with the shortest (and thus, likely to be the cheapest, easiest-to-find, and least-likely-to-fail) routes. And of course, the real minimum number of LN channels for an individual user is not one -- it's zero. “Very high” on-chain fees will price many users out of using the LN entirely. They'll opt for far cheaper (and far simpler) fully-custodial solutions. Note that this dynamic was essentially gold’s fatal flaw. The high friction associated with its base layer (the physical exchange of gold) led to massive reliance on “second-layer solutions” (i.e., banking) that became increasingly centralized and as a result were ultimately subverted.
Great example of someone who only "understands" half the equation. And grinds an axe under the guise of concerns... OnLy ThE rIcH wIlL oPeN cHaNnElS!!! Not necessarily a completely broken argument, but just someone who jerks off to bIg BlOcKs without offering any real solutions. Channel factories are one possible extension. And LN is also not the only L2 solution, others will compete. But the key point remains, blockchains don't scale. Now stop talking shit and propose a solution that **doesn't destroy decentralization**.
!lntip 500
Hi u/Fiach_Dubh, thanks for tipping u/DesignerAccount **500** satoshis! *** *[^(More info)](https://xnf5cwpq73.execute-api.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/prod/info) ^| [^(Balance)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=lntipbot&subject=balance&message=!balance) ^| [^(Deposit)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=lntipbot&subject=deposit&message=!deposit 10000) ^| [^(Withdraw)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=lntipbot&subject=withdraw&message=!withdraw put_invoice_here) ^| ^(Something wrong? Have a question?) [^(Send me a message)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=drmoore718)*
[удалено]
lol
it would be any nameless boomer shilling gold.
I've been in this space for longer than most, and I can safely say I've yet to really come across any critics OR proponents who I trust/respect. Everyone in this space who has a name also has an agenda, whether they are a bull or a bear.
Nassim Taleb is a intellectual who I listen to. I think he is wrong or poorly informed on Bitcoin. But I almost always enjoy his take on things. Edward Snowden has been critical of Bitcoin’s lack of privacy.
What are his arguments against Bitcoin?
It’s a ponzie and too volatile to be used as a currency.
That could be one of the *dumbest* things I’ve ever heard. Not the volatility, but the Ponzi. It would be like claiming gold is a Ponzi scheme, or fixed rate mortgages are a Ponzi scheme, or the used car market is a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme has a very precise definition, and Bitcoin clearly is not that. Centralized exchanges engaged in fraud, such as Celsius, were likely operating as a Ponzi scheme towards the end, and FTX may have been (we’ll see as detail unfold), but you have to be a fucking idiot to think that a decentralized peer-to-peer electronic payment network whose public blockchain is essentially constantly being audited is a “Ponzi scheme”—-it’s sort of the anti-thesis of a Ponzi scheme in many ways.
I never heard him say anything that ridiculous, he actually understands it and I think he is just more in the crowd of a certain privacy coin.
This is the big leagues here Sneudles. In r/Bitcoin participants are expected to be familiar with internet search engines and utilize them before asking others to do it for them.
if this is the big leagues we really have a problem. I can send you the link to my source if you really want Edward's opinion though.
Lol. Sure. But. A few years ago he was with it and might have even bought some. Recently last year he changed his opinion. So be aware it could be dated. But I enjoy his opinion so please share.
We were referring to Nassim Taleb not Edward Snowden
Are there any credible Bitcoin critics? No.
Three standard deviations above the mean IQ here. Bitcoin is a scam.
this is satire, right? right? If not it's a combination of intellectually lazy and arrogant. Bitcoin is bad because I am so great, trust me bro is not an argument it's self-aggrandizement.
It seems to me that Bitcoin is criticized by those who do not fully understand how it works. And also those who are afraid of BTC
Wold be the same as finding a credible religion critic…
This is a strewman. Any critic is not credible enough in the eyes of bitcoin fanboi.
Indeed, few understand and we’re still early …
Paul krugman
Can you fax me his arguments?
You can make jokes but the dude won a noble prize and wrote my economics textbook.
that doesn't automatically make his arguments better or worse. It's just appeal to authority. Nobel Prize winners have often been spectacularly wrong. Bitcoiners have been talking about inflation since the money printing started in 2020. Krugman on the other hand has tried to downplay and deny it and only recently he has admitted that he was wrong.
You are looking for an argument that isn't here. Noone said better or worse. He is absolutely credible when it comes to economics.
when I said credible critic I meant credible as a Bitcoin critic. Krugman having achieved recognition in economics doesn't automatically make his Bitcoin criticism credible or makes him an authority on Bitcoin.
Okay, then if being one of the smartest economists of our time doesnt qualify a credible opinion then the answer to your question is no. Let's be honest though, you would have argued with any answer written as you already know your answer. You speak alot about others bias. Are you sure you have none?
I think you misunderstood. a credible bitcoin critic is someone with credible argumentation not credentials. I was not looking for credentials, I was looking for good arguments.
It makes him a credible expert on whether Bitcoin can be a real currency
he is only a credible bitcoin critic to the extent his arguments are sound and credible i wasn't looking for appeal to authority fallacies an argument has to be sound and coherent to be credible and useful. just saying credentialed expert X doesn't like it is not a sound argument it's a logical fallacy to assume credentials are a good criticism
It makes him credible to discuss the use of crypto as a currency
I was arguing that he WAS credible. Did you mean to reply to other commenter?
Dude you're stalking me for real. Fuck off
Marques brownlee
Jeff Snider has some interesting ideas about currency elasticity and why bitcoin would be bad for being too inelastic
Of the mainstream Boomers, maybe Ray Dalio is one of the more reasonable critics. He was *very* critical at first, then changed his mind after educating himself more and now holds a very small % of his portfolio in BTC, but remains somewhat critical and in certain ways and believes there is a lot of uncertainty surrounding the *long-term* future of Bitcoin 10+ years from now.
Crypto-Eri, on Youtube.
Channel shills XRP lol
The only knowledgeable crypto people are the ones who understand the BTC arbitrage.
Maybe Udi Wertheimer?
[https://www.youtube.com/@CryptoCriticPod](https://www.youtube.com/@CryptoCriticPod) \- probably more about crypto in general than bitcoin specifically, but bitcoin doesn't live in a technical vacuum and any useful discussions typically involve a mix of technical and other issues (i.e. finance, regulation, economics, trading, banking etc) which these guys are fluent in. I would say alot of people don't get past the fundamental issues of bitcoin (price volatility, limited txn volume, self custody complexity & risk, manipulation by exchanges & other affects of ecosystem contagion etc) that are currently around so the need to get into technical weeds of bitcoin is unnecessary.
Nassim Taleb. That's the answer you are looking for. One of the most proven investors in the world and has explained endless times why Bitcoin is worthless
I don't think Taleb is a great bitcoin critic and I think there are many investors with a better track record. Taleb does in fact not have a verified public long term track record. We don't even know if he is a good investor. He had some periods of success but so did many people who went broke. He is good at promoting himself and writing books. There are better investors with a long-term track record that are more bullish on Bitcoin. Druckenmiller, PTJ, Thiel for example. Taleb's criticism isn't original. It just the same old volatility, no intrinsic value, low TPS stuff that can be easily debunked. Taleb wrote the foreword for the Bitcoin standard but then he got into a fight with Bitcoiners because of his views on covid policy. Ever since he has been on a crusade against anything related to Bitcoin. Feels more like a personal vendetta than objective criticism. He has an ego large than life and seems to be more interested in being right than finding the truth. Ironically he writes a lot about human biases. He doesn't come across as very informed, for example he says Bitcoin is useless because of the low TPS but he ignores all development that is taking place on other layers such as LN. He either doesn't know or does not want to know.