What are the most convincing arguments against Bitcoin?

[amincd]

A risk exists that copycats will fragment the market for Bitcoin-like currency and reduce the value of bitcoins, making them a poor store of value.

I too think the arguments for Bitcoin greatly outweigh those against, and that the aforementioned is unlikely, but of all the risks Bitcoin faces, I think it's the least insignificant.

[taltamir]

I'm not talking about the short-term, not the medium-term, but the long-term.

1. 51% attack
2. Centralization of the coin due to various factors which undermines its purpose (it will continue to exist, it just won't be good anymore)
3. Ever growing chain length does not recognize the ending of moore's law.

[Zooey]

1. People are, in the majority, pretty fucking thick.
2. Majority Rule is the system of governance in most Western nations.

[Elwar]

Maybe Keynes was right?

Perhaps a currency that loses value is better?

[Nancarrow]

HERETIC!!!

BURN HIM!


(Actually I don't know the first thing about economics. But apparently neither do economists so that's okay then)

[franky1]

Re: What are the most convincing arguments against FIAT?

1.pickpocketing
2.card cloning
3.bank robbery
4.minimum wage
5.taxes
6.fraud
7.government control
8.bank double spending
9.government debt
10.bank freezing accounts
11. banks emptying accounts (cyprus)
12.money laundering
13.fiat used for illegal activities

so many more, but i think you get my point

[Zarathustra]

The other big problem with Bitcoin is that it isn't legal tender, and thus it is taxed on changes in its value unlike legal tender. Thus Bitcoin can NEVER be a non-anonymous currency.

So Bitcoin has very powerful arguments against it. The OP is naive.

In Germany, neither Gold nor Gold 2.0 is taxed (VAT).

http://www.welt.de/finanzen/article120823372/Zahlungen-mit-Bitcoins-sind-umsatzsteuerfrei.html
http://www.zerohedge.com/node/477785

[DavidZ]

Maybe Keynes was right?

Perhaps a currency that loses value is better?

Why do you think that?

[QuestionAuthority]

Most convincing argument for failure? Ok, I'll try. Complacency and greed should do it.

Too many people are here to line their pockets by starting that next great Bitcoin gambling site or develop that next great multimillion dollar app that skyrockets them to fame and fortune or to buy cheap and sell high. In other words - profiteering scumbags.

Too few people exist on the planet that would use Bitcoin simply for altruistic reasons. The average person (not the ideologically pumped up college student or recent graduate) is concerned more about themselves and their little life than how great Bitcoin would be for the end of (insert name of the political philosophy/economic system you don't like here).

tl;dr

Mass adoption requires humans that don't exist en masse. Most are too greedy and stupid for Bitcoin to spread much beyond the pseudo–intellectual fringe and common crooks.

[Elwar]

Maybe Keynes was right?

Perhaps a currency that loses value is better?

Why do you think that?

I don't. But Keynes thinks we should all lose wealth to big corporations that have first dibs on new money before it loses value.

[DavidZ]

Maybe Keynes was right?

Perhaps a currency that loses value is better?

Why do you think that?

I don't. But Keynes thinks we should all lose wealth to big corporations that have first dibs on new money before it loses value.

Yep, I don't like Keynesianism either; a most fraudulent economic system. It has caused a lot of harm.

[BTCisthefuture]

Having to use fiat to use bitcoin is probably enough of a reason to stop A LOT of people from having a desire to use bitcoin. I would assume a lot of people don't care about any of the downsides of fiat so long as it's working for them right now.

I'll give you an example. If someone was about to walk into a coffee shop with $5 to buy a cup of a coffee and you said "hey give me that $5 an ill give you $5 worth of bitcoin and you can buy your coffee with it" MOST people would have zero interest in that because they see no point in it and it's extra one extra step just to buy something they can already buy.

With that said, that's fine. Bitcoin doesn't have to be used by everyone nor would it probably even be practical to use in certain situations, but I do believe everything I just said is a big reason why people would or do have no interest in bitcoin. It just seems pointless to them. 

Even if someones fiat currency crashed, they would still need to use it to use bitcoin if they didn't have any bitcoin. So again they would ask the question "why use bitcoin when I can already use the fiat currency I have".

[Eri]

I'm not talking about the short-term, not the medium-term, but the long-term.

1. 51% attack
2. Centralization of the coin due to various factors which undermines its purpose (it will continue to exist, it just won't be good anymore)
3. Ever growing chain length does not recognize the ending of moore's law.

1. less of an issue as time goes on. regardless, not much can be done with a 51% attack anyway.
2. not really an issue. every argument ive seen about centralization misses key points on how they are wrong.
3. Pruning.

(this has all been gone over a crazy number of times and people still post crap after proper answers. and people still never look for answers)

Having to use fiat to use bitcoin is probably enough of a reason to stop A LOT of people from having a desire to use bitcoin. I would assume a lot of people don't care about any of the downsides of fiat so long as it's working for them right now.

I'll give you an example. If someone was about to walk into a coffee shop with $5 to buy a cup of a coffee and you said "hey give me that $5 an ill give you $5 worth of bitcoin and you can buy your coffee with it" MOST people would have zero interest in that because they see no point in it and it's extra one extra step just to buy something they can already buy.

With that said, that's fine. Bitcoin doesn't have to be used by everyone nor would it probably even be practical to use in certain situations, but I do believe everything I just said is a big reason why people would or do have no interest in bitcoin. It just seems pointless to them. 

Even if someones fiat currency crashed, they would still need to use it to use bitcoin if they didn't have any bitcoin. So again they would ask the question "why use bitcoin when I can already use the fiat currency I have".

i think one basic counter point to this is that no matter what, the gov waters down our USD. our money loses value. bitcoin may have its ups and downs currently but over the course of 6 months to a year, no matter what is happening, the bitcoins you hold are worth more now then they were before even if you included buying on the top of a 'crash'. If you have money to put into bitcoin that you can leave there then there really isnt a reason not to. having the ability to easily access that money and buy things with it is also really nice. once in the bitcoin system you dont have all those pesky bank and 3rd party fees. it may tie cash for ease of use. but eventually we may see some really interesting security features t protect your bitcoins from in person theft as well as online theft. really its only a matter of time before such things are history where it will be like "wait you used to have your wallet on your PC? no hardware encryption, multi sig or dedicated wallet system? dam i cant imagine risking half a bitcoin! that would have been my salary for year!"

[johnyj]

Volatility will always be a major character for bitcoin, so it is not suitable for day to day spending, only for long term saving

[Bytas]

In the long term?

It's called a quantum-computer and it can make a bit be 0 and 1 at the SAME time, potentially solving any hash in a matter of microseconds.
So far, this still a theoretical thing, but scientists are working and getting closer on the concept.
If anything can destroy bitcoin at it's core, its that thing.

[t1000]

In the long term?

It's called a quantum-computer and it can make a bit be 0 and 1 at the SAME time, potentially solving any hash in a matter of microseconds.
So far, this still a theoretical thing, but scientists are working and getting closer on the concept.
If anything can destroy bitcoin at it's core, its that thing.

By that time, we will have quantum cryptographic coins.... Qubitcoin. 

[bryant.coleman]

In the long term?

It's called a quantum-computer and it can make a bit be 0 and 1 at the SAME time, potentially solving any hash in a matter of microseconds.
So far, this still a theoretical thing, but scientists are working and getting closer on the concept.
If anything can destroy bitcoin at it's core, its that thing.

But that will not increase the amount of Bitcoins being generated. The rate of creation of new BTCs will remain unchanged. So this will only be having a minimal effect.

[JohnsonRobinson]

Fiat is NOT working for us. 

Our savings (i.e. buying power) are being stolen by the greasy corporatocracy through excessive money printing and ponzi betting in the form of derivatives which is estimated to be over 1 QUADRILION.  Global GDP is roughly 70 trillion.

There is a crisis of trust and people want out of fiat.  At least from US funny money.

We are expected to act honestly within a system that is stealing from us and parasitising us.  We have to figure out a way to protect ourselves from those who wield power over us.  One way is fair money.

There is currently a great window for Bitcoin until:

1) China or the BRICS nations, who are all buying gold like crazy, release a gold-backed currency that is again a stable store of wealth.  The masses I believe would rush to adopt that and fiats of endebted nations would collapse.  People might in that case also move somewhat away from Bitcoin.

and/or

2) Gold / Silver prices start rising again and some people move back from Bitcoin / cryptos.

Until then I think Bitcoin or maybe some other crypto have an awesome window of opportunity as people are looking for a store of value that isn't stealing from them.

[mateo]

The fact that governments could simply ban it, like China almost did. China officials even said that "legitimacy of our national currency can not be chalenged" or something along those lines, so there's one reason for governments to ban it. And governments banning Bitcoin would effectively push it back to underground where it's only used by hackers and drug dealers.

Also, the fact that there's no central authority regulating the price means that Bitcoin is not very suitable for exchange for goods and services, due to volatility. But that might? change when/if Bitcoin becomes bigger.

[cypherdoc]

The best argument I've seen against Bitcoin is that it'll be another cryptocurrency that we use mainstream in the future. Just because Bitcoin is first, doesn't mean it's the best.

Other arguments I've seen against Bitcoins or even cryptocurrencies in general, are just flimsy imo. Cryptocurrencies will be a part of our future, there's no turning back now. The only question is which one?

This argument only works if you view Bitcoin as software. But in reality, Bitcoin is a protocol (like TCP/IP, HTML, DNS), and the difference is that protocols adapt because they're only the basis on which other software structures are built. We are still using protocols that were designed in the 60s and 70s, but what we have built on top of them makes today's internet unrecognizable from the networks of that time.

Just about the only argument against Bitcoin that has any credibility (that I've come across so far), is that governments could try and squash it by going after not Bitcoin itself, but the entities on the periphery of the network (exchanges, Bitcoin-based businesses and startups and so on). Of course, the counter argument to this is that there is no such thing as "governments" that act in a completely homogeneous manner. There are many different governments, each with its own set of priorities, and each in itself also in constant flux.

So if China decides to ban deposits to Bitcoin exchanges (to come up with an example), you can be certain that other countries will take a different approach. And, really, all you need is a handful of jurisdictions where Bitcoin can thrive.

Over the next 70 years or so quantum computing might become an issue, but then there will likely be consensus to change the protocol so that it isn't that big of a problem.

Piper,

not being in CS, could you elaborate further on the distinction btwn a protocol and software?  software can be adapted too, right?