Bitcoin is now about 13 years old, yet many arguments against it still exist. Learn about the biggest arguments against Bitcoin below.
Bitcoin attracts negative sentiments and criticisms from some quarters. Most of these criticisms are due to Bitcoin’s essential characteristics as a cryptocurrency, while others arise from pure misunderstanding or lack of it about Bitcoin. This article looks at some of the biggest arguments against Bitcoin.
Before we identify the arguments against Bitcoin, it is essential to emphasize that Bitcoin is real and widely popular. Millions of people and institutional users are using Bitcoin today for different reasons, including as an investment asset. Since Bitcoin is a valuable digital asset, many investors are now in crypto trading. You can learn about Bitcoin trading and even become a trader through trading platforms like biticodes
Bitcoin is a Bubble
Among the biggest arguments against Bitcoin is that it is a bubble. Those who hold this view consider Bitcoin a bubble that will burst anytime, like the dot.com bubble. The argument arises from the volatility of Bitcoin. Bitcoin has high price volatility making it highly unpredictable and risky as an investment. However, this argument is refutable.
Although Bitcoin is highly volatile, it is not a bubble because its price is unlikely to fall to zero. If Bitcoin’s price fell to zero making it valueless, many people would run away from it, leading to its ultimate death. However, this is almost impossible, considering that the Bitcoin price has never gone to zero.
Moreover, Bitcoin is not a bubble because a very elaborate technology known as blockchain supports it. Blockchain technology is a decentralized and globally distributed digital ledger that ensures greater security, privacy, and practicality in transactions. The technology guarantees the safety of Bitcoin. No intermediaries like banks can interfere in the system.
Bitcoin Encourages Criminal Activities
Another common argument against Bitcoin is that it encourages criminal activities like drug trafficking. Those who support this argument note that criminals and criminal networks have used Bitcoin to conceal their tracks from law enforcement. Although true, this doesn’t mean that Bitcoin encourages such illegal activities.
Bitcoin provides anonymity, privacy, and security to users. Some entities with criminal goals may take advantage of this to use Bitcoin instead of the traditional financial system to avoid being caught. But this was never the objective of Bitcoin. Bitcoin came as an alternative to conventional centralized systems with problems in terms of interference by those in control.
Bitcoin Came To Disrupt Financial Systems
Some critics also argue that Bitcoin came to disrupt the existing financial system and structure. Governments have primarily held this argument and have tried to do away with Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. The primary basis of the idea is that Bitcoin is a decentralized system that removes centralized control by governments. They also argue that Bitcoin eliminates intermediaries like banks and brokers in financial transactions.
It is true that Bitcoin, just like all other cryptocurrencies, challenges the traditional centralized financial system. But it would be unfair to argue that Bitcoin came to disrupt the centralized system because even today, the centralized financial system involving central banks, commercial banks, and other intermediaries coexist.
While Bitcoin’s popularity will continue to grow, those who argue that it threatens the existing centralized system do so because they are part of this system. Governments will try to argue this way because Bitcoin eliminates the role of central banks. Commercial banks and financial institutions will say so because Bitcoin eliminates their function. Therefore, they do not benefit from charging high fees to customers.
Many arguments against Bitcoin exist. Like in the case of the three discussed above, they lack strong foundations.
Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay