Fighting the Narrative: Dismantling Anti-Crypto Arguments

During my travels in 4chan/pol (Politically Incorrect) territory, discussions about cryptocurrencies and bitcoin specifically come up often enough. I quickly recognized the same arguments over and over again, strikingly similar to arguments I've seen in social media and in personal conversations.

I've put a good deal of thought into these arguments and weighing their merits. I'm by no means a premier expert on the topic, though I have actually earned a Bitcoin Professional Certification through the Cryptocurrency Certification Consortium(C4), for what its worth.

So I know much less than the leaders in the industry, but much more than ~90% of the global population.

I'll offer some ways to dismantle some common counter-arguments against cryptos (Bitcoin specifically, but much applies to any legitimate blockchain with a high volume of exchange).

Lets Begin...

All comments taken from 4chan/pol/: bitcoin crashing and burning -- honest thoughts? (6/15/17)

everyone knows its a bubble. only retards fell for the cryptocurrency meme

Not really an argument, but the outright dismissive tone indicates a total lack of understanding of the technology. Merely referring to a technology that is demonstrably disruptive as a 'meme' is foolish at best, insidious at worst. There are certainly bots and paid trolls infiltrated in all social media platforms sowing seeds of doubt about this technology. But this anon may just be a fool.

Pearls before swine...

No it's called a bubbble, bubbles burst. __They should have connected bitcoin to gold or some other precious metal during the highs. It wouldn have backed it.
Ultimately bitcoin is a fiat currency THAT IS BACKED BY NOTHING! No matter how the most optimistic want to spin it.

Another example of someone demonstrating a total lack of comprehension of both how the technology works, and WHY it works.

all time Bitcoin hashrate via blockchain.info

Bitcoin IS BACKED by something: electricity usage and processing time. The total hashrate for bitcoin, which has been growing steadily over the years is the means in which the 'value battery of bitcoin' is 'charged'. If you imagine a currency as a battery, there must be inputs of energy/work in order for the output of value to be legitimate and acceptable to another party as payment.

In the case of actual fiat currencies printed by federal reserves, the primary 'input' is trust that the system will not fail. When tremendous amounts of money are artificially injected into the system, all existing dollars batteries become less charged with value inputs (inflation in a nutshell).

I'm not sure how this individual would suggest having bitcoin 'backed by something' because that would require a centralized power controlling the nominal value of each bitcoin based on an undefined metric. This is the opposite of the decentralization value proposition of bitcoin and all blockchains basing their money supply creation on code, rather than people.

"... BACKED BY NOTHING!" is a common one. Electricity is real and it isn't cheap (unless you're using China hydro-electric for pennies :P). But all of that requires the infrastructure of the mining equipment able to run the encryption/decryption algorithm used by bitcoin to build blocks. This is just as real as the cost of physically mining gold out of the ground.

Bitcoin is not really trustworthy yet, as seen by its unpredictable volatility and scams where bitcoins "disappear" or get hacked

There may be a few examples of truth behind this, but in 99.9% of all interactions with the bitcoin network, owning the keys means you own the bitcoin and only user error can change that. With proper data security, you can become your own bank without a need of trusting third parties to protect your assets.

All of that said, I haven't heard of any examples where bitcoins simply "disappear", except for old, easily cracked brain-wallet keys with simple passphrases. That said, centralized exchanges have and will continue to be hacked (see Mt.Gox and Bitfinex for example).

This is the danger of keeping your assets on these centralized servers. To be honest though, I'm not sure what this anon meant. Moving on...

(in response) scams where bitcoins "disappear" or get hacked

What you mean is when a exchange gets hacked and is not ensured [sic]. Well thats your fault for storing your money at said exchange. Its like storing your paper money at an uninsured bank that gets robbed. Has nothing to do with blockchain tech

This anon gets it.

I thought there was news that the american government was going to crack down on it?

There were recent news reports of legislation being put forward that will change how the American government views and regulates cryptocurrencies. Time will tell what that may bring. See this post from @dollarvigilante for more information.

I would advocate and support the cryptocurrency community setting aside the bickering and infighting in order to build a lobbying firm of crypto nerds and politically connected folk to fight for protection, though this Trojan Horse of decentralized currency is already within the city walls. Tick Tock, Fed...

Backed by peoples will for illegal goods and anonymity.

Right on both accounts. Not the only value proposition, but thank you for identifying those two specifically. I'm sure this anon was saying this in a derogatory manner, but demand is demand is demand.

this isnt analogous with new banking. this is analogous with an online barter economy who are all selling shells to each other.

everyone who wants to pay with the shells adds value to the shells. so they have some value, but that value will eventually only be the first to market value of BTC

with infinite alt coins available BTC offers no competitive advantage. your shells are just as valuable in utility as my shells 2.0

Sure... if said shells were extremely fungible, highly divisible into smaller amounts, backed by tremendous electricity and processing output, and able to be sent to anyone, anywhere in the globe with access to the internet near instantaneously for a relatively small fee? They would absolutely be like trading shells in barter economy.

...head hitting desk...

The alt coin argument I had not heard yet, but as I pointed out in this article, I view bitcoin as "the main drive chain providing access to applied force to all other cryptocurrencies, via exchanges and supply/demand".

I am a firm believer that bitcoin is the foundation of the cryptocurrency/blockchain ecosystem and both altcoins and bitcoin provide mutual benefit to each other.

BTC is proof that you can create an artificial electronic currency/stock and sell the idea to techie hipsters to promote it and draw the normies in.

quite frankly im surprised there isnt a /pol/ currency at this point.

in the end BTC is worth w/e a fool is willing to pay for it. At least real money is backed by governments and armies and stocks are part of businesses with assets and capital

Not sure how to respond without repeating points made above. This anon has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. No idea what makes bitcoin valuable in the minds of many and probably couldn't explain how a blockchain works in it's most rudimentary form.

More pearls before swine...

[in response to an anon pointing out that governments can 'turn off' bitcoin] just like the government could take down the silk road and doesnt already own TOR

The Silk Road takedown, as discussed in @gayboy 's article, created a blossom of new 'dark markets' to fill the demand void created when Ross Ulbricht was arrested (via: @the-bitcoin-dood).

This genie is already out of the bottle and the only method to "stopping bitcoin" from what I've deduced, and have heard others deduce, would be completely shutting down the internet. Its use could be criminalized, but then you have a Streisand Effect problem, mixed with the tremendous challenge of actually enforcing this rule. I have yet to hear legitimate governmental actions that could eliminate the use of bitcoin by private citizens outside of living in a police state.

Whether or not TOR is compromised (there are certainly examples of this (via: garrettfogerlie)), is another question entirely since normal, non-DarkNet transactions are not required to use bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies.

All these bitcoin advocates have never actually sold any.

Its fucking impossible to sell them. Bitcoin is a scam. The NWO Illuminati plan is to go cashless, remember? Bitcoin is the perfect NWO currency.

Buy silver or Gold

Anyone who has used Coinbase, LocalBitcoins, or a Swift card should know this is more uninformed nonsense. As far as the NWO Illuminati cashless plan goes, this would only work with bitcoin if they had controls of the supply and volume of supply (which they absolutely do not). Beyond that, in order to corner the market, they would need to purchase large quantities of BTC and corner the market, which would drive up the value while simultaneously driving up the demand. It would be like trying to stop a buzzsaw with your bare hand -- not wise.

It's going to rebound. Buy the dip. Fuck off nocoiner normie. reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

+100 GBP's to this anon ^. I like his style.

So what arguments did I miss? What arguments do you come by most frequently? How do you handle them?

Main image via boinboing.net