The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Bit coin is a scam

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/12/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 302 times Debate No: 79653
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)




For this debate I will be arguing that bit coin is a scam.
1. Bit coin is worthless, it's a bunch of 1s and 0s.
Anyone can just make more.
3. Bit coin has an unstable "value" changing from 5$ to 250$ back and forth.
4. Bit coin is unreliable, anything could happen,leave you're bit coin wallet next to a magnet, drop it in the toilet, run it over, you could leaving in you're pants and have it go into the washing machine
5. Bit coin is illegal under the coinage act of 1857.
6. Bit coin is used by criminals world wide.
7. The person who invented bit coin didn't have the integrity to reveal who he even is.


As you posted no specific structure for this debate, I shall simply rebut your points (in order):

1. Regardless of its actual form, the only value a currency has is derived from a single factor: ability to manufacture. The Dollar, for example, only has any value at all because of the "legal tender" law. Since bitcoins aren't a physical currency, the only way we can measure their worth is by determining how many bitcoins exist, and how trustworthy the creator of the currency is.

2. (You have no point 2, so no argument here)

3. This is an absurd argument, because the Dollar, which you're comparing the value of the bitcoin to, doesn't have a stable value itself, so this argument is completely meaningless.

4. This same argument also applies to credit/debit cards (and in some cases, paper money as well), yet people still carry them around, so this argument has no ramifications either.

5. The law you mentioned, in my opinion, is completely unconstitutional and serves no purpose other than to force us to use a dying currency, so it carries no particular weight.

6. Did you know that all forms of currency (that carry value) are used by criminals worldwide as well?

7. The fact that the creator of bitcoins hasn't revealed their identity has absolutely nothing to do with their integrity. I'm sure they have a reason, be it out of want of peace or modesty, it doesn't matter.

Overall, you've provided no evidence to support your claim that "bitcoins are a scam". I'd appreciate it if you'd use said evidence next round.
Debate Round No. 1


1. Anything non physical is untrustworthy.
2. My second argument is than anyone could make more.
3. The dollar looses its value, it doesn't rapidly go up and down.
4. Yes but you could get a replacement, and the bank has records, bit coin is decentralised.
5. Except that it's a law.
6. Bit coin is completely untraceable unlike the dollar.
7. If it was a good thing hed reveal his identity.


Once again, I'll rebut my opponents points in order:

1. That implies that credit/debit cards are untrustworthy, which is clearly false. Many people use credit/debit cards, and most have no issue with them. Next time you make this argument, please baxk it up with evidence. "Anything non-physical is untrustworthy" is a fallacy of "hasty generalization".

2. Hence the need for honesty of the Creator of the bitcoin. If people don't trust it, people aren't going to use it. People are using it, so people trust it.

3. All currencies that aren't based in a non-clonable material are constantly fluctuating in value, for a multitude of reasons. So, while the bitcoin is stable on its own (it can neither gain nor lose value, because there is a set number of bitcoins in circulation), its value in relation to the dollar is continually changing.

4. "The Bitcoin technology - the protocol and the cryptography - has a strong security track record, and the Bitcoin network is probably the biggest distributed computing project in the world. Bitcoin's most common vulnerability is in user error. Bitcoin wallet files that store the necessary private keys can be accidentally deleted, lost or stolen. This is pretty similar to physical cash stored in a digital form. Fortunately, users can employ sound security practices to protect their money or use service providers that offer good levels of security and insurance against theft or loss." (

As with other forms of currency, you are capable of losing it, but you can prevent this by using common sense.

5. Just because a law is a law does not mean it's set in stone. For example, in a civil trial, the jury can deem a law unreasonable and/or unconstitutional, and have charges based on that law throws out. So, again, simply because it's a law doesn't mean it's set in stone (or particularly reasonable, for that matter).

It would seem I've run out of characters. I'll write my closing in the comments.
Debate Round No. 2


1. This is different, digital bank accounts may not be physical, but they are a record of something that is.
2. This has nothing to do.
3. Anyone can make . More, there is no limit.
4. More direct please?
5. Actually it was very reasonable.
6. And what device holds these records of bitcoin is decentralised?
7. If I invented the cure for cancer I wouldn't be all hiding in the shadows about it, but if I stole 1000$ there's a reason to be secretive.


1. Digital bank accounts aren't a record, keeping track of physical currency. They're essentially a number, which can be exchanged for currency. Basically, digital money is a more liquid form of value that can be exchanged at will for the actual currency. This is exactly the same as the bitcoin.

2/3. This argument is wholly invalid. Bitcoins are created at a fixed rate, and their network is continually improving security and reliability, so the argument that "anyone can create more" is'nt at all based in reality.

4. My earlier point was that you can lose bitcoin files, just like any physical currency. That's the error of the user, not the system.

5. Wether it's a reasonable law or not is rather subjective. However, I believe that it has no effect other than to force US citizens to use the Dollar, the reasons for which are obvious. I believe this law to be unconstitutional, therefore invalid.

6. You can find transaction data here:

7. You're certainly entitled to your own opinion, but to suggest that there is no legitimate reason for not trumpeting your identity to the world is absurd.

So far you've provided no evidence to suggest your argument that "Bit coin is a scam", merely argued about specific details, such as the legality of the bitcoin. Before anyone votes for this debate, I'd like to point out that as Pro, my opponent recieves the entire burden of proof. All I need to do is deny his statements.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by harrytruman 1 year ago
1. My point exactly, it is untrustworthy.
2. You got me there, I Wil provide more evidence next time.
Posted by FrozenLichBox 1 year ago
If you could actually do that, the system would be completely pointless and untrustworthy.

Also, verifiable or not, you provided no evidence to support your argument. Don't expect voters to just assume what you say is correct and/or hunt for evidence on their own. That's your responsibility.
Posted by harrytruman 1 year ago
Everything I say is easily verifiable.
Posted by harrytruman 1 year ago
Of coarse you could, it's easy, you go over to your bit coin wallet, put in the numbers 1000000000000 and you press the button labeled "mine!"
Try it, it's easy.
Posted by FrozenLichBox 1 year ago

6. "All Bitcoin transactions are stored in a public ledger called the blockchain. The data stored in each of these transactions includes a bitcoin payment amount and the Bitcoin addresses of the sender and the recipient (among other things). Because every transaction uses the bitcoins from a prior transaction, and the blockchain is public data, every Bitcoin payment has a traceable history that can be viewed by anyone." (

7. Do you have any evidence to back up your claim? Unless you can find some, my stance remains that just because someone doesn't reveal their identity doesn't mean what their doing can't be good.
No votes have been placed for this debate.