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

Bitcoin is a bubble

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/12/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 372 times Debate No: 79663
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




Bitcoin is a bubble, to explain why I will explain to you a little session in economics called:
The Bubble
A bubble is when a large sum of people buy into something because they think it will be sold for more later on, a bubble is nearly impossible to stage without fiat, take this for example, say the ratio of a bag of Starbucks coffee to a dollar bill is 1:10, you need to put down 10$ to equal the Starbucks, then say the Fed decides to make th were be 2x the amount of $ in currency, then it's half the value, you need to put down another 10$ to equal the Starbucks, 1:20, then the Fed just starts issuing $ like crazy, the value of the dollar goes down, the amount of $ needed to equal the Starbucks goes up, but from the dollars perspective the value of the Starbucks is going up, so people buy into it, eventually there isn't enough money to equal the value assigned to the coffee, no one can buy it, by now the coffee is cost 100$, it crashes to 10$, this is how you start a bubble, bit coin is a bubble, it's proper value is 5$, (that's how much it is capable of being valued) and it pops at 250$, meaning that there is only enough buyers and people who accept bit coin to support the bubbling until this price, people keep trying to get back into the bubble, they keep overhauling it, raising the price, and it pops.


Pro claims that bitcoin's price is in a bubble. There are two insurmountable issues with this claim:

First, this is based on Pro's claim that bitcoins true value is 5$. However, this is just Pro's subjective value for bitcoin. Obviously, since bitcoin is trading at around $235, these current buyers subjective value is at least $235. Pro would have to provide some information that, if announced publicly, would immediately cause all bitcoin buyers and sellers to bid the price down to $5.

Next, knowledge of bubbles can only be known ex post facto. Pro cannot really win unless the price of bitcoin falls to $5 before voting ends on this debate.

Debate Round No. 1


1. I did not say Hutchins value is 5$, I said that bitcoins value capacity is 5$.
2. It doesn't have to, it already did, it went from 5$ to 250$, then restarted 4 times since 2010.


1. Yep, you and both agreed that your claim was bitcoin is worth 5$.

2. The price of bitcoin prior to Sept 12, 2015 is irrelevant. As I explained in round 1, bubbles can only be identified ex post facto (which you just proved).
Debate Round No. 2


Did you just say I was right?


Yes, you and I both agree that your claim is that bitcoin is actually worth 5$. However, as I've explained, bubbles are determined ex post facto. I also established criteria for determining whether bitcoin is actually in a bubble, which is that it's price will fall to 5$ prior to the end of this debates voting. Since you did not contest this point, I'll take that to mean that you agree with this. So there's not much left to do but wait.
Debate Round No. 3


I'd doesn't need to, it already happened 4 times in a row.


Whether bitcoin has been a bubble in the past is irrelevant. Pro must establish that bitcoin is in a bubble now. Even if voters side with Pro on this detail and allow that the term "bitcoin is a bubble" may include it's past performance, Pro has established no objective criteria to measure this. When did this occur? What was the starting and ending price, and how much of a fall must occur before the term "bubble" is applicable. These details must be defined because Pro's resolution must be answered either "yes" or "no". The burden of proof is on Pro, and "bitcoin is a bubble" has not been established.

Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by ax123man 1 year ago
Your saying a good definition of a bubble is:

"...when a large sum of people buy into something because they think it will be sold for more later on"

This applies to every investment anyone has ever made. Economists can't even decide how to define a bubble. Interview with economist Eugene Fama:

(interviewer) I guess most people would define a bubble as an extended period during which asset prices depart quite significantly from economic fundamentals.

(Fama) That"s what I would think it is, but that means that somebody must have made a lot of money betting on that, if you could identify it. It"s easy to say prices went down, it must have been a bubble, after the fact. I think most bubbles are twenty-twenty hindsight. Now after the fact you always find people who said before the fact that prices are too high. People are always saying that prices are too high. When they turn out to be right, we anoint them. When they turn out to be wrong, we ignore them. They are typically right and wrong about half the time.

(interviewer) Are you saying that bubbles can"t exist?

(Fama) They have to be predictable phenomena. I don"t think any of this was particularly predictable.
Posted by harrytruman 1 year ago
Blanket statement.
Posted by bobsndyer1 1 year ago
I vote con. Pro is dumb.
Posted by harrytruman 1 year ago
A backed bimetal standard us dollar, these are easily verifiable if you should look.
Posted by asi14 1 year ago
1) What evidence do you provide any of this is true?
2) What alternatives do you provide to bitcoin?
Possible followups
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Hayd 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro starts out giving good information on what a 'bubble' exactly is and then shows how Bitcoin matches the definition of a 'bubble' so it is in a bubble. This is a good argument as it proves Pro's side, the only way Con contests this point is by saying that it isn't in a bubble right now. Pro reiterates his point that it is in the bubble and gives evidence on how its drastically changed, defeating Cons claims. Con only repeats this argument the rest of the debate, winning Pro argument points. Pro has fulfilled his resolution and Con has failed to negate it.