Will BitCoin be able to survive as an alternate currency?
Debate Rounds (3)
Round 1 = acceptance
Rounds 2 & 3= debate
Despite many BitCoin exchanges failing, Bitcoins themselves still hold significant value.
Despite many naysayers, BitCoin continues to thrive.
BitCoin is secure with the use of private keys
BitCoin continues to gain in popularity around the world.
The The deflationary spiral theory has been debunked.
"Volatility does not affect the main benefits of Bitcoin as a payment system to transfer money from point A to point B."
Private keys may provide a bit of security in the short term, but hardly represent long term security. Currently private keys can be, and have been, broken due to poor implementation. A private key that is used to sign two transactions, but used the same random nonce resulted in some "private" keys becoming compromised. The current compromise assumes that this was accidental, but it is entirely possible that this was just a backdoor put in by organisations looking for a way of breaking encryption. Perhaps the NSA, or any countries espionage department.
For long term survivability the encryption would need to be future proofed. A one-time-pad is a form of encryption from WWII that is future proof. However, its not suitable for crypto currencies. If a quantum computer is made that can implement Shor"s algorithm then all RSA private keys are compromised. If one is made that can implement Grover"s algorithm then the difficulty of brute forcing the remaining private keys is exponentially cut in half. ie, 256 bit encryption become 128 bit encryption. That is only going off of what is currently know, and doesn"t even take into account future algorithms that will supersede those algorithms.
Given that no private key encryption possesses a mathematical proof ensuring it is never broken, like how one-time-pads do, it shouldn"t be considered adequate evidence for survivability.
The citing of the bitcoin FAQ hardly debunks a deflationary spiral. It merely conflates deflation of a products price as a result in improvements in efficiency, and deflation of the money supply. One is good deflation, and the other is bad deflation. They are not the same.
To understand how bad monetary deflation is you need to answer a simple math question. Lets say bitcoin has reached its deflationary state (all coins existing), and deflation remains constant at 5% per year. You have a salary of 100 bitcoins per year, and a cost of living of 50 bitcoins per year. Your wage, and cost of living will deflate with bitcoin each year. If you take out a 1000 Bitcoin Loan will you ever be able to pay it back with 50 bitcoins more for interest?
You will never be able to pay back the loan under these conditions. Year 10 you will have paid off 401 bitcoins. Year 20, 640 bitcoins. Year 50, 923. Year 100, 994. Even with an infinite amount of time you will only have paid 1000 bitcoins, and that is 50 bitcoins short of what would be owed.
As for volatility only if you ignore that person A(consumer) and person B(vendor) can exchange bitcoins only because a third person C is acting as a money changer. The exchanges only appear to work until person C is bankrupted by the volatility. This also only protects person B because person A will have to hold onto the bitcoins in their "wallet" until they find person B to then spend them.
However the debate is "Will BitCoin be able to survive as an alternate currency?"
Is it possible it will survive? Of course, because you can't prove it will fail.
Is it also possible it will fail? Sure, but that's not the debate question.
Unless my opponent can actually prove it will fail, You'll have to vote in my favor.
Thanks for the debate.
Pro choose not to refute any of my positions, and as Instigator, and Pro, bears the burden of proving the claim that Bitcoin can survive. If you believe Pro"s final argument that it cannot be proven then you should vote Con because Pro has admitted that the claim is unprovable. Even Pro"s claim to intend to use facts to prove their claim is refuted by Pro"s in the final statement that it is unprovable.
If you accept my evidence then you should also vote Con because my proof shows Bitcoin was a dead end from the start.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Geogeer 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: This was a shared burden of proof debate. Con's arguments were more complete and not refuted.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.