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

Will BitCoin be able to survive as an alternate currency?

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: 3/17/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 683 times Debate No: 49283
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




There are many people who believe BitCoin is just a scam. I will attempt to debate with facts the reasons why BitCoin can be an alternative currency.

Round 1 = acceptance
Rounds 2 & 3= debate


I accept, and wish you the best of luck with this debate.
Debate Round No. 1


BitCoin has been around for 3 years. Despite numerous attempts by the government and hackers to shut it down, it still exists.

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."


Rapid adoption, or even popularity, cannot be used as an indication of long term survivability. Take 3D TV"s as an example. The adoption rate for 3D was so rapid that estimates in 2010 had 3D representing 37% of the market in 2014[1]. Fast forward to today, and now the industry is contemplating 3D as dead[2]. If short term popularity were a good indicator of survivability then beanie babies would be a sound financial investment based off of the craze in the 90"s.

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[3]. 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[4]. 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[5]. 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[6]. 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[7]. 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.

Debate Round No. 2


There really is no way to prove if Bitcoin will actually survive or not.
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.


It is an absolute certainty that Bitcoin will fail because it was designed with known flaws to force it to fail. The proof is in Shor and Grovers algorithms as mathematical proofs that private key encryption is effective only in the short term. Even favoring deflation is a method to ensure rapid destruction in the event it isn"t done earlier by technology. These facts were known well before Bitcoin was even a concept, and I personally cannot accept that someone smart enough to make Bitcoin wasn"t aware of these fundamental flaws.

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.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by medv4380 2 years ago
You're cutting it down to the wire. Hope you post soon.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Geogeer 2 years 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a shared burden of proof debate. Con's arguments were more complete and not refuted.