| submitted by /u/Mark0Sky
If you think about it, most who are currently manipulating will cease doing so for the time being while this investigation is ongoing. While they obviously can't detect everything, you'd think this would scare off at least a solid amount of the bad apples. While many don't want it, this needs to happen and is a step in the right direction. If Bitcoin is going to be taken seriously and reach the levels you're all HODL'ing for, then let's be real and embrace the changes that will actually get us there.
The current president and chief executive officer of the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank, and the man expected to soon be the New York Federal Reserve Bank, John Williams, has rejected the suggestion that cryptocurrencies comprise currency.
Also Read: Trading Sanctions Imposed on Tezos Co-Founder Amid FINRA…
I’ve heard Peter Schiff argue that Bitcoin isn’t truly scarce because an infinite number of competing cryptocurrencies can be invented. But by that logic, gold isn’t truly scarce either because I can take a random piece of wood, spray paint it gold, and offer this “woodgold” as a competing commodity.
A goldbug might reply that this analogy is ridiculous because gold has properties (scarcity, historical value) that woodgold doesn’t. But that’s exactly the point. Bitcoin has properties that a random altcoin doesn’t; i.e., network security (people seriously underestimate how valuable it is that Bitcoin has survived nearly a decade of sophisticated and persistent attacks), the development community, first mover status, number of adopters, etc. Sure, anyone can create an infinite number of random altcoins, but good luck trying to get people to adopt it and to take the time to protect the integrity of the network.
What is your best response to the “bitcoin isn’t truly scarce” argument?