Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon says Bitcoin is a fraud that will eventually blow up (cnbc.com)
72 points by mudil 13 days ago | hide | past | web | 128 comments | favorite

Bitcoin (and other cryptos) do have real uses for which there is real demand. My worry is that the current price has substantially outpaced the support that those uses offer.

Let's go over some of the things that make up bitcoin's price:

-You can make legal retail transactions -- a very small portion of transfers, but legitimate. This is a 'regular money' use.

-Make large 'wire' transfers for less than it would cost through your bank. Totally legitimate and valuable in my opinion. This is a 'Regular money' use.

-There are future expectations of bitcoin expanding the above two points. Supports the 'regular money' points above.

-You can use bitcoin to (illegally) move money out of countries like China, which is now being cracked down on. This is a black market money / money laundering use.

-Use as a speculation instrument. Valuable in a way, but only bullish on net because it is supported by the above services. This can be done with 'regular money', but speculative financial instruments are primarily assets and not regular money.

There are many others, but those are the big ones I know about. The issue is that it appears the price is 80%+ speculation, 15% capital flight, and maybe only 5% of the demand for the asset is based on the traditional 'regular money' uses... What this means is that once the speculative support moves from net positive, to net negative (meaning, once Bitcoin gets a widespread reputation as being a dog) things start to go downhill hard.

Of course my estimates above are very loose, and in the future the expansion of bitcoin into a far larger mainstream uses case could overpower all of them, but either my estimates above need to be off (and they may be) or we need to see large scale adoption of bitcoin for legitimate uses at some point (also a maybe).

> Make large 'wire' transfers for less than it would cost through your bank.

Assuming both the sender and the recipient want to use BTC as a store of value. Otherwise there's a commission involved from BTC-to-fiat conversion at both ends of the transaction.

Also, banks tend to have a flat fee on wire transfers. Assuming a $25 fee on both the sender and the recipient, sending $51 will likely be more efficient in BTC. But at some point ($5,100? $51,000? $5,100,000?) the wire transfer becomes the preferred choice.

It's not just about fees; the biggest problem is that the transaction takes time, and by the time your money reaches the other end, the value of the BTC you sent could be very different from when you sent it.

Also to be noted is that BTC to fiat adds a significant counterparty risk that isn't really an issue in fiat to fiat transfers (when was the last time a bank ran away with your wire transfer?), and also one of Satoshi's cited reasons for creating Bitcoin in the first place. BTC to fiat adds a redundancy that only makes sense to add to the equation if you're doing something illegal. Otherwise, why not accept a fiat wire transfer in the first place?

The important thing here is that illegal isn't the same thing as doing something bad. There's enough regimes out there where you'd want to hide certain spending patterns.

There can be a commission at the end or there can be an extra % to be made. When I was buying and selling in BTC if I needed to buy or sell BTC I would trade on localbitcoins, buying at 5-10% under the market rate and selling to the market 5-10% above market rate.

Further, while the transfer via the bank is usually a flat fee the bank also make a cut on the exchange rate that they charge the user, so there is a % element to consider on larger transfers.

Looks to me like wire transfers are about to go away with the launch of services like Zelle. The banks clearly understand that if they don't lower fees on bank-to-bank transfers they are likely to be disinter-mediated.

The contrarian view is that the blockchain can make transactions and transfers cheaper, faster, and easier to validate in any currency. I don't need bitcoin to do any of that.

Blockchain relies entirely on the value of bitcoin for its functionality. If bitcoin goes to zero, everyone stops mining and blockchain ceases to work.

So define "blockchain" as "crypto-backed distributed ledger". The "distributed ledger" part of that isn't new. Crypto doesn't imply bitcoin. But yes, right now the two are inseparable, which IMO is part of the risk. I don't want a new currency: I want the benefits of the blockchain. A lot of the so-called benefits of bitcoin aren't really exclusive to it: they apply to any currency and a distributed ledger (and the implementation thereof).

That "bitcoin" is what we call blocks, and blocks have value because they take effort to get, doesn't mean that's a robust currency. I can go dig gold out of the ground, or speculate on wireless frequencies, or whatever.

I think he means there are alternative Cryptos which have block chains and may succeed in bitcoin's place.

Fundamentally there's always the same issue though. For the system to work in a trustless way, you need something bitcoin-like to be able to incentivise miners.

Have a little more faith in the institutions of computer science and cryptography! I'm sure there's a solution, if it becomes a problem. Pow, pos, hybrids, Cryptos are in their infancy, I'm excited to see them supercede fiat currency, if such a thing could happen; long, winding road ahead.

You need network effect for it to be convenient. Bitcoin is the first. Bitcoin is the most used. Bitcoin has a measurable network effect.

Ethereum boasts 3x the nodes and 1.5x the number of transactions http://www.flippening.watch

Curious what investment strategy that would lead you to... If your bullish on blockchain but bearish on bitcoin, you're looking at, what, Ripple?

I wasn't thinking in terms of investment strategy, but fair point given the original article. My real answer would channel Buffett and be to not invest in something I don't fully understand (or, more precisely, not invest in something I don't have an advantage in). Forced into a corner, I'd invest in firms who are exploiting the technology, like financial institutions, blue-chip tech companies, or consulting companies who implement same.

Ripple is chainless. Ripple actually has the potential to scale beyond 10 minute block intervals; the speed of light, potentially a true interplanetary settlement network.

You've omitted buying drugs and the like from your list. Like it or not that's a substantial use case.

I don't really understand this argument in general. Let's not pretend that drugs aren't already being bought with regular cash.

Bitcoin may make it harder to track who is paying for what, but it's not like it brought on a drug-buying renaissance.

On that subject, the proportion of black market Bitcoin transactions is decreasing: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2808762 «...a third stage marked by a sharp progression away from “sin” and toward legitimate enterprises.»

Fair point. I think general black market retail transactions probably should have been added above.

I have bought way more drugs with fiat than I have ever done with bitcoin.

The most important uses in mind are that you can use Bitcoin to hedge against your own currency and as a way to diversify your portfolio in the same way you might hold stocks, bonds, cash and gold.

You don't hedge a stable currency with a volatile currency.

That's not quite true, the underlying volatility doesn't matter as long as the position sizes (as part of a basket of currencies) are correct and the relationships between the currencies are well understood.

I dont know why you're being down voted. You can diversify into high and low risk assets. Btc is a valid but high risk asset, with a future that one could at least rationally make a case for.

Hedging is about reducing risk.

You can definitely argue that people shouldn't keep all their wealth stashed as dollar bills under their mattress, and that they should diversify.

Indeed, absolutely nobody advocates doing that. Everyone says to diversify, except for goldbugs and bitcoin extremists.

The question of whether it would be a good idea diversifying in that direction is still unanswered, as there's plenty of real productive assets to invest in that contribute tangible goods and services to the world.

When people are in a frenzy bidding up the prices of things that aren't providing goods and services to anyone, then you should worry.

You do if youre a 20-something software developer who can afford to lose a couple thousand dollars and take the risk of hitting it big.

While in theory it is probable that btc growth will never be as astronomic as it has been in the past, you can't time the market, and there's no telling where the true ceiling is because this market is so inneficient.

Aside: the inneficiency I think comes from ignorance and manipulation of btc, not a flaw in btc itself.

BTC minted the vast majority of its coin supply to a tiny group of users.

Worth considering, especially now that there are better alternative blockchains.

Who said stable? Many fiat currencies are unstable and/or have very high inflation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inflation...

Bitcoin has larger price fluctuations than any country on that list, except Venezuela.

For hedging against fiat currencies, short-term price fluctuations are irrelevant. Long-term price trend is what matters, and Bitcoin gained 4×/7×/18×/32× over the last 6/12/24/48 months, far beating the inflation of all world's fiat currencies. Also note that volatility is quickly decreasing: https://twitter.com/lsukernik/status/864920873718951937

Those same countries will also have exchanges with huge spreads or money transmitters charging exorbitant fees for converting in and out of bitcoin.

Stable according to whom? Check out all that stability in Venezeula.

Sorry if this has been pounded to death, but where can people read up on Bitcoin? I heard of that Andreas Antonopoulos, but first impression he feels kind of sales pitchy.

Just to expand on the 'wire' transfers. It can also be used to transfer money overseas without tax.

This is what I was trying to get at with the China point. If you're avoiding taxes, you can bet goverments will try to crack down on you. My whole thesis, btw, assumes that legal uses would dominate illegal uses in terms of transactional value.

In addition to avoiding taxes and enabling easier wealth expatriation, cyrpto-currencies are also apparently being used to avoid international sanctions (eg. North Korea).

Which is a liability. Going around the major governmental funding mechanism is a great way to get attention you don't want.

I understand that people are interested in avoiding legal restrictions, although a fully transparent ledger might not be the best way to do that.

Can you show some price comparisons for transfers?

Your other points are worthless without those two being true.

Well I think it runs about $5 to prioritize a bitcoin transfer at this point (mentioned elsewhere in the thread). If you want to do a traditional wire, which takes about 2 hours to process, it runs $25 at most financial institutions.

You can send money via paypal to friends basically instantly, without any fees. How is that not better in every way?

PayPal charges 2.5%+ if your friend is in a different country using a different currency, if their country is supported at all.

And Lord help you if the amount is 'too large' or if they think it's actually a business transaction or if any other of their fraud filters are triggered. It could be 6 months before either of you see that money again.

Exchanging between bitcoin and another currency also imposes a fee, so that is not an apples to apples comparison.

People in different countries use different currencies. Even if the Euro is a stronger currency than the Nigerian naira, you're still going to want to use the naira in Nigeria.

Why? Because that is what people use to pay their taxes, and that huge entrenched demand creates a de facto common currency even without de jure legal tender laws.

> Exchanging between bitcoin and another currency also imposes a fee, so that is not an apples to apples comparison.

No, but exchanging Bitcoin for fiat is a lot cheaper in my experience than fiat-fiat. 0% - 0.5% vs 1.4% - 3.0%.

I'm not sure what the rest of your post has to do with Bitcoin vs. PayPal for personal remittance. I don't think Bitcoin is a good currency, but it's great at medium value and cross-border remittance applications and I've used it successfully many times in that capacity (I used to be a digital nomad).

The relevance of the second part of my post was that it is as unrealistic to expect everyone in the world to adopt bitcoin as it would be to expect everyone in the world to adopt the Euro.

And thus, relatedly, that currency exchanges would still be needed constantly under any circumstance.

If it is cheaper to exchange from bitcoin to fiat than from fiat to fiat, that would be interesting. I would tend to question whether it is a tax issue.

Ordering from Amazon used to be much cheaper too, but nowadays it has been collecting sales tax.

My understanding is that, for Bitcoin, this process of being made to play by the same rules has already begun.

When you're conducting business?

For business you can use checks, but the speed is much worse, obviously, even with Same Day ACH arriving.

Paypal seller fees are quite steep, that is true, but I assume mainly that is when they are accepting credit cards. Sometimes that is simply pushed to consumers. Paying your rent by credit card always costs extra, but that is because of the risk of default.

But you can always pay your rent online by ACH without a fee.

Genuinely curious. Given that the hardest part of a kidnapping is retrieving the money. Is it possible that Bitcoin is facilitating that ?

"Currencies have legal support. It will blow up."

Diamond reminds me of a bartender warning his patrons not to smoke pot. (Because alcohol is mostly legal, while pot is mostly illegal.)

Also, fiat currencies need to maintain public confidence, part of which comes from a legal code. The remainder comes from management of the currency and its underlying domestic economy. I suspect a great deal of the value of Bitcoin may come from an eroding confidence of the U.S. dollar; especially after the events of '08 and the ongoing weak economy.

No I think it means you can force someone to take the currency for payment. If I don't want to take bitcoins for payment, no one is going to force me.

Is it illegal for a seller to price something in the U.S. in bitcoin (or a some other form of exchange) and not dollars?

If cigarettes became a more attractive medium of exchange, is it illegal to use that medium between two private, consenting parties?

You can price anything in anything, nobody prohibits you for exchanging a dining table for a sonnet or a Python script for a set of numbers. Legal tender means if you wanted money, and somebody pays you in US currency, you can not force them to pay in something else. Moreover, if you did agree to write a sonnet as payment, and did not do, and you get sued, and assigned damages - you can pay these damages in US currency and it would be deemed settled. I.e. any debt that is paid in US currency would be considered settled. You can still pay in whatever you like, as long as both parties agree.

I believe that's the very definition of legal tender:


It doesn't prevent you from accepting other means of exchange (though in some countries it does), but it does force you to accept it, even if you don't like it.

Not quite, legal tender means if someone owes you money, you have to accept it.

Not if you're the US government, apparently?

Tim DeChristopher spent 21 months in prison despite how he "had raised sufficient funds for an initial payment to the BLM (which the BLM refused to accept)."


(I bring this up because I'd always wondered about how why that case fell out that way, and apparently it can't, per the common meaning of the terms, so my understanding of legal tender seems correct?)

If you'd said toilet paper (or most other things) instead of cigarettes, I think you'd have a different conversation, but as cigarettes are a restricted and specially taxed thing, I suspect that using individual cigarettes as bartering implements is almost certainly taboo.

Fiat, while in a way better shape on that part, is not perfect either. I don't know for other countries, but here in france we have three means of payment : payment cards, paychecks and cash. Cash is annoying to manage because of its fixed values, always having to deal with rest and counting. Paychecks, you never know if a merchant will accept them (it's more and more rare). payment cards have weekly rate limits, and we have no mean to know before paying for something how close you are from it, except if you track every single payment you make.

Last year, I tried a bitcoin payment card. It was not practical because of bitcoin volatility, but there was something super cool about it : it was a prepaid rechargeable card that I could recharge in the hour, by sending bitcoins to it. I always knew how much I could use on the card and could basically use everything that was on it, without fearing to hit some obscure limit.

This was the perfect payment method for me. I hope we'll have something similar to this but with non volatile currency soon (I know this exists for fiat, but I have to wait like 2 days for a wire transfer to happen, this is not practical).

The problems you are describing have nothing to do with Fiat currency but with the quality of the service offered by your bank. My bank shows me all pending payments live.

Certainly, it's a banking problem. My problem was not to list pending transactions, though, it was not knowing how much I could use at any given moment with my card (because it's unrelated to my balance). The cryptocurrency part was to allow for fast reload (due to fast transfers), but anything that allows this (without hitting an other card rate limit, obviously) would do.

Like a prepaid Visa or Mastercard?

Yep, it was a prepaid visa, the "feature" of it was that I could recharge it in an hour or less (the time a bitcoin transaction was confirmed).

There is a measure of self-serving here, to be sure. But there's also a major point often ignored by people who emphasize technology over sociology - money, and economics in general, is a social thing. It's not the technology, the technology is a tool, the society, the decisions taken by people and their interaction is what makes economy. And laws is the distillation of what society thinks about it.

Surely, new technologies influence decisions, and enable new ways of interaction, and laws can be outdated. But ignoring that sphere altogether and claiming since we've got new technology old laws of how money works does not apply anymore is dangerous. A lot of it still does apply. If we ignore that, we get what happened at dotcom boom and then crash - people claimed old rules of economics, supply and demand, scarcity, etc. do not apply anymore - turns out they largely still do.

Yes, we've got some new ways to do things, but fundamentally it's still the same story. And it seems to be, the same story with Bitcoin - money do need legal support. Some people - mostly those who live outside the mainstream community - can be ok without it, but vast majority would not be.

SEC treats Bitcoin as a commodity, and cryptocurrencies as an asset class.

Major banks, investment houses and hedge funds regularly publish [sometimes strongly-worded] opinions on their vision of the specific asset or asset class.

If Jamie Dimon made a statement that oil will remain stable, or that aluminum is overpriced and no JP Morgan trader should touch it, would it be viewed through the same lens of grand conspiracy?

Well, if anyone will know how to operate a long-running fraud it would be that guy.

(Sorry, but someone had to say it...)

Are you saying that simply because he's the head of a large financial institution or is there some specific accusation against Dimon?

If it were a binary decision, I wouldn't put him in the bad guy camp. At least based on what I know about the guy.

Don't you know how the financial system works? Banks make currency. With Bitcoin, they haven't figured out how to do the same. Their empire is in danger. His argument is predicated on the false assertion that currency has to be legally recognized; it doesn't. It only has to be accepted by those who trade with it. Not only is he bashing Bitcoin, but he is bashing all of cryptocurrency. What an idiot he is. The real fraud is perpetrated upon us by banks who lend dollars without holding hold an equal value of gold or silver. In past centuries, this was punishable as a felony by death.

Why the downvotes? transverse is right. The medium of exchange doesn't have to recognised by the Government, only accepted by both ends.

I would recommend you read one of Paul Krugman's book to understand how banking and the economy work.

Could you elaborate what specifically is wrong with what transverse is claiming?

Well, the very first assertion "Banks make currency" is not accurate in the US (the context of the article). Currency is "made" by a combination of the US Treasury and policy set by the federal reserve. The fed is a bank of sorts, but in no sense is a bank like JPMC creating currency.

The part about not backing deposits with silver and gold being fraud is pretty wrong.

Even in Ye Olden Daze, banks would send deposits of things like gold and silver right back out the door as loans.

Banks like JP Morgan don't have the power to put more money into circulation, so you're wrong.

You should review the concept of "fractional reserve banking".

I'm not entirely sure if this is a joke or not. One of the fundamental functions of a bank is to increase the money supply by creating debt.

>Bitcoin fell to trade around its session lows after Dimon's comments. As of 2:05 p.m. in New York, bitcoin traded at $4,154.04, down 0.8 percent.

What percentage of bitcoin users actually use it often for its practical value, as opposed to hoarding and speculating? How to estimate this?

The $5 transaction fee creates a floor for transactions. If other processors charge a 2% fee, then it doesn't make sense to use Bitcoin to transfer funds or use for purchases lower than $25. This already blocks a huge array of daily transactions, including a $20 ATM withdrawal and probably lunch.

Additionally, there is a floor to the fractionality of Bitcoin, of 100 000 000 Satoshi. If Bitcoin ever reaches $1,000,000, then it could only be divided into $0.01 denominations, and not further. If it reaches $2,000,000, then 1 Satoshi would be worth 2 cents.

> The $5 transaction fee

There is no such thing unless you are in a hurry.

Arugueably I'm in a hurry anytime I do a monetary transaction. Except my check to the landlord, he's never in a hurry for me.

Considering most bank transactions take days to settle you probably have more time than you think.

Bank holidays really put the "automated" in Automated Clearing House. Robots are going to take your job, but not on President's Day, Columbus Day, Labor Day, or Memorial Day.

True, but for most reasonable purchases, time is of some sensitivity.

Even using his previous examples, withdrawing $20 or buying lunch, you can't wait hours or days- you usually want them immediately.

> There is no such thing unless you are in a hurry.

I think this is easy to say because we don't have to wait hours every time we use cash or our debit or credit cards.

It's reminiscent of using checks for everything. Businesses would have to factor in the possibility of checks bouncing or Bitcoin transactions being rejected after the POS transaction.

No one wants to wait for a transaction. "Let me wait 5m for my ATM to give me my money."

An 0.8% fluctuation is entirely irrelevant to an instrument where the price has fluctuated by 20% in the last week.

Regarding use, one of the interesting metrics is "Bitcoin-days destroyed", which gives insight into how often the coins change hands.

I miss the olden times when there used to be something called "saving"... nowadays everyone is just "hoarding".

Those are different things.

Saving is setting aside money for future use.

Hoarding is setting aside money expecting the value of money to increase, thus treating it like an investment instrument, which is not the purpose of money.

If Bitcoin is a commodity then "hoarding" is normal.

If Bitcoin is money, it's not.

People don't call the saving of stable, non-speculative currencies "hoarding".

Yes they do. Here's a Bloomberg headline I just ran across today: "Rich Retirees Are Hoarding Cash Out of Fear" [0]

The word hoarding is often used to cast ordinary and prudent saving of stable, non-speculative currencies like US Dollars and Euros in a negative light. Economists and central bankers often want the inflation rate to be higher - to reduce debt loads, among other reasons - so they want people (other people, of course) to stop saving so much and start spending more.

[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-16/rich-reti...

edit: grammar

Well, there's an efficiency argument related to holding onto cash instead of investing. That is, holding onto large quantities of cash and not investing means losing out on returns. The only time that's rational is if there's significant market risk, or if you get better returns due to appreciation in currency value (which amounts to treating money like a commodity/investment).

So, I'd argue that holding onto large quantities of money in lieu of allowing it to circulate due to fears does qualify as "hoarding", insofar as the money could be put to better, more productive use while the person holding onto the cash may be losing out on potential upside.

The term is particularly apt when there are concerns of a deflationary spiral, as cash hoarding truly does become a problem in that circumstance.

Huh. I stand corrected. I've never seen that before. Mea culpa.

Saving implies you can actually do/buy something with what you've saved.

I wish there was something called "non trivial interest rates on saving" :-p

> How to estimate this?

Ratio of actual purchases on sites compared to the number of "please let people pay with bitcoin" requests they got before adding it?

I've seen varying reports ranging from low to super low.

Old but e.g. https://fundraising.mozilla.org/bitcoin-donations-to-mozilla...

M1 supply is always a tiny fraction of the M2, M3 and MB money supply. Because people are speculating with an otherwise illiquid amount of the currency.

Strange separate standard to create for bitcoin since it is functioning as intended, under that standard. So congratulations bitcoin is full of speculators? How do people come to the opposite conclusion with the same information.

Thankfully, the blockchain's 8 million trillion hashes per second and robust elliptic curve cryptography don't care what Jamie Dimon thinks.

And my mountain of Beanie Babies don't care what anyone thinks either. The value can only go up.

Unlike Bitcoin, Beanie Babies solve zero technological problems.

Who cares at the end of the day it's still just numbers in a account. It just so happens adding $ before the numbers make it much easier for me to spend them.

But unfortunately, most of the ~27 million businesses in North America don't care at all about Bitcoin.

Elliptic curve cryptography has been brute-forced:


So the guy that relies on exporting inflation so that his own government can print money at will and bail him out as needed is calling an alternative currency a fraud?

Yes. He has a vested interest in saying what he is saying. Let's defer our judgment until less encumbered members of the economics community have something substantial to say.

I think this is definitely well into "well, he would say that, wouldn't he?" territory. But I also think it's interesting that Morgan are also, as the article mentions, making forays into blockchains - he is specifically talking about Bitcoin, and not cryptocurrencies at large. I expect this is exactly the sort of thing someone preparing to launch their own version - that they have control over - would say in an attempt to chip away at Bitcoin's respectability.

JP Morgan's work on blockchains seems pretty far divorced from crypto-currencies.

Much of the work I've seen has been more ledger/private chain oriented.

Other thread got duped...reposting here:

It seems that his staff feel ambivalent about his comments:

JPM Blockchain Lead: "¯\_(ツ)_/¯"


Former JPM Director of Global Macro: "Jamie, you're a great boss and the GOAT bank CEO. You're not a trader or tech entrepreneur. Please, STFU about trading $BTC."


Got these sources from Fortune's Term Sheet:


There is a theory called Gresham's Law, that states that bad money drives out good, because people hoard the good money.

This is one of the problems with bitcoin right now. As a currency its variability AND value is high, which leads to people not wanting to spend it.

This ironically leads to a problem with the currency not being used.

There are other problems, but for its wide spread acceptance and use to buy pizza, I sure don't want to spend something that is worth 1$ today, but might be worth 100$ tomorrow.

>The Nobel prize-winner Robert Mundell believes that Gresham's Law could be more accurately rendered, taking care of the reverse, if it were expressed as, "Bad money drives out good if they exchange for the same price." [1]

Not attacking your main point, but questioning the correct application of this principle. It seems like it originally was meant to talk about the same resource (a coin made of metal, metal becoming higher price than the coin). It doesn't seem like Bitcoins are intrinsically made of dollars.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%27s_law

There is also one more scenario. The moment you have bulk of the bitcoin money in the hands of the 0.01% or even the 1%(Thanks to mining) people- The remainder 99.whatever% people can simply call it quits, refuse to trade in bitcoins and start their own currency. What will follow is obvious, the rich people and their whole enterprise can end up being worth 0.

To prevent it they will be forced to do call in the national armies, use lethal violence to force their currencies on people and keep order. Then establish central banks to control the supply of currency. Or in other words convert bitcoin to fiat money.

Mining has already created an incentive for people to in a way make money without any productive activity or trade, but through ledger keeping. It will be hard to convince people in the future to start skint poor in an economic system where there are 1% rich people who made all their money through non productive enterprise. And expect them to continue to suffer through it.

Finally the inevitable will happen.

> This ironically leads to a problem with the currency not being used.

This is not a problem for most of us.

Marc Andreessen's words would apply here: «old white men crapping on new technology they don't understand.» :-) https://www.cnet.com/news/marc-andreessen-on-warren-buffett-...

Dimon does, after all, have experience with frauds that blow up.

JP Morgan has it's own (Etherium derived) blockchain system for transactions and smart contracts, Quorum.


the contrarian investor in me makes me want to jump onboard the bandwagon now if a bank CEO thinks its dodgy

It's called buying low and selling high :D You can buy a few hundred dollars worth of BTC and see what happens if that's not a huge risk for you.

Fraud like the current banking system?

Says Mr subprime. Add china fud about bitcoin ban and the message is : the sec is going to allow bitcoin trading and we need to buy cheap

The ever persistent question I have about bitcoin is simple:

Who's actually buying it with cash at a $4k+ valuation? Is anybody in their right mind doing that or is it a completely theoretical number?

The thing about Bitcoin is that it's 100% transparent, except for where it's not.


Look at the 24 hour volume column to answer your question (yes, it is a robust market with many buyers and sellers). There are a few foreign exchanges with zero fees, so those volumes must be heavily discounted, but the majority of the listed volume is legitimate.

Most people who buy bitcoin buy fractions of one. A lot purchase it through sites like coinbase.com (I am not affiliated with them).

Yeah, just when the price is lower. A lot of these so called experts have a personal gain on this :)

This probably a knowing lie. At the very least it is hypocritical. JPM trades gold, which is no more or less of a "fraud" than cryptocurrency. If you compare the total market in gold with that of bitcoin, you can't even say bitcoin, or cyptocurrencies as a class, are in a valuation bubble.

Similar rhetoric has been spewed in the past by brick and morters related to technology. The masters of the Universe no longer exist. We're witnessing the final flailing of old institutions.

That's what you think.

Capital and it's masters can change institutions like a hermit crab does shells.

Solid arguments from this guy. "It's stupid." Go suck a d*ck JPMorgan CEO. Thanks for being part of creating poverty all around the world. Of course these guys feel offended, they see potential in this and are afraid they can't control it.

Applications are open for YC Winter 2018

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact