Jamie Dimon's reaction is not IMO unreasonable given the hype and the contradictions inherent in the position of most bitcoin advocates - contradictions laid bare in this article (fast, decentralised, consistent, pick two).
This article however is a really good counterpoint - it lays out the most reasonable case for Bitcoin as a new class of asset which is useful as a representation of value for distributed applications. This is the strongest case for blockchains I have seen.
It also points out the severe deficiencies inherent in a distributed model which make it unattractive on many measures compared to existing solutions, which for some reason current 'crypto' (sorry cryptographers) advocates find it incredibly hard to do - perhaps because they have come to value the asset more than the use case. Decentralisation makes bitcoin slow.
The only bit where it breaks down is in its insistence that 'Censorship resistance' is a fundamental advantage of distributed applications. This appears to assume that the network will not be policed, and the endpoints cannot be policed. Your computer is vulnerable, your servers are vulnerable, the bitcoin developers are vulnerable, exchanges are vulnerable, miners are vulnerable. All of those pinch points can and will be bribed, cajoled, shut down or worse coopted if significant real value is captured in distributed networks.
no one can stop me from using Bitcoin to pay for something
Why yes, yes they can :) Or even worse they can turn bitcoin into something that you wouldn't want to pay with or are forced to pay with like company scrip. Exhibit 1, the cryptoruble:
> Jamie Dimon's reaction is not IMO unreasonable given the hype and the contradictions inherent in the position of most bitcoin advocates - contradictions laid bare in this article (fast, decentralised, consistent, pick two).
His ultimate conclusion -- that bitcoin is a bubble -- is not an unreasonable one to reach. But his reasoning completely misses the point. It doesn't even make sense to evaluate the worth of bitcoin in isolation as if it were fiat currency. An argument that it's a bubble necessitates a viewpoint on value of distributed apps.
Regardless of his (or their) true thoughts on crypto, there is no situation in which it benefits him or JPMorgan to speak positively about crypto currencies.
As a finance company, they either want to "win" the game, or end the game. Slowing down adoption and/or encouraging government action help them toward both of these goals.
This article however is a really good counterpoint - it lays out the most reasonable case for Bitcoin as a new class of asset which is useful as a representation of value for distributed applications. This is the strongest case for blockchains I have seen.
It also points out the severe deficiencies inherent in a distributed model which make it unattractive on many measures compared to existing solutions, which for some reason current 'crypto' (sorry cryptographers) advocates find it incredibly hard to do - perhaps because they have come to value the asset more than the use case. Decentralisation makes bitcoin slow.
The only bit where it breaks down is in its insistence that 'Censorship resistance' is a fundamental advantage of distributed applications. This appears to assume that the network will not be policed, and the endpoints cannot be policed. Your computer is vulnerable, your servers are vulnerable, the bitcoin developers are vulnerable, exchanges are vulnerable, miners are vulnerable. All of those pinch points can and will be bribed, cajoled, shut down or worse coopted if significant real value is captured in distributed networks.
no one can stop me from using Bitcoin to pay for something
Why yes, yes they can :) Or even worse they can turn bitcoin into something that you wouldn't want to pay with or are forced to pay with like company scrip. Exhibit 1, the cryptoruble:
https://cointelegraph.com/news/breaking-russia-issuing-crypt...