Once again another person with something to gain by bitcoins death has declared bitcoin dead ... again ... and no, bitcoin didn't die... again. This marks the 101st time bitcoin has supposedly died and about the 10th time in 2016 already.

The latest statement coming from a CEO of ... wait for it ... a "payments application" company. SHOCKER THERE! That being Taavet Hinrikus of TransferWise. 

“Bitcoin, I think we can say, is dead. There is no traction, no one is using bitcoin. The bitcoin experiment, I think we can say, is over.” - Taavet Hinrikus 

Where do these people get their information? Oh yeah ... they don't get any information from anyone before blurting stuff and even if they did it would be irrelevant anyway because they were going to say this anyway since it benefits them to do so.

Every time someone declares bitcoin dead rest assured that the opposite is accurate and the very statement is why this is so. If they didn't see it as a potential stakeholder in their market then they wouldn't acknowledge it. 

Hinrikus made the comments in an interview with Yahoo Finance, during a visit to discuss his company’s service launching in Mexico.

“What really happened was a gold rush,” he continued. “People bought bitcoin because they thought it would be worth more tomorrow. And a lot of people got lucky. But we’re not seeing real people use bitcoin. And we don’t know what problem it solves. Now, blockchain, I think, is a genius advancement in technology. But I’m not sure we’re seeing yet where to apply it. I’m pretty excited about R3 and Digital Asset Holdings. I think there are many areas where using blockchain is great, but it’s still early days.” 
 - Taavet Hinrikus 

Lets take a look at this gem. First off he states "What really happened was a gold rush, people bought bitcoin because they thought it would be worth more tomorrow. And a lot of people got lucky."


Wrong answer! At least make it believable if you're going to make shit up. 

What really happened is that bitcoin adoption and usage has doubled or more every year and showing few signs of decline. In fact, it's at an all time usage high currently. It also has a near 7 billion dollar market capitalization. 

Instead of this biased opinion from an imaginary source of information, lets look at the actual facts. Lets look at the actual numbers instead of making shit up.

Those are the hard facts and numbers there from around 50,000 daily to around a quarter million in transaction volume over the past two years. That's more than double from 2014 to 2016 from 50,000 to over 100,000. The exact numbers from March to March were 73,292 on 4/22/2014 and 114,061 on 4/22/2015. On 4/20/2016 last month the transaction volume hit 227,795. That's more than doubled from 2015 coming off a double on 2014. 

Would you like to hear more? Of course you would! 

Here's the historical breakdown transaction volume went from 0 to 214 (2009-2010), 214 to 2262 (2010 to 2011), 2262 to 6768 (2011 to 2012), 6768 to 46737 (2012 to 2013), and 46737 to 73292 (2013 to 2014). The world most impressive mathematician, I am not, but I'm pretty sure that's double or better each year.

A closer look? Sure, why the hell not.

Historic Bitcoin Transaction Volume
Those are the facts, not statements made by a startup company's CEO that may or may not have these facts but regardless, presented the exact opposite information in an opinion. He goes on to reason: "People bought bitcoin because they thought it would be worth more tomorrow. And a lot of people got lucky. "

Yes. Some people did buy it thinking it would be worth something tomorrow, as they did gold and other commodities and currency. They did this last year, they did this the year before and guess what? They are doing it again this year. However, it wasn't luck. These people actually did obtain information before actions so that their decisions were based on facts and not opinion or emotion. With the facts, some decided to proceed with optimistic caution.

Here's something else you should know. Bitcoin also outperformed both Gold and the United States Dollar last year.

Armed with a possible telescopic satellite above earth capable of watching every humans spending habits this statement was offered:  "But we’re not seeing real people use bitcoin. And we don’t know what problem it solves." 


Nyet! Wrong again. That's OK, we're here to help. The charts and data presented (above) is proof of that being inaccurate. The 7 billion market cap and the fact that bitcoins is currently near a two year high ($440/XBT) also strengthens its case. 

Last I checked, I am a real person. I use bitcoin. Do I not count? I know hundreds if not thousands of other real people that use bitcoin, do they not count? What about the millions in commerce and transaction fees spent every day? None of that counts either?

Would you like to know know what I do not use? TransferWise. 

This is so far fetched of a statement that it can't even be considered as anything but an intentional falsification or just plain ignorance. 

As far as spending bitcoin, many people learned a long time ago that you can purchase things cheaper online with bitcoin. These days this is even easier to do with services like Purse.io and Gyft.com around.

OFFICIAL PLACEHOLDER FOR LATER USE (stay tuned for explanation)

In reference to the statement "we don't know what problem it solves", on what planet is the does this matter? The fact that Taavet Hinrikus and/or TransferWise are oblivious to the problems bitcoin and the blockchain solve is totally irrelevant. This lacks any validity or even a point beyond self-incrimination. 

I hate to be the one to enlighten these guys but nobody cares if TransferWise knows anything or not about this. The blockchain world simply does not revolve around the TransferWise ability to absorb such information. As difficult as this may be, I do think everyone is going to be able to suck it up and struggle through the day after the catastrophic news that TransferWise lacks this knowledge. It may be rough to get through the day but I think everyone might be able to scrape by.

I also counter that statement with this question. What problem does TransferWise solve at all? Do you at least have that knowledge? Does anyone? What problem was so grave that TransferWise had to spawn? If any person on earth can answer this, please contact [email protected] or comment below.

How about some of these:

  1. It is nearly is free? Meaning can I send 1 million dollars for 20 cents?
  2. Does it solve the limitation of bank or 3rd party involvement? 
  3. Can it send and receive bitcoin? 
  4. Does it have global availability and up-time like the Internet or the blockchain not relying on any single entity fr its support?
  5. Is it resilient to security attacks and resist them automatically?
  6. Can is process 16443610.30 petaFLOPS per second?
  7. Does it prevent charge backs?
  8. Can we send 2 million dollars with TransferWise without any headaches or ID?
  9. Can pay for digital commodities or accept payments for them with TransferWise? 
  10. Can we use it anonymously?
  11. Is it beyond manipulation of TransferWise or a hacker if one gets in?
  12. ..and .... is it instant?

Does it resolve these problems? 2 or 3 of them? 1? Anything at all?

Again, if any person on earth can answer this, please let us know and for the record bitcoin can do them all of these things and that's not even its true value.

The one thing the earth does not lack are apps to send payments. There's are already too many of these apps as it is. They are as abundant as oxygen and to date none of them solve the fundamental issue they all have. They cannot be trusted to get money from point A to point B because they have little say so in the matter ultimately in the event of an issue.

Let's move on. He then states that "Now, blockchain, I think, is a genius advancement in technology." and this does indicate the existence of a working brain cell where finally some sense is made but this is quickly recognized as a single anomaly after the following statement: "But I’m not sure we’re seeing yet where to apply it. "

Putting aside the fact that "blockchain" is the same as bitcoin in reality, just start with the the PLACEHOLDER above for the same response the exact same statement. How can you not be sure if you see something or not anyway. You either see it, or you do not see it. There's not really a grey area unless you see something you just don't understand. 

That might be the most logical and realistic explanation in this case. Regardless, plenty of others do see it and understand it. They are using it. That's why it continues to grow.

Another thing to be cognizant of is that this individual is in the financial space whereas blockchain is not industry specific and use-case list and offerings grow daily. 

Then this statement: I’m pretty excited about R3 and Digital Asset Holdings. 

Just to get this back in the realm of reality, R3 is not working on blockchain technology. They even said so. They are developing a distributed ledger. There is a massive difference in security, privacy, strength, operations, etc... You lose all of this with a distributed ledger and but gain control and the ability to manipulate the data. It's actually more of an anti-blockchain. That said, its rather interesting that he's excited but apparently doesn't know why.

The verdict is still out on if Digital Asset Holdings will produce anything useful but it looks like they are now focusing more on distributed ledgers which is unexciting. They are taking the blockchain technology out of blockchain technology and building something that already exists.

Then he says the opposite of what he said before: I think there are many areas where using blockchain is great, but it’s still early days.

I am confused ... he said they weren't sure if they saw anything in this space so how can this be? Which is it? Does he really see something he doesn't see? Is this a long lost imaginary friend giving this information? Was bigfoot present when this sighting took place?

Disingenuous or Misinformed?

The Taavet Hinrikus statement is either disingenuous or the result of inaccurate information. The facts show the exact opposite of anything he said. 

One thing to remember is this is all coming from a payments application company of which benefits from bitcoins death so there may be a slight possibility of a biased opinion here and that's using the word possibility very generously.

Which one of these is true is not relevant since bitcoin is not dead but it does explain the origin of the fabricated reasoning behind this declaration be that as it may with malicious intent or the result of misinformation.  I might have been both. 

Here's food for thought, bitcoin and the blockchain was established years before TransferWise existed. Bitcoin is the elder here so anything this organization or its CEO have to say about what they are watching or not watching as any potential reliable opinion may be a tad askew.  Beside, bitcoin apparently didn't get the memo because instead of dying as declared it had one of the strongest days in 2016 yesterday.  

Which leads us to the biggest line of bullshit. "Bitcoin, I think we can say, is dead. " ... you can say anything you want but that doesn't make it so and there doesn't appear to be any thinking going on here. So...

Strike three... you're out.

Report by dinbits
Image by dinbits.com staff

The opinions expressed by authors of articles linked, referenced, or published on dinbits.com do not necessarily express, nor are endorsed by, the opinions the of dinbits.com or its affiliates.

Post a Comment

Powered by Blogger.