What are the best arguments AGAINST Bitcoin?

I was always sympathetic to the argument that we underestimate how valuable having a centralized control is (when it doesn't go off the rails). We get a lot of fraud absorbed by banks right now so that end users aren't holding the bag. When there are bubbles, the fed tries to mitigate the affect of massive price crashes/economic downturns. The SEC limits the impact of market manipulation, and makes the game generally more fair. And on the tail end of all of that, being able to track money more effectively makes law enforcement's job easier.

All of those things have their own downsides, but I think they're all net positives. Though I do think modern monetary theory is a great example of why we might want something decentralized, and is a big reason for why bitcoin is gaining traction.

The system in place right now is meant to protect the corporations not the users. Credit card companies ask for too little proof of identification, and then blame the user in the name of “identity theft”. The problem is no, no one stole the person’s identity. No one was kidnapped or killed and then replaced with a look a like. Instead, the company was scammed, but they don’t care because they can pass the buck.

The fact that bitcoin is a lousy currency is inherent in it's design. Transactions simply cannot be processed quickly or cheaply in large volumes. Don't take my word for it, look it up.

The fact that crypto "exchanges" are unregulated black boxes is well known but feel free to look this up too. If fraud is easy, someone will do it. To wit, a case pending in Supreme Court of the State of NY.

https://cryptobriefing.com/tether-bitfinex-must-stand-trial-...

A chain is only as strong as the weakest link and in the bitcoin marketplace, the weakest link is what happens in these "exchanges". Not just my opinion but also that of the Attorney General for the state of NY.

Bitcoin is essentially a Ponzi scheme. The only way to make a profit is to sell an asset whose added value only exists if more people buy into it.

Nowadays many bitcoin supporters refer to it as "digital gold", but that's just not the case. Gold is a natural element with some unique phisical a chemical properties that make it both attractive (e.g. jewelry) and useful (e.g. industrial applications). So those buying gold to speculate do not necessarily have to resell to speculators to make a profit. There are countless buyers that are willing to pay the price of gold for reasons other than investing.

On the contrary, those holding bitcoins can sell only to buyers that think that prices will go up. So they can only sell to other speculators (including of course the random buyer who saw an ad for bitcoins).

So, because today there's no real exit strategy from a bitcoin investment other than reselling to other speculators, there's really no difference between bitcoin and a Ponzi scheme.

A very common counter argument is that one day bitcoin will [insert _useful_usage_case]. However, once again, this is speculative, as it's based on the idea that the current value is determined by a future uncertain event.

Also the fact that with bitcoins it is possible to buy some goods doesn't change much. The actual ability to use bitcoins to buy things or pay for services is so limited that it doesn't make any difference. And, more importantly, it is inherently less efficient than FIAT (official currencies).

Having said all of that, I'd like to add that I am very very supportive of decentralized technologies, and bitcoin has certainly helped immensely to promote decentralization, so there's that. But my point is that bitcoin is only a speculative asset.

Because I truly support decentralization, I would very much like to hear different opinions in the comments, so do let me know if there's a different perspective I could see things from. Please though don't just say that the price of bitcoin is going up and that it has been around for years. This is not proof that bitcoin isn't a ponzi scheme. Think of Enron and for how long it was around before collapsing.

As someone who uses bitcoin as a currency, not as an investment asset or ideological flag, the only valid argument I have against it is that it's functionally worthless without electricity and an internet connection. If I'm at a music festival trying to purchase goods, bitcoin is not going to work because my phone can't be used for digital communication when there are 10000 other people connected to the same tower which was only engineered to service the 50 or so rural families who live in the area the rest of the year.

Slow processing times suck but it's not an argument against it, it's a growing pain. Huge electricity usage sucks but, again, a growing pain rather than a fundamental challenge to bitcoin.