Bad Arguments for the Permanence of Bitcoin

I will rebut various elements of a rather poor article arguing that Bitcoin will be around forever.  It might well be — I don’t know — but I do know that this article does not add any light to the topic.  It appeared here:

man holding red cube
Photo by Philips Wei on

The random banker bashing in the headline might give you an initial suspicion about who is likely to be right here.

The first rhetorical question the article asks is “Would Jamie Dimon really sack traders who netted a 1,000% return in less than two years? The bank’s shareholders wouldn’t approve”

The answer to this is definitely yes.  Return alone is an inadequate assessment of trader performance.  We must look at risk-adjusted return. A guaranteed 10% return is better than anything lower than a 50% chance of 20%.  If the trader made his 1000% by betting on a single horse, he took an enormous risk to make his 1000%. The shareholders would certainly approve of Dimon sacking such a trader and in fact would demand it.

We then move on to a ‘fake news’ type criticism in which the author attempts to show that Dimon is biased.  He writes “Although JP Morgan was by no means the most leveraged of the banks, it still took bailout money, and, as its CEO, Dimon and bitcoin will inevitably be philosophically opposed.”  So this is a set of claims which don’t stack up.  Firstly, JP was bailed out post-crisis (fine).  Secondly, Bitcoin was invented in response to this crisis (I don’t know, but let’s accept this).  Thirdly, JP must be opposed to everything that happened as a response to the crisis.  Conclusion: JP is opposed to Bitcoin forever.  Premise Three is obviously false.  What can be said to even make it plausible?

The next section of the article accuses Dimon of not understanding Bitcoin because he says it is a fraud.  The author then admits that Bitcoin is in fact extensively used for fraudulent and criminal purposes but it is not itself a fraud.  This is parallel to those arguments against gun control which say that guns don’t kill people, people do.  I will leave that there.

I will close by criticising a remarkable paragraph which packs in a lot of errors and bad

four assorted cryptocurrency coins
Photo by Worldspectrum on

arguments.  The author writes: “Dimon declares that we will use the technology – blockchain technology – but that bitcoin will be shut down. That’s like saying we will use football pitches, but football players will be banned. One comes with the other. In any case, you can’t just shut bitcoin down. It’s a decentralised, distributed network. That’s the whole point of its design. There is no central point of failure.”

This is very strange.  Take the football analogy first.  There are two major problems with it.  As a parallel, it may or may not work.  Assume it works.  Let’s be generous.  There are alternative uses for football pitches.  They have been used as prisons and they were used as holding centres post-Katrina.  Other uses could be imagined.  We could land helicopters on them.  So even if Bitcoin ls like playing football and the blockchain is like a football pitch, we can do other things with football pitches and we could do other things with the blockchain.  Strikingly in fact, this is where much of the excitement exists.  There are many potential extremely useful applications of a distributed ledger technology such as property registers and shareholder transaction records.  These would be interesting because they would be highly transparent and resistant to corruption and bureaucratic sloth.

The second argument in here is equally poor.  The claim is that you can’t shut Bitcoin down because it is decentralised.  What this may actually bring out is that you cannot shut down the servers behind Bitcoin because they are decentralised.  But that isn’t what Dimon says.  He says that “There will be no currency that gets around government controls.” What if governments made Bitcoin possession and use illegal and banned its use in any transactions?  They could do that and then what Dimon has pointed out is true but no-one has to go around shutting down distributed servers.

I conclude that the author has done nothing to show that Dimon is wrong or that Bitcoin is not a bubble and will persist.

See also:

The #Bitcoin Bubble Is Caused By The Halo Effect

The Forthcoming #Bitcoin Crash Will Kill The #Trump Demographic

The #Anecdotal Fallacy And The #Bitcoin Bubble

The Psychology of Successful Trading: see clip below of me explaining my new book!



Author: Tim Short

I am a former investment banking and securitisation specialist, having spent nearly a decade on the trading floor of several international investment banks. Throughout my career, I worked closely with syndicate/traders in order to establish the types of paper which would trade well and gained significant and broad experience in financial markets. Many people have trading experience similar to the above. What marks me out is what I did next. I decided to pursue my interest in philosophy at Doctoral level, specialising in the psychology of how we predict and explain the behaviour of others, and in particular, the errors or biases we are prone to in that process. I have used my experience to write The Psychology of Successful Trading. In this book, I combine the above experience and knowledge to show how biases can lead to inaccurate predictions of the behaviour of other market participants, and how remedying those biases can lead to better predictions and major profits. Learn more on the About Me page.

18 thoughts on “Bad Arguments for the Permanence of Bitcoin”

  1. Jamie Dimon and the stuffed suits in Beijing are perfect examples of the privileged, rude, insensitive, unwilling to learn and unwilling to adapt culture that is thankfully dying out around the globe. For the future of Bitcoin, you can look to Japan, where the currency is accepted and protected by domestic legislation. In Japan now exists the framework for fintech to thrive, whereas it has effectively been snuffed out in China.
    Though the old men in suits continue to tremble and bawl on TV, Bitcoin does not in fact pretend to be a currency. It cannot replace a fiat currency because banks can’t create it at will for no cost. Bitcoin can only be created through an immense amount of computational work. As Bitcoin cannot be manipulated by banks, it has no value to them.
    As for being used for fraudulent and criminal purposes, well, so can fiat money. You need look no further than the JP Morgan’s long list of financial crimes to ascertain that.
    All currencies can get around government financial controls. It’s laughable to think that money laundering doesn’t go on (99% of it facilitated by banks exactly like Jamie Dimon’s).


  2. You don’t supply any evidence for any of these claims.

    I am not sure what parallels exist between the CEO of an investment bank and senior politicians in China and why you think all of these people are rude etc.

    State the domestic legislation in Japan. I am interested to learn about this.

    Fintech is not Bitcoin so I do not see what your point is there.

    Bitcoin clearly pretends to be a currency, because it aims to be a store of value and a means of exchange.

    Money laundering is increasingly difficult and will become more so as cash is eliminated.


  3. I think threatening to fire employees and disparaging your daughter live on TV is pretty rude, but hey, we all have different moral standards. Likewise for the old men in Beijing suddenly moving to bankrupt an entire industry sector. These are real people with real investments of talent, time, and money.


    1. He isn’t actually threatening to fire employees because he knows that no one at JP is legitimately trading Bitcoin. What remarks exactly about his daughter?

      I don’t really see why you are discussing JP and China at the same time. What is the link?


      1. In my opinion, you should not expect others to do your work for you.
        The story about Dimon’s daughter was broadcast widely – you can find it for example at

        There is lots of information from a Chinese perspective at more still at and google will do a passable effort at translation into English.


      2. The points raised were not relevant to my argument. As I explained in my response. If people want to talk about other topics, that’s fine, but I’m not going to do the work required


      3. The reason for my post to you was that you asked me the following on the FT:
        “What percentage of an investment portfolio would you say is appropriately invested in crypto and why?” I went to not inconsiderable effort to answer your question, but my reply was ignored. A simple thank you or recommend would have sufficed. I am willing to cut you some slack for being a fellow Physics traveller. It seems to me that you are unaware of social niceties. I accept that some people are built that way.
        Thank you anyway for reading my FT post and I apologise if the reason for you not acknowledging my post was that the FT prevented you – though I understand that Alphaville is not behind a paywall.


      4. I am afraid I think that crypto is a catastrophically flawed invest since the tokens have no fundamental value. And the arguments I give on this blog including this post support that view. In addition, the security issues where holders regularly lose amounts like $40m do not make the asset class capable of being recommended. So really the only reasonable answer to the question is 0%: crypto is not an investable asset class.


      5. Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash and some other cryptocurrencies have utility. They can be used to transfer value over the internet quickly and without going through an intermediary. Therefore they do have some value. They are used for example by migrant workers to avoid swingeing charges by the likes of western union.
        So in my opinion your statement that they have no fundamental value is plain wrong. How much that value is, is of course open to question.


      6. There is no problem using an intermediary to transfer cash providing the transfer is immediate and the intermediary has a high credit rating.

        To the extent that you are right about migrant workers, and I would want to see some evidence of the phenomena and you describe, it would not result in a fundamental value for bitcoin much beyond the $10-$20 region. Certainly it would not account for the current valuation levels. By contrast, if I own a share in HSBC, it reflects a claim on assets which are worth more than that share costs to buy.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s