October 24, 2026

Capitalizations Index – B ∞/21M

Don’t Buy Bitcoin! – Warns the Media as BTC Price Rises (Again)

Don’t buy bitcoin! – warns the media as btc price rises (again)

Don’t Buy Bitcoin! – Warns the Media as BTC Price Rises (Again)

Don’t buy bitcoin! – warns the media as btc price rises (again)

It’s still too early to declare that bitcoin price is headed for another parabolic bull-run. But one might want to take the repeating “Don’t buy bitcoin” message from the mainstream press with a grain of salt. 


Kids, Don’t Buy bitcoin

As bitcoin price 00 appears to be attempting to shake off the bear market, headlines from the media are starting to resemble those in late 2017. Yes, right before BTC price soared to its record heights of nearly $20,000 USD.

“Don’t buy bitcoin, warns wealth manager” reads an April 4th headline from CNBC. 

The problem, though, is that it’s almost verbatim from November 13, 2017, when CNBC said that “As bitcoin soars and ICOs spread, advisors urge caution.” The price, of course, doubled a month later.

In fact, 2017 was particularly fruitful when it came to telling the public that: bitcoin Bad!

German central bank’s board member Carl-Ludwig Thiele, for example, warned against investing in the cryptocurrency in May 2017. Pretty much every bank in the world has cautioned against bitcoin at some point or other. And most of these indeed received their spotlight in the papers.

Had you read the Economic Times in October 2017, for example, when bitcoin was roughly $4,000, you would have learned the “7 Reasons not to invest in bitcoin, cryptocurrencies.” Of course, the 500 percent gain in price thereafter would have eluded you.

But maybe you would have given up and panic bought at $19,000. Well, that would have been your fault then. It was a bubble after all. Didn’t you read the papers?

DYOR

The truth is that the mainstream press doesn’t care if you make or lose money. Neither does anyone else for that matter. It’s all about clicks and ad revenue.

And what’s better than alternating between fear and greed to get clicks? Why not both? Even better!

Bet on the price of bitcoin with cash on this regulated platform whose parent company advertises in the same newspaper that says it’s better to just bet on bitcoin price.

Forbes explained the “6 reasons why bitcoin futures are better than bitcoin” in December 2017. Three days later though, they also told you to “completely ignore” the 1,400 percent bitcoin price rally.

*Sigh*

The point here is simply this: it’s all noise.

You will learn very little about bitcoin itself reading the mainstream newspapers. Most headlines are algorithm-based and might as well be written by robots.

But merely pointing to the bitcoin price (because it’s trending) to evoke fear and/or greed and say “Look!” works. And that’s why the press keeps doing it.

Distinguishing the signal from the noise, however, is much harder than simply glancing over some headlines and feeling like you learned something.

It’s only possible if one does their research (DYOR). It required time. But it’s the only way to ensure you’re making educated decisions. More importantly, the decisions will be yours and it’s better than FOMO’ing into the latest virtual coin or living in ignorance and then with regret.

bitcoin Isn’t Money. This Piece of Paper Is.

Unfortunately, the fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) has been rehashed, repeated and reverberated for the past ten years that bitcoin existed. In the press, bitcoin was a bubble in 2011. It was a bubble in 2017. And it’s still a bubble now.

But if it’s always about to pop, if it’s just fad, and ‘not money’ – why devote so much time and effort to discredit it?

Interestingly, some of the most notable publications are directly named after fiat billionaires. It may also be no coincidence that academia, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet — entities who greatly benefit from the status quo — have a tremendous influence on public opinion and are also very anti-bitcoin.

Bitcoin berkshire hathaway warren buffett

Amusingly, most people who held bitcoin before 2017 have outperformed the ‘Oracle of Omaha’ even after the crash.

bitcoin has even beaten stocks like Amazon (AMZN) in the past seven years. But you won’t really read this in the Washington Post, which is owned by the same guy by the way.

Is it really a surprise that legacy financial institutions, Wall Street, banks, etc. are throwing so much shade at bitcoin?

Probably not. Which is why it might be worth learning what Bitcoin is, why it was created and what could happen if the $3.3 trillion USD worth of global debt is foreshadowing another financial crisis.

It may then become clear why the CME chairman, for example, is so anti-bitcoin. Maybe you’ll even end up getting some…you know, just in case the bubble re-inflates.

Do you trust the mainstream media’s reporting on bitcoin? Share your opinions below!


Images via Shutterstock

The post Don’t Buy Bitcoin! – Warns the Media as BTC Price Rises (Again) appeared first on Bitcoinist.com.

source: https://bitcoinist.com/dont-buy-bitcoin-media-btc-price-rise/

TheBitcoinNews.com is here for you 24/7 to keep you informed on everything crypto. Like what we do? Tip us some Satoshi with the exciting new Lightning Network Tippin.me tool!

Published at Sun, 07 Apr 2019 16:00:41 +0000

Previous Article

Bitcoin (BTC) Is Not a “Joke” or a “Bubble”, $6,000 Easy Target

Next Article

Markets Update: Crypto Assets See Fresh Gains

You might be interested in …

BIP91: The SegWit Activation "Kludge" That Should Keep Bitcoin Whole

BIP91: The SegWit Activation "Kludge" That Should Keep Bitcoin Whole

bitcoin’s long-lasting scaling debate appeared to be heading toward a climax lately, with two proposals gaining significant traction. At one end of the fence there is Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 148 (BIP148), a user activated soft fork (UASF) originally proposed by the pseudonymous developer “shaolinfry.” On the other, there’s SegWit2x, an agreement forged between a significant number of bitcoin companies and miners.

The good news is that both of these proposals have a short-term solution in common: both plan to activate Segregated Witness (SegWit) this summer. The bad news is that the activation method of the two has differed, which could lead to a coin-split.

As of today, it seems this schism will be avoided — at least initially. The SegWit2x development team plans to implement BIP91, a proposal by Bitmain Warranty engineer James Hilliard that cleverly makes the two conflicting activation methods compatible.

Here’s how.

BIP141

The current implementation of Segregated Witness is defined by BIP141. This version is included in the latest Bitcoin Core releases, and is widely deployed on the bitcoin network. BIP141 is activated through the activation method defined by BIP9. This means that 95 percent of all blocks within a two-week period need to include a piece of data: “bit 1.” This indicates that a miner is ready for the upgrade. As such, SegWit would be activated if the vast majority of miners are ready for it.

Or that was the intention. So far, only some 30 percent of hash power is signaling support for the upgrade. There is a lot of speculation as to why this is the case, but it almost certainly has nothing to do with (a lack of) readiness.

That’s why other activation methods are increasingly being considered.

BIP148

BIP148 is a user activated soft fork (UASF), specifically designed to trigger BIP141.

On August 1st, anyone running bitcoin software that implemented BIP148 will start rejecting all blocks that do not include bit 1, the SegWit signalling data.

This means that if a mere majority of miners (by hash power) runs this software, they will reject all blocks from the minority of miners that does not. As a result, this majority of miners will always have the longest valid chain according to all bitcoin nodes on the network. Consequently, all deployed BIP141 nodes will see a chain that includes over 95 percent of bit 1 blocks, meaning SegWit would be activated on the network.

However, if BIP148 is not supported by a majority of miners (by hash power), bitcoin’s blockchain could split in two. In that case, there would effectively be two types of bitcoin, where one activated BIP148 and the other did not. This may resolve over time — or it may not.

SegWit2x

SegWit2x (also referred to as “SegWit2MB” or “the Silbert Accord”), is the scaling agreement reached by a numer of bitcoin companies and over 80 percent of miners (by hash power), drafted just before the Consensus 2017 conference.

For some time, the details surrounding SegWit2x were not very specific. As the name suggests, all that was really known was that SegWit was included in the agreement, and that it included a hard fork to double bitcoin’s “base block size” to two megabytes.

And, of course, SegWit was meant to be implemented using a different activation method. Like the original BIP141 proposal, SegWit2x was to be activated by miners through hash power. But where BIP141 requires 95 percent hash power support, SegWit2x would only require 80 percent. Moreover, SegWit2x readiness would be signaled using another piece of activation data: “bit 4” instead of “bit 1.”

This makes SegWit2x largely incompatible with BIP141, and especially with BIP148: Different nodes would be looking at different activation bits, meaning they could activate SegWit under different circumstances and at different times; and that would mess up SegWit-specific block relay policy between nodes, potentially fracturing the network.

BIP91

Now, it seems BIP91 has provided the solution.

BIP91 is a proposal by Bitmain Warranty (not to be confused with Bitmain) engineer James Hilliard which was specifically designed to prevent a coin-split by making SegWit2x and BIP148 compatible.

The proposal resembles BIP148 to some extent. Upon activation of BIP91, all BIP91 nodes will reject any blocks that do not signal support for SegWit through bit 1. As such, if a majority of miners (by hash power) run BIP91, the longest valid bitcoin chain will consist of SegWit-signaling blocks only, and all regular BIP141 SegWit nodes will activate the protocol upgrade.

Where BIP91 differs from BIP148 is that it doesn’t have a set activation date, but is instead triggered by hash power. BIP91 nodes will reject any non-SegWit signalling blocks if, and only if, 80 percent of blocks first indicate within two days that’s what they’ll do.

This indication is done with bit 4. As such, the Silbert Accord can technically be upheld — 80 percent hash power activation with bit 4 — while at the same time activating the existing SegWit proposal. And if this is done before August 1st, it’s also compatible with BIP148, since BIP148 nodes would reject non-bit 1 blocks just the same.

This proposal gives miners a little over six weeks to avoid a coin-split, under their own agreed-upon terms. With a SegWit2x launch date planned for July 21st, that should not be a problem… assuming that the miners actually follow through.

The post BIP91: The SegWit Activation "Kludge" That Should Keep Bitcoin Whole appeared first on Bitcoin Magazine.