Bitcoin and All Existing Cryptocurrencies Headed to Zero

MacroVoices host Erik Townsend has me convinced that Bitcoin fans have things ass-backward. Bitcoin is headed to zero.

Whether you are a Bitcoin fan or detractor, please do yourself a favor and play this excellent Webinar with Erik Townsend.

If you are a Bitcoin fan, don't let the title ‘Biggest Speculative Mania in History' scare you away. Instead, listen to the well-reasoned statements of Townsend.

Townsend compares current Bitcoin technology to the original Wright Brothers aircraft. There will be improvements. The technology will spread.

However, that technology will be used by governments to track everything. Ironically, that's the exact opposite of what the Bitcoin believers think will happen.

Blockchain Debunked

Townsend also has a 20-page white paper called "BlockChain Debunked". The paper is on Distributed Ledger Protocols (DLP), and CryptoCurrencies.

Once again, I encourage everyone to read the paper. Here are a few excerpts from the paper.

Both Bitcoin and its Blockchain are proof-of-concept quality at best. They have profound importance to history but little practical viability, despite the present mania surrounding them. They will eventually both be replaced by much more robust solutions that eliminate the serious shortcomings of Blockchain’s reliance on miners to validate transactions and the proof-of-work architecture that serves only to slow down the network and make it painfully inefficient and wasteful of electricity and other resources.

Will Leemon Baird’s HashGraph be the next big advancement in this field, or will it be a soon forgotten relic after someone comes along and finds fatal flaws in Baird’s math? I have no idea. But I’m confident that regardless of whether Leemon Baird has already invented a DLP that doesn’t need Bitcoin Blockchain’s miners and proof-of-work architecture, someone somewhere will invent one, sooner or later. And that won’t be the last advancement in this nascent field.

If I were able to prescribe an improvement for this whole process, it would be this: The crypto community needs to stop treating the Wright Flyer (Bitcoin/Blockchain) as if it were the holy grail, and instead refocus on moving ahead with the much more important task of advancing the field toward the eventual introduction of the Boeing 727. The prototype has already served its purpose. We need to standardize around a DLP that doesn’t depend on miners or Proof-of- Work, and which can operate with or without an associated cryptocurrency.

Bitcoin’s Blockchain was the Wright Flyer of DLPs, and it’s a pity that the Bitcoin crowd has yet to recognize just how seriously flawed its design truly is. If they could see the picture clearly, they would realize that Bitcoin is a flash-in-the-pan cryptocurrency that belongs in a museum.

Don’t get me wrong – digital currencies are definitely going to be the thing of the future. But like it or not, issuance of legal tender has always been the province of government. The only reason Bitcoin has been allowed to come as far as it has is because governments are notoriously slow and inefficient, and are only just now beginning to realize how seriously cryptocurrencies threaten to undermine the power of central banks.

Bitcoin and the other blockchain-based cryptocurrencies will be forgotten soon after the emergence of a viable digital currency based on a more robust, scalable DLP. It remains to be seen what technology will emerge as the preeminent de-facto gold standard of DLPs. HashGraph is but one of many contenders. But sooner or later, someone will figure out how to build a digital currency that doesn’t suffer the serious limitations and drawbacks of Bitcoin’s deeply flawed blockchain architecture.

One things’s sure: We live in interesting times, and this whole thing has just barely begun. DLP (not cryptocurrency) is the most important innovation here, and its potential is unlimited. Digital currencies will also be very important, but unfortunately, their future is likely to be determined more by actions of government than advances in technology.

Reader Emails

Like Townsend, I get dozens of emails from readers telling me, "I don't get it," and I do not even know what each of the cryptos is about.

There are now at leat 1534 of them. Does anyone understand them all? OK, Ethereum improved on Bitcoin. What happens when another idea improves on Ethereum?

One really has to laugh at Tether. That's a crypto that allegedly has a one-to-one tie with the US dollar. It evolved as a fast way to trade in and out of other cryptos.

But who is auditing the dollars? Are there dollar inflows that match crypto transactions? Fraud allegations have surfaced. Regardless, note the irony of tying a crypto to a non-verifiable system backed by the good faith of Tether.

And what about such transactions. Does the IRS consider trading Bitcoin for Ethereum a "like" transaction? What if it goes to US dollars first?

We have not scratched the surface of tax accounting yet. It's going to be a big deal.

And what about hacks? The cryptospace is proven unsafe.

Of course you can hold your coins in your own private vault. But that makes them totally useless in everyday transactions. Wasn't that one of the reasons for Bitcoin.

Store of value? Please be serious.

But these are simply near-term considerations.

All Existing Cryptocurrencies Headed to Zero?

​Townsend did not make that statement. I did. Townsend merely stated, "Bitcoin investors will be disappointed."

That's like saying, "Nuclear war may kill some people."

Read between the lines. Which of these is more likely?

  1. Cryptos will be the death of fiat currencies and governments
  2. Governments will mandate the use of the technology to track every penny for tax purposes

Neither Townsend nor I put any timelines on such events, but they are coming. The technology will live, but the initial implementation will die just as Kodak film gave way to digital even though cameras still live on.

My reference to Kodak was purposeful. That Kodak is now into selling crypto mining servers suggests it may have another date with zero as well.

Tulips never went to zero.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

View Newer Messages

"Fundamentals"??? What are they? Should AMZN "fundamentally" be worth a PE of 200? Should TSLA "fundamentally" be worth more than zero? I'm not trying to be funny here but how can anything be "fundamental" to a monetary system that has no fundamental value because it's all debt based? Because of this, ALL paper assets are inherently worthless. People receive their monthly Madoffian account statements and believe themselves to be rich but fundamentally the money supply is faith based which requires confidence to exist and that is no different than bitcon (sic). So forget fundamentals. The whole shooting match (i.e. global debt Ponzi) exists because of the madness of crowds. Physical gold in your personal posession is money and everything else is credit. Credit can be defaulted on. When people stop loaning the in-debt 20 Trillion USA cheap money, everyone is going to figure out that the dollar is fundamentally different than the Venezuelan Bolivar.


Gold's most important utility is that it is shiny and women like it. Especially as jewelry. Gold = Sex.


I’d like to see this clown offer a protocol that

A) Incentivizes actors to do the work of verifying transactions across a network to prevent doublespend, while

b) Somehow prevents competition for that incentive, from driving the cost of obtaining it, up to the level of incentive that is provided…..

Gold Is money specifically BECAUSE mining it is hard and resource intensive. Miners will develop ores that are resource demanding enough so that the cost of mining each ounce, pretty close to equals the price per ounce. No form of money works, nor can work, any differently. As soon as someone can mine money at below cost, all you are left with is the simple excuse for systematic theft known as fiat.

Now, this doesn’t mean that the mining reward currently isn’t possibly temporarily a bit out of whack, at least at December valuations, prompting an excessively expensive arms race. But the reward is being cut over time. Until all the reward that is left, is the incentive provided by transacting parties. No, or at least a much smaller, reward per successfully verified block, IOW. Who knows how that will work out in practice, as far as resource utilization, transaction costs, possible shutout etc. is involved. But one thing will hold true, and must hold true: Miners will expend resources roughly equaling the value they expect to get from engaging in mining.

Believing you can have a limited resource that is somehow cheap to create, makes about as much sense as belief in perpetual motion. Or belief in some mythical government that is somehow able and willing to do something useful, which is honestly even more ridiculous.


It could be 1 dollar could be 100K. Fundaments missing, don't relally know what's it worth "But independent crypto trend analyst Ronnie Moas said bitcoin's value could reach $100,000 if it maintains its current market share."


LMAO, yes!!!
I was thinking along similar lines of thought.