I believe people have liberty in Christ to own bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies if they wish to do so. If you bought bitcoin or other crypto before its price exploded, and you made a lot of money, I am happy for you. However, I am staying away from it. These are my reasons, as a Christian, to stay away from cryptocurrency. (This article is my opinion, protected by the first amendment, not official financial advice. I am not a financial advisor.) This post is just the bullet points. The entire article can be read by clicking here: Read “Cryptocurrency: A Christian, Bible-believing perspective” here.
1.) Cryptocurrency does not actively do good.
If one invests in the Christian mutual funds associated with the Eventide family of funds, he is investing in many companies that are not only attractive investments but also actively are doing good things. At best, if one buys and holds bitcoin or other crypto, what he has purchased just sits there. It does not do anyone any good.
2.) Cryptocurrency is very frequently used to actively do evil.
There is substantial evidence that a high percentage of cryptocurrency is used by evil people to do evil things, whether funding drug cartels, supporting human trafficking and pornography, supporting terrorist organizations, engaging in money laundering, assisting rogue regimes to evade sanctions, and the like.
3.) Cryptocurrency lends itself toward speculation, not rational investment.
I can’t explain why bitcoin should be priced at $20, $200, $2,000, $20,000, $200,000, or $0 a coin. I can’t give you a reason why in thirty years bitcoin is likely to continue to appreciate in value, rather than becoming worthless.
4.) Your cryptocurrency can easily vanish.
If you lose your password, your crypto is gone—you can never get it back.
Furthermore, if your crypto account or wallet gets hacked, you can’t get your crypto back.
It is not surprising that crypto firm Coinbase has an “F” rating with the Better Business Bureau.
The Bible says all riches are “uncertain” and we need to trust in God, not in money (1 Timothy 6:17). However, with cryptocurrency the “uncertain” is written in all caps in flashing neon lights, surrounded by warning signs illuminated by floodlights, while sirens blare “UNCERTAIN, UNCERTAIN.”
5.) Arguments for cryptocurrency are unpersuasive.
In my opinion, arguments for crypto fail to convince. Reputable financial advisors who say to steer clear of cryptocurrency are legion. Reputable financial advisors who even offer it as a suggestion (not a recommendation) are much less common, and those who even throw it out as a possibility say to only put a tiny percentage of one’s assets into crypto, and only if one is wealthy, and warn that one could lose 100% of the investment.
To read more, please read the complete post “Cryptocurrency: A Christian, Bible-believing perspective.” Feel free to comment below, but if you comment, please read the complete article first. Thanks.
–TDR
Not leaving my real name because, hello, why would one tell the world they have something of value that bad actors might try to convince you to transfer to them?
I would never INVEST in CRYPTOCURRENCY.
I absolutely OWN BITCOIN.
I invest in EVENTIDE and other investments.
For starters, the fact that you mingle the two terms, “cryptocurrency” and “bitcoin,” tells me you don’t really know your subject.
Bitcoin is a store of value by which one can store or transfer their time, energy, and money. Simple. It is like holding value in a fine painting, vase, original book…
Bitcoin is borderless, permission-less, liquid, and it runs on an immutable ledger. I like that over the fine painting, vase, original book…
The USD “is very frequently used to actively do evil.” You say that is true “but not at nearly as high a percentage” as the “50%” you cite. And your proof for that is? Maybe the question is “how do you define ‘evil'”?
“Cryptocurrency lends itself toward speculation…” So don’t speculate with “cryptocurrency.” But, personally, I would buy Bitcoin and hold it as a store of value.
“Your cryptocurrency can easily vanish.” Don’t get cryptocurrency! But, buying and holding Bitcoin can be a good idea. Oh, and don’t let it vanish. Just like your USD can vanish and your fine painting can vanish and your one-of-a-kind special ancient coin can vanish, Bitcoin can vanish. So, don’t let that happen! Your article shows you don’t understand Bitcoin, and that’s ok. But, if you want to point to an EXCHANGE being hacked in 2011 as proof that Bitcoin can vanish, then, you are really out on a limb here. The Bitcoin network has never failed, ever. Exchanges, yes! The Bitcoin blockchain, NO! Either you don’t understand this or you intentionally misled your readers. In obedience to 1 Corinthians 13, I’m assuming you don’t understand.
“Arguments for cryptocurrency are unpersuasive.” Again, “cryptocurrency” is unpersuasive. If one were to actually be intellectually curious about Bitcoin then one might or might not find it persuasive enough to OWN (not invest in) some Bitcoin. Reading your article lends the impression that you are not intellectually curious about Bitcoin.
Finally, in answer to your criticism that “it uses a huge amount of electricity…” Right. Time, energy, and money gets stored into Bitcoin by using electricity to power computers that are securing the network. But, the fact that you are falling for the idea that it is polluting the world shows you’ve not researched your subject matter the way you spent weeks telling people to research before offering any criticism of the CDC, etc. regarding Covid. In other words, you are clearly revealing you have not read the mountains of evidence to the contrary as you are just repeating the party line of anti-Bitcoiners. Terrible, terrible reporting. For starters, just do a little looking into Bitcoin mining using flared natural gas. You will find that the exact opposite of what you are pushing is true. Flared natural gas that literally goes into the environment is being used to produce electricity rather than polluting. You would know this if you’d done your research.
I’d recommend reading up on Nick Szabo, Michael Saylor, Jack Dorsey, Preston Pysh, Jimmy Song, etc. I think you could then give a thorough and thoughtful response to the idea of Bitcoin.
Hi,
I didn’t write the post. Thomas writes on Fridays.
Here’s this:
Next:
Thomas and Kent,
I’m really not wanting to come across as condescending and rude, but you just simply don’t know what you are talking about here. You might want to read the Bitcoin White Paper by the creator of Bitcoin. You could do even a little examination of bitcoin vs. crypto. Listen to Michael Saylor on bitcoin on Tucker Carlson. Do a little dive into the Jordan Peterson Bitcoin episode. To throw out a couple of links like investopedia and pwc is not even up to the level of a kid using wikipedia for his term paper. It’s the same thing people do with you when they throw out “Ruckmanite” or similar terms instead of actually seeking to understand your preservation doctrine. I love you guys, but this is just a weak, very weak take on Bitcoin. If you don’t want to own any, that’s great. If someone else wants to that’s great too. But, if people are deciding based on what is here on “What is Truth?” then they need to read Thomas’ other works on how to decide wisely. Just sayin’.
Not This Time,
I’m not saying anything about the pros or cons of investing in bitcoin. I’m saying that I think it’s a cryptocurrency. I’m fine with being wrong, but others have said it is, like Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger (and Dave Ramsey). I understood why Thomas said it was, but he can be wrong too. I admit to all here, I know little about investing. I wish I knew more. What I do have in something is an S and P 500 index. I’m happy you know what you’re doing at Bitcoin. When you hit it very big, share some with me.
You just made my point perfectly. “Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger (and Dave Ramsey)” as your reference point is 100% like someone interacting with you on your textual position and referencing Mark Ward and James White as sources to let you know what your position is.
10 minutes of interacting with the actual work of Bitcoin devs would educate you to the reality that the Bitcoin inventor and actual Bitcoin devs have nothing to do with “crypto” such as Dogecoin, Shiba, etc. I understand that Thomas doesn’t have time to do that. Of course, he does have time to write thousands of words in his OP as well as a huge comment, but …
I’m done commenting on it, but I’ll just say that Thomas is super on what he actually knows about. This subject is clearly out of his wheelhouse. BTC has been an incredible store of value for me. It has outperformed any other store of value I’ve ever utilized other than laying up treasure in heaven. It might be for someone else and it might not be.
I’m referencing the three men for one point. All said bitcoin was cryptocurrency. Personally, I don’t care if it is cryptocurrency. I can’t give you a verse that says don’t use cryptocurrency. Merriam Webster Dictionary says this for its definition of “cryptocurrency”: “any form of currency that only exists digitally, that usually has no central issuing or regulating authority but instead uses a decentralized system to record transactions and manage the issuance of new units, and that relies on cryptography to prevent counterfeiting and fraudulent transactions.” Example sentence: “Virtual currency bitcoin hit the mainstream in 2014. Bitcoin ATMs started springing up all over the world … , allowing people to exchange cash for the cryptocurrency, a secure digital payment outside of conventional financial institutions.” The people who write the dictionary would also be wrong.
Satoshi Nakamoto, the inventor of bitcoin, called it crypto in his original nine page paper. When the Wall Street Journal writes about bitcoin and Nakamato, it calls bitcoin cryptocurrency. I don’t care that they call it cryptocurrency.
World Magazine writes: “Bitcoin is one such example of a decentralized currency that can be used to purchase goods and services in the modern world today. The main idea was introduced by Satoshi Nakamoto in 2009 to introduce something that can act as a form of proof. It was not until 2017 that cryptocurrency became popular.” This proof is called cryptographic proof. That was the term that Nakamato used; hence, cryptocurrency.
OK. I guess I’m commenting again. Don’t really want to… but,
“Satoshi Nakamoto, the inventor of bitcoin, called it crypto in his original nine page paper. ” Kent Brandenburg.
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
There’s the link to the white paper. Feel free to point out where Satoshi N. refers to Bitcoin as “crypto” or “cryptocurrency.”
It is ok to just say, “I guess I don’t know…” sometimes. 🙂
You really think I’m wrong? You really think Bitcoin isn’t cryptocurrency? People calling it cryptocurrency, they’re all wrong? Can you send me to a statement anywhere, besides you, that says it is NOT cryptocurrency. I know, I’ve got to do the work, but I have done it. I read the Nakamato paper. I used the word “crypto,” not “cryptocurrency” (you put that in) because if anyone reads it, they will see he says “cryptography,” which is why it is cryptocurrency.
You said it wasn’t cryptocurrency. I thought it was, so I went to look. I’m more convinced now that it is. What difference does it make what it is called? Why would you not use Bitcoin if it was cryptocurrency? That I don’t understand. I guess I don’t know.
Dear Not This Time,
Thanks for writing.
I am glad you own mutual funds with Eventide. There are many Christians who own mutual funds where they are part owners of Budwiser, Marlboro, etc. That actually IS sinful, unlike investing in Eventide and owning Bitcoin. The world would be a better place if everyone refrained from ungodly investments the way you (seem to be, as far as I can tell) doing.
I am glad you do not view bitcoin as an investment. I agree with you there as well, and also agree with you that it is not good to speculate in bitcoin.
I trust that you read the actual main article this blog post summarizes before commenting. If you did not, please do that.
I never claimed to be an expert on bitcoin. I am not an expert in bitcoin, or in any other form of investing. That is why I don’t buy my own individual stocks but get mutual funds that are run by actual financial experts. If I need to be an expert before getting bitcoin, I’m going to stay away from it because I’m not going to take the time to become an expert in it, and as a non-expert I would likely do the wrong thing with it. I believe I could explain my investment strategy to a 7th grader in a way that he could understand it and practice it. I personally couldn’t explain crypto to a 7th grader so that he would know what to do and why.
Are you saying that bitcoin is not a cryptocurrency? I don’t understand your point in “For starters, the fact that you mingle the two terms, ‘cryptocurrency’ and ‘bitcoin,’ tells me that you don’t really know your subject.” I never said that bitcoin was the only cryptocurrency. If you can prove that bitcoin is not a cryptocurrency at all, then I would indeed be missing something important. What are your sources for this, if that is what you are arguing? If it is not what you are arguing, could you please explain your point? Everything pro and anti I read seemed to assume bitcoin was the most widely used cryptocurrency, unless I was reading everything incorrectly.
I would prefer the vase or the fine painting myself to something that I can never in any circumstances put my hands on. At least I could look at the fine painting, and if someone broke into my house I could call the police or exercise 2nd Amendment rights to prevent it from getting stolen or have them try to track it and get it back if it was stolen. Crypto, once it is stolen, is gone, never to return, at least in the overwhelming majority of situations.
I think it is pretty clear that 50% of transactions in dollars are not done to promote evil from all the vegetables, meat, etc. that I see people buying at the grocery store in dollars, the vehicles in the car dealership being sold with USDs, etc.
In the article this post links to I provide the source for the 50% figure as well as a critical article by a bitcoin industry advocate that gives a lower figure. I also linked to both a financial advisor agreeing with the large majority to stay away from cryptocurrency like bitcoin and one from the definite minority saying it was permissible to invest in bitcoin. Even in the summary at What is Truth?, which is significantly shorter than the actual article, I link to both a pro- and anti- source. The one giving the minority view that it was permissible—from Morgan Stanley, a reputable firm, as you surely know—is actually a lot more detailed than the one I linked to giving the majority view to avoid it. So I may be “clearly revealing [I] have not read the mountains of evidence to the contrary,” in the fact that I do not provide “mountains” of sources on both sides, but I actually did attempt to look at the best arguments for both sides I could find within a reasonable amount of time, and do not believe I violated the principles for evaluating information, including looking at both sides of things, I exposited from Scripture in the series on conspiracy theories.
Again, I hope you read the actual article at faithsaves.net before commenting on the summary here at What is Truth.
The fine painting and my USDs can certainly vanish, but 20% of all bitcoin is now inaccessible, as I sourced in the actual article at FaithSaves linked to in this summary at What is Truth. (Do you dispute this figure?) If in only the few years bitcoin has been around 20% of it has already vanished because of lost passwords, hacking, etc. that is a much, much higher rate of vanishing than for anything I personally would want as a store of value. Bitcoin can’t store value like a Michelangelo painting if I have a 1/5 chance in only a few years of it just disappearing, and if the likelihood it will be around as long as the Michelangelo or the ancient Greek vase is miniscule because I will lose my password or someone will have hacked it away way before that time, just by probability from deducting 20% every few years or even few decades. If you do a fantastic job of protecting your bitcoin that is very good, and, again, I’m glad for you. I personally don’t have the expertise to protect any crypto I would get from hackers who are able to hack into the US government’s classified servers. I also don’t trust my ability to avoid simple human error like losing my password. I certainly don’t trust Coinbase or just about any other company with an “F” BBB rating, and if Coinbase is the most or one of the most widely used crypto places, and people still use it rather than other ones although it has an F BBB rating, I probably don’t trust the other crypto websites either, for it would seem likely that they are even worse.
The sources I linked to in the main article point to many situations where bitcoin has been stolen in many different ways. I don’t care if the bitcoin blockchain has not been tampered with if someone in Khazakstan now has my bitcoin because my account with Coinbase has gotten hacked. The fact that after the big hack bitcoin dropped well over 99% to around $0.01 per bitcoin (I am going off memory from those figures) shows that at least a substantial number of people seem to think that the danger I am speaking about is real, or at least was real at that time.
In terms of the blockchain, newer cryptocurrencies employ more modern blockchain technology than the first generation blockchain of bitcoin. I can give no reasons why the old first generation tech of bitcoin is superior to or will not get replaced by more modern generations of blockchain, making bitcoin passe. Maybe there are great reasons why the old tech bitcoin is using will stick around rather than being replaced by better and more modern blockchains, but when I think about my old Apple computer that used 5 ¼ inch floppy drives, and how it got thrown in the garbage after it became outdated, and compare my old Apple with my current MacBook, or compare the rotary phones of my childhood with my modern cellphone, in my non-expert way I don’t see why the first generation blockchain programming of bitcoin will last (but feel free to explain why it will if you like).
I attempted to locate both pro- and anti-crypto sources and site both sides in my main article, not just “the party line of anti-Bitcoiners.” If Bitcoin miners in the interior of coal-burning China have a way to use more electricity up than entire countries use up without creating any pollution, that’s really great. I’m not sure why the rest of the world doesn’t do that as well, then, though, unless only bitcoin miners know how to use massive amounts of electricity with no environmental impact. I am not an environmentalist extremist either, so using huge amounts of electricity is not necessarily a dealbreaker for me if bitcoin really is a great thing. I’m glad New Zealand can use energy in the world God made for us to subdue and have dominion over, and if a few fish die because they need to have a hydroelectric dam, or there are some greenhouse gases emitted from natural gas so people can have refrigerators and microwaves, that’s fine. It seems to me, though, that everyone in many whole countries turning on all their lights, running all their air conditioners, etc. is more useful than mining bitcoin, though.
Feel free to post direct sources to whatever pro-bitcoin sources you want to by the gentlemen that you mention (Szabo, etc.) If you are also able to post the best anti-bitcoin critiques you have read and explain why the best pro-case is better than best the anti-case, that is even better. I cite both pro- and anti- references in my article, but as a non-expert, there are likely to be better pro- and anti- scholarly sources to reference.
Again, my article is about why I personally am avoiding cryptocurrencies like bitcoin. If you want to own some, you have liberty in Christ to do it, and if it works out well for you, I’m happy about that.
Thanks.
Hello again Not This Time,
I am open to the possibility that I have no idea what I am talking about. Feel free to post direct sources to whatever pro-bitcoin sources you want to by the gentlemen that you mention (Szabo, etc.) If you are also able to post the best anti-bitcoin critiques you have read and explain why the best pro-case is better than best the anti-case, that is even better. I cite both pro- and anti- references in my article, but as a non-expert, there are likely to be better pro- and anti- scholarly sources to reference. I would prefer sources that are required to provide fiduciary advice to those who can have a financial stake in what they are promoting.
Simply saying that I don’t know what I am talking about, and saying Warren Buffet, Dave Ramsey, etc. don’t either, without explaining why this is, is not going to be convincing. They both know more about finances than I do, and it is probable that they know more about finances than the large majority of anonymous commentators on this blog. It seems unlikely to me that in ten minutes talking to bitcoin developers I can know more than the many financial experts who say to avoid bitcoin. (I assume you mean “developers” when you say “dev,” if you mean something else, feel free to explain what you mean.) Were it possible to actually talk to the unknown party who invented bitcoin, that would indeed be valuable, as maybe it would be possible to find out if he has kept a gazillion of them himself and is going to sell them all and crash the price. It would also be nice to know if he is, say, part of a Russian hit squad, a terrorist organization, a drug cartel, etc. or simply is some geeky tech guy with glasses.
If you want to explain specifically why Bitcoin is different in kind as a cryptocurrency than other crypto, other than it being more popular and so less likely to go back down to $0.01 than it did a few years ago, feel free to do that.
I’m not saying you are making this argument, but many people assume that because something went up really high recently it is going to continue to go up even more. It is just as likely if not more likely that if something just went up a gazillion percent it is now too late to get in on it as a good investment because it is now overpriced and so it is a good time to sell it rather than buying more. Since, as a non-expert, I can’t give any rational reason why bitcoin will go up more rather than go back down 99.9% again, I am going to avoid it, but if you can explain why it won’t, feel free to do so; you have liberty to give that explanation here.
Brother Ross,
No. I’m not doing your work for you. I already told you I’m done commenting on it. Thanks for all the good work you do and all the good info you provide.
Thanks, glad you find other things a blessing.
Cryptocurrency is a digital or virtual currency that is secured by cryptography.
Bitcoin is definitely a type of cryptocurrency, in fact the most well-known of them all. I don’t think this can be debated. The process of “mining bitcoin” is just using computer power to solve complex cryptography.
Thank you Bro. Ross for sharing your thoughts on this issue. I confess I did try to buy a small amount of cryptocurrency, just to try it out. But I have come to much the same conclusion as you. I am just letting my small amount of crypto sit right now.
Thanks Tenrin. If you want to hold on to it, go for it. If I had any I would sell it personally for the reasons I mentioned.
By the way, I got into looking at this because someone I know sent me was really excited about crypto and wanted me to get into it. He sent me a link where if I joined Coinbase I would get some money and he would too. I wanted to please him and give him free crypto, but I needed to drop $100 into the account to get started, and I could not justify that after looking at both sides of it to the best of my honest ability in a reasonable amount of time. Also, with the company being Coinbase, I didn’t see how I could give them any money with their “F” BBB rating and that I know of people who are regularly saying they are getting ripped off and their money with Coinbase is vanishing.
I asked this person for the best arguments pro and contra crypto, but he could not give me any written sources. He just assumed it was a good investment because his bitcoin had gone up a lot already and he liked that it was not regulated much by the government so it seemed like a conservative thing to do politically; he sent me a video with a lot of ads to buy crypto around it with a conservative talk radio-type person who I have no reason to think knows much about investing. It seemed better to me to influence things conservatively by voting rather than by buying crypto. Some other people I knew were also trying to get me into crypto because it had already gone up a lot, so presumably it would keep going up a lot (rather than now being overpriced). Years earlier in the same group penny stocks were the rage and were supposed to make one rich quick because they had gone up a lot, but they had lost everything they put into them.
So after looking into it for that person, I thought I might as well put my thoughts together on it.
Dear Bro Brandenburg,
If the paper Not At This Time referenced comes from early in the development of cryptocurrency, it is not surprising that it does not say “bitcoin is a cryptocurrency” since bitcoin was the first cryptocurrency. That, of course, does not deny it is a cryptocurrency.
As far as I can tell, Not At This Time thinks that bitcoin is much less risky than other cryptocurrencies for reasons that have not been explained. Since right now more people are willing to speculate on bitcoin than on cryptocurrency #48 or #37, that may be the case, but it does not really undermine the main points made in the article.
I hope you guys bought the dip.