Bitcoin at $ 1 million? Will not happen, believes fake satoshi Craig Wright

Craig Wright is back with his “priceless” Bitcoin comments. This time Mr. Faketoshi believes that Bitcoin “will not continue to increase in value”.

Since Bitcoin has been traded on various crypto exchanges and noticeably reached its all-time high in December, numerous analysts and industry leaders have been predicting astronomical ratings for BTC.

The most discussed of all predictions is that of John McAfee, who bet his genitals that Bitcoin will reach a price of $ 1 million.
There is no “million dollar Bitcoin” …


    “There is not enough money worldwide to have a million dollars of Bitcoin.”

In his usual, non-stop manner, CSW mentioned that “Tether won’t pump”, followed by “that’s dead”.

In fact, his “thoughtful” remarks that link Bitcoin’s price hike to pumping USDT are nothing more than a repetition of the FUD-filled Bloomberg article, which described the 2017 price rally as a gigantic market manipulation scheme with Tether.
BTC will not … rise to … 20 … not rise to … 40 … not to 100 …

One thing is clear: Craig clearly does not understand that stablecoins have a broader use case than just pumping the Bitcoin price and the aggregated crypto markets.

He seems to think: If Bitcoin is going to increase in value, it is because of “people pumping something with some Tether-like thing” for which they will end up in prison.

As mentioned earlier, this doesn’t even remotely feel like it’s providing a real explanation, since most of it comes from an article in the mainstream media.

As far as we know, this is not Wright’s first attempt to establish his credibility as a “Bitcoin thought leader” (in his language: “Bitcoin creator”).
John McAfee sees it differently

John McAfee, who is a champion of and digital assets, has stubbornly maintained his stance on the Bitcoin price.

In October, Mr. McAfee even said that mathematics would have failed as science if Bitcoin price didn’t hit $ 2 million by 2020.

If Bitcoin is really not worth millions, we can at least expect one of the most productive computer experts of our generation to provide a rational explanation for this.