There were people in the past skeptical of an outlandish claim who turned out to be wrong as that thing became something great, therefore people who are skeptical of another outlandish claim today are also wrong. Did I get that right?
Rather, I am surprised to see comments on a technical website like Hacker News that are treating the long, drawn out development of cryptocurrencies and blockchains as something that is completely different than the long, drawn out development of the personal computer and the internet. It took the Internet more than 10 years to be useful, and so I think saying "shut it down, this is going nowhere" about Bitcoin today is not a useful viewpoint to take. Even if you doubt the technology itself, there is no reason to stifle its continued research and development.
I disagree with this sentiment. In the early days, the dissemination of information like pornography and texts like the Anarchist Cookbook, which had instructions on how to create bombs and other weapons, were two examples of why the internet was a bad thing. Using a computer was considered by many to be antisocial due to the perception of people staring at screens 12 hours a day without talking to others in person. Even today, we have those arguing that the proliferation of computer technology has been detrimental to societal interactions.
I'm onboard with that. Although your argument may benefit from better phrasing, because it actually does come across like that, which is a disservice to your advocacy effort.
Back on topic, I don't see a lot of people in this thread saying "it's been forever and nothing came of it, let's just end the whole thing." What people are saying here is that there is no foreseeable legitimate (and legal) use case for the crypto currencies, hence let's not start the frenzy just yet. We should have a proposed legitimate use case first and a frenzy second, otherwise it's indistinguishable from millions of other exciting idea. Just because this particular idea excites you doesn't mean it has potential.
So where is the potential? What is the use case?
In the end I'm just a programmer, not an essayist :) I appreciate the feedback.
> So where is the potential? What is the use case?
I work in fintech and can speak firsthand about the potential use of this technology to reduce costs and reliance on third party auditing firms. I think people focus too much on cryptocurrencies just like people focus too much on AOL and Geocities. Those services weren't the internet, and cryptocurrency isn't the only use of blockchains. If anything, I would love for the shitcoin frenzy to die down so our efforts can be focused toward more useful/less scammy uses of the technology.
That's not world changing.
Digital nearly frictionless currency is another use case, but so far it seems there is a vicious cycle of value, scarcity, hoarding, boom, and bust in most of these that makes them unsuitable for use as a medium of exchange.
To go a bit further, I'm willing to wager that there is an inherent tradeoff in crypto between usefulness as a currency (stability vs fiat) and usefulness as an investment (appreciation). a stable store of value is also useful, just not as an investment.
The crypto currency that eventually works won't make anybody rich.
The same could be said of many of the early hardware and software makers of the early internet.
> The crypto currency that eventually works won't make anybody rich.
I think the bigger point I was trying to make is that we have a technology, and so far the killer app for it has been cryptocurrencies, but that we've not yet developed the technology to the point where its broader uses can come to fruition. We didn't have Facebook or Twitter in 1995, partly because of technological implications, and partly because the idea of social media hadn't been fully formed yet. These things take time, and I think there's a bright future ahead for these new technologies once they mature and people find more uses for them.
I don't think cryptocurrency will be the be-all-end-all use of blockchains, and the idea of technologies like Bitcoin may seem as quaint as services like CompuServe in the future.
Paper currency that may be in your pocket has serial numbers printed on it. Those numbers cannot be readily associated with an individual. Bitcoin and all other blockchain systems can be connected to a user directly or through alternative methods. This is ideal for government and is the direction most are taking - control over blockchain systems and therefore control over the system's users.
Pointing to credit or debit cards is a poor comparison since those require significant hurdles for participation. Cryptocurrency requires only a smartphone or some kind of computer and a rudimentary internet connection. The infrastructure for the entire system is already in place, unlike growth of the early internet needing computers and modems. Transactions work now and have been for years; higher level functions such as decentralized exchanges, asset registration and such are gradually being tested and implemented.
Meanwhile, users are voluntarily joining. Government needs do little other than take some corrective actions and dictate rules for usage of cryptocurrency that can be enforced within borders. It's a control-freak's dream come true.
The draconian implications of this technology, like many others, concern me greatly. Thanks for providing this perspective.
Bitcoin is already a reserve currency in crypto thanks to longevity and stability of the protocol. Another may become the primary transactional currency and there may well be national variants for local trade, but reserve is effectively established.
Keep in mind that enough data points from outside the system can be used to associate an identity with an address.
Just my two cents after spending months dealing with banks and PSPs.