>I would call "unproven".
Why wouldn't you call it novel? It's only 10 year old technology at this stage.
Why wouldn't you call it novel? It's only 10 year old technology at this stage.
If crypto is money, can I:
Spend it at Amazon? My grocery store? My corner deli? Pay my rent? Pay my employees?
If crypto is a store of value can I trust it will have any rational storage value over any time period?
YES on all accounts.
The others depend on whether they choose to accept it or not. It's not the same as legal tender, where they must accept it.
https://www.cryptocompare.com/coins/guides/how-to-buy-on-ama...
edit:https://www.bbc.com/news/av/business-18827269/a-brief-histor...
In many jurisdictions (including the US and the Eurozone, as far as I know), almost no business is required to accept legal tender as payment. Legal tender is only required to be accepted when settling a debt, and even then there can be restrictions (such as a maximum denomination or number of banknotes or coins, a maximum amount that can be settled in cash, or contract obligations).
It's not about debt, it's about payments. If there is no agreement to the contrary, then you must accept legal tender. You also don't have to accept anything else.
Amazon have chosen not to accept Bitcoin, and instead to accept payment via certain credit cards. Saying that they accept Bitcoin is false.
Trying to pay people unexpectedly in Bitcoin or chickens or something else will not go well. They can demand legal tender, unless there are other agreements in place.
Therefore Amazon does not accept legal tender.
Yes, businesses like Amazon could demand payment in legal tender (or credit cards, or Bitcoin) but they are under no obligation to accept any of those forms of payment.
Bitcoin is no different than credit cards with respect to legal tender.
Currently there are zero real world practical use cases for cryptocurrency that aren't associated with illegal activity. If anyone knows of legal applications of cryptocurrency, feel free to respond. I'd love to be proven wrong.
Another obvious difference is that from the first moment they were on the market, they had some practical use, and the amount of use grew quickly. If we count from the Kodak DCS 100 introduced in 1991 at a price of $20,000, then ten years later we see that they were being bought at the rate of 18 million units a year and rapidly rising. [1]
Bitcoin, in contrast, has very little practical use 10 years after introduction. Its merchant adoption peaked years ago. That's far short of what an actually useful digital payments product can do. Look at M-Pesa [2] for contrast. It was introduced only a year early than Bitcoin. It has tens of millions of active users, and processes up to 900 transactions per second, with an average of 160 per second. [3] A huge success compared with Bitcoin's average of 3-4 transactions per second, most of which are speculative rather than practical. [4]
[1] https://www.dpreview.com/articles/5474101424/pmaresearch2003...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-Pesa
[3] https://www.nation.co.ke/news/MPesa-transactions-rise-to-Sh1...
[4] https://www.blockchain.com/en/charts/transactions-per-second
Kodak invented digital cameras in 1975.
> Kodak invented digital cameras in 1975.
DigiCash was founded in 1990 based on a paper from 1983.
And with M-Pesa versus Bitcoin, they're both digital cash, so I think it's even easier to see how badly Bitcoin has done.
There are different types of cryptocurrencies and the one you are looking for is known as a "stable-coin". I suggest looking into Bancor and Maker DAI to get a better view of how these currencies keep their value over time.
I honestly can't think of a single crypto startup that's had a compelling product.
Edit: typos.
Your impression that the "vast majority of crypto/blockchain thing are either outright scams" is a personal opinion for which you can't find supporting evidence. The SEC has only issued a hand full of notifications and LOST the only court case I've seen so far.
Ten years into the Web we had Google, Amazon, Geocities, eBay, Flash games, and thousands of existing companies moving their operations online. What is a single blockchain-related success we can point to other than cryptocurrency exchanges?
edit: I looked through the site and most of the "scams" seemed more like basic phishing sites than actual blockchains or cryptocurrencies
Funny that you trust and parrot Bitcoin scammers, but you don't trust a list of Bitcoin scammers. Afraid some you've invested in, hyped and promoted yourself might show up?
I've pointed out that most of the scams didn't actually involve a blockchain or tokens, as the SEC cases against a few of them show.
The question of who manages the list is important so we can tell what method was used and what's the motivation to keep it. One of the areas I'm most interested is cryptoeconomics and of course fairness and transparency matter to me which is why I wonder why would you defend this site as if you knew it to be true and accurate.
Nothing I said in any way was a defense of the site. Where did you get that idea?
You're obviously not reading anything that I wrote, and just trying to be contrary to make it sound like you're making an argument. Please don't bother replying if you can't understand what I'm saying, and make stuff up that I didn't say.
The most charitable reading of the crypto tech timeline is to say that the bubble popped at the protocol layer instead of the application layer. In that case, we're somewhere around 1989-1993/94. Maybe we're still waiting for a Tim Berners-Lee.
Who knows.