There are a lot of fallacies in this thread, that I could not address even if I wanted to expend the time, as most HN users are convinced of their belief the equates Bitcoin, and perhaps all of Cryptocurrency, to some nefarious end that challenges their way of Life. All while undermining that some of the prominent people in this Space are Jack Dorsey and the Winklevoss twins, not to mention some other well known VCs.
To that end, I think this is worth challenging:
> I think that most hardcore Bitcoin aficionados (the group that's still in it, even now that the bubble has burst and you can't get rich off of it) would accept the above premise. If Bitcoin becomes successful, something seriously bad has happened to the monetary system.
I'm that 'aficionado' and I disagree with this premise: I do, however, think something has gone terribly wrong with the monetary system; not just in the US but in regards to all fiat currencies for a very long time. There was a time I was proponent of the PM backed State sanctioned systems back in my Mises book thumping days, but I've come to realize that it's just an archaic model and doesn't suit the 21st century model of how commerce is conducted at best, and that Fiat is a system with a disastrous inevitability at worst, which is the most common outcome as most fiat currencies have an average lifespan of 40 years when Nation-States are involved in managing a currency. The Internet has enabled a much larger collective of Humanity to come together than any other time in History, and while that may have some horrible implications (the cesspool that is Social media comes to mind) it also has a large Freedom enhancing component that most cannot actualize as they're limited in finding ways to obtain financial autonomy in doing so, which is why the Internet needs a Native currency irrespective of irrelevant things like Nationality, Gender or political identity.
With that said, I think you're undermining something very significant here, that is, the amount of transactions in global commerce that Square currently handles could all operate on the back-end on Bitcoin's LN for faster settlement, and require less security measures, like payment holdings for those customers deemed 'higher risk.' And this could be further increased as Jack [1] has made a commitment to reside in Africa to address this onboarding challenge.
This is a real usecase, that I personally have very intimate knowledge of as I did Fintech in the Industrial Hemp space and used Bitcoin to overcome the egregious financial censorship they faced before the Farm Bill made Hemp 50 State legal in the US.
Bank account seizures were the norm and having all your savings or operating capital taken from you because of a perceived threat can be entirely mitigated in a system that is fully audited by default, that is to say, you cannot incur the losses of a charge-back scam if/when you swipe your CC for a purchase you're on-boarded onto the LN and you're none the wiser of what just took place as you received your goods-services just as you would with any CC transaction made elsewhere. And this is just one of the benefits of using the LN to transact on, the others being instant settlement times, and near 0 tx fees, as opposed to Main-net costs and transactions settlement times (new block).
I think that is what is likely to happen with Square/CASH, as Jack has been one of the main investors in Lightening Labs. This alone disproves the notion that the World would have had to collapse to achieve the goal that goal--something that has admittedly kept me awake at night, and I have spoken to several developers and entrepreneurs about throughout my time in Bitcoin.
After nearly 9 years in this space, and that time has flown by, I think it's a Crypto Nerd's wet-dream/panacea to think that everyone wants to be their own Bank, or simply be unbanked because those that need it the most are almost entirely unfamiliar with the concept entirely, and they will some how decide to run their own nodes they run on a meshnet based protocol and are using a Blockstream satelite to verify and update the Blockchain with.
It's theoretically possible but entirely unrealistic because its far more time and effort than most people want to expend, and the reality is many would prefer to make MANY compromises to just have system that 'works' without worrying about the mechanics of it all and have the guesswork taken out and have a turn-key solution.
I equate to how people are almost entirely unaware of how an ICE works, or electricity running through the wires runs and powers all of the devices in their homes. It's up to entrepreneurs and engineers to not just create a superior product in this case a monetary system, which I would argue we have had for some time, but also to create an interface that ensures the least amount of friction to onboard the rest of the 'non-initiated,' and I argue we've been in this phase since about 2016 or so.
Bitcoin will have truly succeeded and fulfilled it's true potential for the masses when it's users are entirely unaware they are using it is my new benchmark for success, because for the initiated its already pretty damn seamless from where it was 8-9 years ago if you're already within it and that was just scratching the surface of what it's capable of doing within a very small, albeit determined demographic, which has had significant disruption all over the World already. I'm excited of the World(s) it could create (as Bitcoin remain one of the few viable options for a Multi-planetary monetary system) and is one of the main reasons why I remain optimistic despite all the calamity we see in the World.
1: https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/29/tech/jack-dorsey-africa-futur...