So Blockchain is a fancy word for something like a Git repository?
It’s individual trades that depend on the price because they have finite endpoints. However, assets are owner independent and therefore based on their long term value proposition.
And people were willing to pay hundreds of dollars for plush toys with the appropriate tags preserved in plastic. Bubbles are a thing, and the crowd can be wrong. To pretend otherwise is silly.
More fundamentally, the original promise of Bitcoin was that it would act like a currency. It has failed at this. You can tell because all of the advocates have shifted over from “money of the future” to “it’s a store of value”; a subtle admission that it’s not actually functioning like a currency.
Technology evolves over time. Just because its not perfect at the first go, doesn’t mean it should go in the trash.
The converse is also true; just because it’s an improvement over past failures doesn’t mean that it’ll actually work.
My issue with crypto has always been fundamental; I don’t think crypto fans really have a good grasp on what motivates the average person, because most crypto fans[0] are ideologues, and like many ideologues they struggle to recognize that not everyone shares their values. Decentralized and trust-less speaks to engineers, but your average person has no idea what that means and doesn’t really care either. Plus a lot of the consequences of crypto currency design are absolute anti-features from a consumer perspective; nobody wants to find out that losing their password means that they’re broke, or that they can’t reverse a fraudulent charge. Your average consumer wants those features, and is willing to give up decentralization, something they didn’t value, to get it.
0 - At least those fans of crypto that want to see it used as currency. As compared to those crypto fans that want to do whatever it takes to make the number go up.
Yes. He also is a Twitter shitposter who got in trouble with the SEC for promising to take Tesla private at $420 a share, a number he picked because it was funny, and was also involved in the GME nonsense a few weeks back.
If you’re pointing to men like him as serious figures pushing for bitcoin’s adoption, then it’s time to stop and rethink a lot of things.
> yet Bitcoin acceptance keeps growing say by day, how do you explain that?
Bitcoin speculation grows day by day. People want to get rich (in USD I’ll point out) with it. Actual usage of Bitcoin as a currency is not growing.
As always, gimme a call when I can buy a latte and groceries with it. I’ve seen literally one place with a “we take Bitcoin” sticker, and the receptionist had absolutely no idea why it was there or what it meant.
> Is everyone else wrong?
Why couldn’t they be?
Same problem as when you're in let's say Uzbekistan and only have Rubles, an exchange has to happen in order to spend your Rubles in local currency.
Not going to try and disuade your from your position but bitcoin is not going anywhere and might as well accept it.
It's supposed to be money, not a religion. I don't need to accept bitcoin into my heart, or something strange like that.
That's all I'm implying with accepting. You'll get bitcoin when it makes sense for you. Nobody is forcing you to do anything, but like I said bitcoin is here and your lack of acceptance doesn't hinder it.
The fundamental part of a blockchain is that each block signs the previous block, making it very difficult to rewrite history. And it is exactly what git does.
We could implement a cryptocurrency on a git repository. Just commit and push 'I am X, here is the proof, send Y gitcoins to Z' whenever you want to do that.
The only thing git is lacking compared to say, bitcoin, is a builtin way to select the "origin" repository. In most git-based projects, there is a global consensus on a central location. In bitcoin, it is automatically selected based on who wasted to most computing power on a pointless cryptography problem.
Blockchain is a funding key word.
There, fixed that for you.
Blockchains offer an alternative system (outside of government run systems) to keep track of ownership. Now, in my opinion there's little to gain of replacing those existing systems - they are working just fine. But for a new asset class (notably digital assets) blockchains will work very well.
Again, the important change is the change in social consensus. If you told someone 5 years ago that you hold a certain token on the Ethereum blockchain nobody would have cared. If you today ran a registry of tokens on your github repository nobody would care. But if you hold a token today on the Ethereum blockchain then people are willing to pay for it.