Maybe Bitcoin is Netscape and we're still waiting for Chrome. It's still so, so early.
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/what-happened-when-bit...
This article seems to get into it if you want to read it all, let me know if you do so and find anything out, I only wish I had the time
Dear God no. Wake me when the "Firefox" of crypto is available.
edit: removed burn in all caps as this is not a Wendy's restaurant.
(And I think GP makes a good point.)
edit for context: parent originally started with “BURN!” before edit
To explain the derision, I don't think the GP makes a good point at all, as crypto-adherents pre-suppose that there's a common acceptance that blockchain currencies are an internet-level breakthrough.
Linked lists are useful. Merkle trees are useful. Blockchain currencies haven't so far proven a single use case they perform more usefully than existing systems.
All that the ICO craze, the NFT craze and the De-Fi craze point to is that this is a solution in search of a problem. The only reason any of the crypto-based versions of those existing concepts (IPOs, collectibles, credit) have been able to accrue funds so far is due to fraud and mania.
De-Fi could someday become useful if someone figures out a de-centralised way to handle unsecured credit, but how do you include trust in an eco-system that is based around a lack of trust? Even if someone solves that problem it won't be because of crypto, it'll be because of whatever novel idea they come up with to meet that specific need.
Anytime a bitcoin video ends up in my YouTube feed I feel like I'm being offered quantum physics lessons by Deepak Chopra.
Anyway, that's why I agree with the alchemy comment.
All I’m saying is that it’s fine if people within that community believe this is as massive as they claim, but to have a common dialogue about it we would need to have common facts.
To adherents it’s bigger than the Internet, to others it’s a ponzi scheme built around linked lists and arbitrary hashes.
Gopher was released in 1991, the first web browser (WorldWideWeb) also in 1991, Mosaic in 1993. The first German online bookshop, Telebuch, went online in 1991 (via BTX), and was on the web in 1995; Bloomberg.com, IMDB, Wired was online 1993, Amazon was founded 1994, Google 1998, Napster 1999, Frienster 2002, MySpace 2003, Facebook 2004 - all within 13 years of the invention of the WWW.
It is now 13 years after the first release of Bitcoin, and what do we have (except dark web narcotics markets, and exchanges that take a cut around 50x greater than stock exchanges)?
When Netscape Navigator was released, it was clear and obvious this was the future (and if anything, underpromised based on where we are today).
Within 4years of Navigators release, I was making my fulltime living building websites.
The iPhone was another immediate “this is obviously the future” technology.
13 years into Bitcoin, it’s still not obvious.
It's pretty damn obvious once you objectively look at the shit show the fiat currency system has become.
It should be pretty obvious that people who work all of their lives can't retire with the money they've saved because their money loses (according to CPI) 2% per year.
Instead they have to risk their savings in the stock market or some other investment--remember savings, money markets, CDs return less than 1% interest; negative interest once you include inflation.
"Bitcoin is the Great Definancialization"—https://unchained-capital.com/blog/bitcoin-is-the-great-defi...
With 2% inflation and a 1% money market, you're losing a net of 1% per year. If you were handed a million bucks at 25 and sat on it until 65, you'd still have an inflation-adjusted value of $669k.
That's not the difference between retirement and non-retirement. It's the difference between a luxurious retirement and a less-luxurious retirement, or a retirement at 70 rather than 65.
That money will continue to deflate, and if you live for another 40 years, it becomes a mere half-million at the end. That would give you $11k a year to live on -- not great, but again, you're talking about four decades of no work. That's a lot to ask.
That's not fun, of course, but it's not supposed to be fun. "I was handed a million dollars and therefore deserve to have it exponentially accumulate value for no work or risk" is fun, but it's not a fundamental right.
If you put earn more money than you need and stick it in the bank, you can retire. Inflation means that you need a little more money, which you can get either by working longer, or using your money to improve the economy as a whole by investment. More risk means bigger rewards. Zero risk means a net loss, as punishment for keeping your money out of circulation.
The point is that exponential growth is powerful, but even exponents of multiples of 10 don't do all that much when the base rate is 1%. It's only the difference between retirement and non-retirement for a relatively small sliver.
The real problem with non-retirement is that many people can't put away anything. They live hand-to-mouth for their entire careers, with every incoming dollar accounted for. For them, inflation isn't an issue because they have $0.
Worrying about inflation is a great privilege for those who have cash and would prefer it to become more cash for free, with no effort or risk. Instead, the economy demands they take risks rather than sitting on their money -- with the goal of some of it ending up in the form of jobs for those who don't have that cash sitting around.
Etherium seems like it could be one of those if POS or something else can make transactions a reasonable price