192 karma · joined May 7, 2012
what if you bought it at any other time during the few years it exists?
anyway that was not the point. The point was people failing to see the innovation and seeing only the problems. Which was the point of this article.
Anyway this is ridiculous. People try to analyze an new phenomena with the old terminology. It doesn't work like that. You can't understand the change if you don't change your paradigm.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2773265/Billionaire-who-b...
The adoption of p2p technology, a protocol or a network has less to do with the quality of the technology itself, and more with the size of the network. Couldn't there be a better social network than FB? A better snapchat? A better Twitter? A better protocol than http?
Besides, too flawed from an economic perspective? Too inefficient? This is the rhetorical equivalent of "Spray and Pray"..
The current regulatory environment will not just disappear but itself. Bitcoin might win, bitcoin might lose, but there will be blood.
The Google argument is mentioned once, and is not what led me to the conclusion. I found it while I was searching for an image to add to the post.
Most people that I know who deleted their Facebook account did it because they were wasting too much time on it. This is my subjective experience and opinion.
Sorry for giving you cancer.
But it would have been better to search in incognito mode.
Volatility is not permanent characteristic of bitcoin. It's like saying that a newborn child will never be able to walk, because now it's only crawling.
At a certain point Bitcoin will stabilize. Whether that will be at 0 or 1 million, no one knows. Not the haters nor the fanboys.