4 ms·

question at this point though: If a crypto currency were to gain widespread adoption, why would it be Bitcoin?

andrewmutz 9y ago
It would be bitcoin because of the strong network effects of currencies.
quickben 9y ago
Probably wouldn't. You need something that scales if all are to use it. Bitcoin, in the current form doesn't at a level to replace Visa tap pay. For example, for a country of 20 million buying bagels on their way to work.
- mbrock 9y ago
  By this standard, gold and USD also don't really scale, because you can't send them fast enough. Interbank clearing is pretty slow. We already have exchanges and clearinghouses like Coinbase for example. It's easy to imagine a Bitcoin-backed payment infrastructure offered by Coinbase or a Visa-like consortium of exchanges. Of course this taps into a huge and messy ideological debate about what kind of thing Bitcoin ought to be.
  - quickben 9y ago
    Whatever it ought to be, it should start by supporting more than 25M transactions a day. I hear people preaching wider adoption by all means, but none tackles the limits. I apologize, but it looks like the proponents want money in, and scarcity remaining.
- hackinthebochs 9y ago
  Segwit can enable that kind of scaling.
qznc 9y ago
First Mover Advantage.
- acdha 9y ago
  This is why we all use AltaVista and Friendster from our PalmOS phones. That line of reasoning is especially risky in finance: right now, very few people are invested in Bitcoin. If it became popular, all of the early users would become very rich. The major players all know this and I find it extremely unlikely that they wouldn't make a serious play to avoid that line of money going to someone else. Say a few major banks, Apple/Google/Square/Venmo, etc. setup a competitor: on day one it'd be accepted by orders of magnitude more vendors and they'd presumably have paid attention to the endemic security, reliability, and performance concerns. How many people have enough of a stake in Bitcoin that they wouldn't jump ship – hundreds, maybe thousands?

It would be bitcoin because of the strong network effects of currencies.

Probably wouldn't. You need something that scales if all are to use it. Bitcoin, in the current form doesn't at a level to replace Visa tap pay. For example, for a country of 20 million buying bagels on their way to work.

mbrock 9y ago
By this standard, gold and USD also don't really scale, because you can't send them fast enough. Interbank clearing is pretty slow. We already have exchanges and clearinghouses like Coinbase for example. It's easy to imagine a Bitcoin-backed payment infrastructure offered by Coinbase or a Visa-like consortium of exchanges. Of course this taps into a huge and messy ideological debate about what kind of thing Bitcoin ought to be.
- quickben 9y ago
  Whatever it ought to be, it should start by supporting more than 25M transactions a day. I hear people preaching wider adoption by all means, but none tackles the limits. I apologize, but it looks like the proponents want money in, and scarcity remaining.
hackinthebochs 9y ago
Segwit can enable that kind of scaling.

qznc 9y ago

First Mover Advantage.

acdha 9y ago
This is why we all use AltaVista and Friendster from our PalmOS phones. That line of reasoning is especially risky in finance: right now, very few people are invested in Bitcoin. If it became popular, all of the early users would become very rich. The major players all know this and I find it extremely unlikely that they wouldn't make a serious play to avoid that line of money going to someone else. Say a few major banks, Apple/Google/Square/Venmo, etc. setup a competitor: on day one it'd be accepted by orders of magnitude more vendors and they'd presumably have paid attention to the endemic security, reliability, and performance concerns. How many people have enough of a stake in Bitcoin that they wouldn't jump ship – hundreds, maybe thousands?