3 ms·
I get what you are saying. Bsaically you are saying that bitcoin is useless because nobody uses bitcoin. Unfortiunately it's true that it is yet to see big ad
by nicky0 8y ago
I get what you are saying.
Bsaically you are saying that bitcoin is useless because nobody uses bitcoin.
Unfortiunately it's true that it is yet to see big adoption outside of techies, and citizens of basket case economies such as venezuela etc.
It's like if you invented email but nobody was using it yet. People would say email is useless, because nobody uses email.
But the concept of bitcoin is not useless, just as the concept of email is not useless. Day to day usefulness requires adoption it's true.
But even now it is useful as an intermediary currency that can "tunnel through" any kind of regulatory barrier as long as an internet connection exists.
- ian0 8y agoYep we are on the same page. I actually really like cryptocurrencies, but I work in regular payments so Im a practical and cynical sob :) > It's like if you invented email but nobody was using it yet. People would say email is useless, because nobody uses email. For the layperson, bitcoin (the utility not speculative side) looks like P2P email in a world where there was already gmail. While there is fundamental and important differences underneath, it's not apparent to most. Though a basket case economy may make it more apparent..
- lucozade 8y agoBut presumably you realise that you can "tunnel through" regulatory barriers precisely because hardly anyone is using it? If Bitcoin started to get big in retail, the regulators would be all over it for all the same reasons. Also, if the intermediated FX was less expensive than the direct cross, I would expect that the e-wallet provider would just centralise the Bitcoin transaction. Why get the punters involved? Realistically, Bitcoin would only have value as a currency if there's a substantial economy denominated in Bitcoin. Like there has been on the dark web.