4 ms·

Decentralized currency is simply not viable for the mainstream, an economy needs institutions that can be relied upon and a certain level of centralized control

Decentralized currency is simply not viable for the mainstream, an economy needs institutions that can be relied upon and a certain level of centralized control to take the wheel when things go sour. There are still gains to be made via speculation but the dreams of folks like Nick Szabo will not be realized with crypto in its current state.

dylkil 8y ago
Bitcoin wasnt ready for mainstream 10 years ago, and its not ready today. The one thing that has changed is the amount of people working on making it ready for mainstream.
hanniabu 8y ago
Everyone on here seems to be very bitter and salty about this stuff and I'm not sure why they're not seeing the bigger picture. This is probably the same group that would have laughed at predictions that there would be personal computers. As the technology improves, all this stuff will be abstracted from the user. There are ongoing experiments to solve this issue such as a way to store your keys in a decentralized manner in case it is lost. This can be combined with the ability to automatically move funds to different accounts periodically and also to keep funds spread across different accounts. The UX will come and the are many efforts working on this. It just takes time.
- ChicagoBoy11 8y ago
  I think the claim is the more this infrastructure gets built out, the more players need to enter to make it workout, the bigger the footprint and calls to regulate it get, etc. will certainly make it a more functional system for the end user but also will bring about the same thing we dislike about current financial systems that involve lots of intermediaries, regulations, etc. You have to argue that this maturation process will not be plagued by the sorts of issues that our very mature regular banking system is. And that's not a certainty.
- anyfoo 8y ago
  > Everyone on here seems to be very bitter and salty about this stuff and I'm not sure why they're not seeing the bigger picture. This is probably the same group that would have laughed at predictions that there would be personal computers. That first sentence is a great way to start an argument. And having been there for the rise of the PC, I do not agree with your analogy. Just like with the Internet analogy that usually comes up, the problem with PCs was more getting one. PCs were very expensive, cryptocurrencies are plenty available to anyone who wants them. There were skeptics with PCs, but still people jumped readily at every use case opportunity that presented itself and constantly came up with new ones. The blockchain is trying to find them for years and years now. As for the abstraction: Well, yeah, you abstract the whole "cryptocurrency" aspect away to make it work, until you may as well just use the proven, regular banking system. And then to allow for such regular processes as litigation or the simple undoing of human mistakes, you abolish the "immutable ledger" concept entirely. Am I bitter and salty about it? Given that cryptocurrencies are now consuming more energy than all solar panels combined, singlehandedly erasing the progresses we made there: Yes, definitely.
- dreamcompiler 8y ago
  > As the technology improves, all this stuff will be abstracted from the user. I'm not optimistic. We still have an Internet on which it's basically impossible for a non-expert user to reliably send or read encrypted email.
  - hanniabu 8y ago
    I believe this is done on purpose because it's not in the company's interests to have your data encrypted. There's no incentive for them to make it easier. It's certainly possible though.

dylkil 8y ago

Bitcoin wasnt ready for mainstream 10 years ago, and its not ready today. The one thing that has changed is the amount of people working on making it ready for mainstream.

hanniabu 8y ago

Everyone on here seems to be very bitter and salty about this stuff and I'm not sure why they're not seeing the bigger picture. This is probably the same group that would have laughed at predictions that there would be personal computers. As the technology improves, all this stuff will be abstracted from the user. There are ongoing experiments to solve this issue such as a way to store your keys in a decentralized manner in case it is lost. This can be combined with the ability to automatically move funds to different accounts periodically and also to keep funds spread across different accounts. The UX will come and the are many efforts working on this. It just takes time.

ChicagoBoy11 8y ago
I think the claim is the more this infrastructure gets built out, the more players need to enter to make it workout, the bigger the footprint and calls to regulate it get, etc. will certainly make it a more functional system for the end user but also will bring about the same thing we dislike about current financial systems that involve lots of intermediaries, regulations, etc. You have to argue that this maturation process will not be plagued by the sorts of issues that our very mature regular banking system is. And that's not a certainty.
anyfoo 8y ago
> Everyone on here seems to be very bitter and salty about this stuff and I'm not sure why they're not seeing the bigger picture. This is probably the same group that would have laughed at predictions that there would be personal computers. That first sentence is a great way to start an argument. And having been there for the rise of the PC, I do not agree with your analogy. Just like with the Internet analogy that usually comes up, the problem with PCs was more getting one. PCs were very expensive, cryptocurrencies are plenty available to anyone who wants them. There were skeptics with PCs, but still people jumped readily at every use case opportunity that presented itself and constantly came up with new ones. The blockchain is trying to find them for years and years now. As for the abstraction: Well, yeah, you abstract the whole "cryptocurrency" aspect away to make it work, until you may as well just use the proven, regular banking system. And then to allow for such regular processes as litigation or the simple undoing of human mistakes, you abolish the "immutable ledger" concept entirely. Am I bitter and salty about it? Given that cryptocurrencies are now consuming more energy than all solar panels combined, singlehandedly erasing the progresses we made there: Yes, definitely.
dreamcompiler 8y ago
> As the technology improves, all this stuff will be abstracted from the user. I'm not optimistic. We still have an Internet on which it's basically impossible for a non-expert user to reliably send or read encrypted email.
- hanniabu 8y ago
  I believe this is done on purpose because it's not in the company's interests to have your data encrypted. There's no incentive for them to make it easier. It's certainly possible though.