4 ms·

> The internet and smartphones were popular and we understood the applications. Who is "we?" A small group understood the applications early on and was way ah

> The internet and smartphones were popular and we understood the applications. Who is "we?" A small group understood the applications early on and was way ahead of the curve. Obviously costs coming down in the 90s enabled a wider audience to access the technologies - but most were clueless of its potential until they were already using it. This is the case for Bitcoin now. Selling drugs has little to do with it, other than demonstrating the future role of the State meddling in people's personal finance. Bitcoin is about sovereign control of one's own property - a way of saving money which cannot be unjustly taxed. All other applications of the technology will emerge from the fact that it's better money for anybody who actually has any. Are you just another Krugman, who still didn't realize the internet's potential in 1998? > “The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in ‘Metcalfe’s law’ becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other! By 2005, it will become clear that the Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s” Oh, and "cryptocurrencies" are like the Intranets of the 90s. Everyone wants their own, for now, until they realize that being part of the global digital money network has far more advantages than trying to work with walled gardens.

louwrentius 7y ago
Everybody wanted a pocket computer and when that finally became viable with the iPhone, the market exploded. We knew what we wanted, but the interface was a problem and Apple solved it. We knew what we wanted but we could not get there, until then. None of the bitcoin/blockchain people can exactly explain why blockchain or bitcoin is relevant. Even after 11 years they can't. > than demonstrating the future role of the State meddling in people's personal finance. A citizen pays their due taxes, as required to run a decent society. Cryptopeople just want to have a means for tax evasion: to support criminal behaviour. > Are you just another Krugman, who still didn't realise the internet's potential in 1998? Haha, I don't think so. The purpose of the internet was very clear. It was just too hyped. But it recovered. crypto and blockchain are hyped, but the purpose is not clear at all. Big difference. > Oh, and "cryptocurrencies" are like the Intranets of the 90s. Everyone wants their own, for now, until they realize that being part of the global digital money network has far more advantages than trying to work with walled gardens. We have already money. And we already have means to pay people in other countries. And they are overall more convenient and the transaction costs are not an issue for most applications.
- sparkie 7y ago
  The smartphone wasn't a new invention - but a continuation of the mobile phone. Mobile phones had already hit mass adoption in the developed world before the smartphone appeared. People knew what they wanted because they were already using the technology. This isn't the case with bitcoin, which most people have never used. The more accurate comparison is mobile phones in the 1980s, which people didn't know that they needed or wanted. In fact, many laughed at the idea of carrying around a briefcase to call people on the move, which was necessary as the early handsets weighed in at several kilograms. Very few had the insight at that time to envision the phones of today. The relevance of Bitcoin has already been explained to you: it provides for the first time in history, a form of money which is inflation-proof, censorship-resistant, easily verifiable and possibly private (or at least plausibly deniable), making it potentially unconfiscatable. Bitcoin isn't merely about transaction costs or means of paying people. It is about having sound money. It has a use case for anybody who wants to save money, which is impossible to do with fiat money, because it is rapidly devalued due to the monetary policy of central banks. Other "crypto" or "blockchain" is irrelevant. We can agree on that. Only Bitcoin matters. Just because you have not seen the need for Bitcoin yet, does not mean there is no need for it. You are like those who would mock the mobile phone or the dial up internet of the '80s, with very little insight into what value Bitcoin can bring to the world. Bitcoin will be used to bypass warrantless surveillance and State-enforced restrictions, and yes, even to avoid paying taxes - which you might consider "criminal behavior," but this merely highlights your state-worshipping world view. Tax is theft - and a significant amount of "criminal behaviour" is coming directly from the State itself.

louwrentius 7y ago

Everybody wanted a pocket computer and when that finally became viable with the iPhone, the market exploded. We knew what we wanted, but the interface was a problem and Apple solved it. We knew what we wanted but we could not get there, until then. None of the bitcoin/blockchain people can exactly explain why blockchain or bitcoin is relevant. Even after 11 years they can't. > than demonstrating the future role of the State meddling in people's personal finance. A citizen pays their due taxes, as required to run a decent society. Cryptopeople just want to have a means for tax evasion: to support criminal behaviour. > Are you just another Krugman, who still didn't realise the internet's potential in 1998? Haha, I don't think so. The purpose of the internet was very clear. It was just too hyped. But it recovered. crypto and blockchain are hyped, but the purpose is not clear at all. Big difference. > Oh, and "cryptocurrencies" are like the Intranets of the 90s. Everyone wants their own, for now, until they realize that being part of the global digital money network has far more advantages than trying to work with walled gardens. We have already money. And we already have means to pay people in other countries. And they are overall more convenient and the transaction costs are not an issue for most applications.

sparkie 7y ago
The smartphone wasn't a new invention - but a continuation of the mobile phone. Mobile phones had already hit mass adoption in the developed world before the smartphone appeared. People knew what they wanted because they were already using the technology. This isn't the case with bitcoin, which most people have never used. The more accurate comparison is mobile phones in the 1980s, which people didn't know that they needed or wanted. In fact, many laughed at the idea of carrying around a briefcase to call people on the move, which was necessary as the early handsets weighed in at several kilograms. Very few had the insight at that time to envision the phones of today. The relevance of Bitcoin has already been explained to you: it provides for the first time in history, a form of money which is inflation-proof, censorship-resistant, easily verifiable and possibly private (or at least plausibly deniable), making it potentially unconfiscatable. Bitcoin isn't merely about transaction costs or means of paying people. It is about having sound money. It has a use case for anybody who wants to save money, which is impossible to do with fiat money, because it is rapidly devalued due to the monetary policy of central banks. Other "crypto" or "blockchain" is irrelevant. We can agree on that. Only Bitcoin matters. Just because you have not seen the need for Bitcoin yet, does not mean there is no need for it. You are like those who would mock the mobile phone or the dial up internet of the '80s, with very little insight into what value Bitcoin can bring to the world. Bitcoin will be used to bypass warrantless surveillance and State-enforced restrictions, and yes, even to avoid paying taxes - which you might consider "criminal behavior," but this merely highlights your state-worshipping world view. Tax is theft - and a significant amount of "criminal behaviour" is coming directly from the State itself.