5 ms·

Not everyone got the web, chat, or social networks, but loads of people did and people from all backgrounds. Things like Geocities, AIM, MySpace, early Facebook

by api 5y ago

Not everyone got the web, chat, or social networks, but loads of people did and people from all backgrounds. Things like Geocities, AIM, MySpace, early Facebook, early search engines, etc. had millions of users very rapidly. They penetrated beyond the tech-savvy early adopters within years. Cryptocurrency is more than 10 years old and hasn't seen anything like this. The vast majority of what I see in cryptocurrency is just speculation. It all seems like a giant very complex over-engineered online casino app. Yes there are use cases outside of that but they seem much more niche. The people saying "there is no use case" are over-arguing their position, but I think the actual non-gambling use case is small.

throwaway6977 5y ago
I strongly suggest doing a comparison of O(log n)-style adoption curves between Bitcoin, and say- cell phones, computer networking, or really any innovation that became ubiquitous and for which we have the data... I think you'd be surprised at the similarities.
- manbart 5y ago
  Have any such graphs to share?
- JackFr 5y ago
  Where we measure adoption by cups of coffee purchase with bitcoin. [1] https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1322925/is-there-proof-show-that-log-x-is-undefined-and-make-no-sense-at-x-0 https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1322925/is-there-pr...
- PeterisP 5y ago
  If I look at the adoption curves of cell phones or computer networking, I see a steady increase. If I look at the adoption curve of Bitcoin as means for payment, the peak was multiple years ago when many companies in my area experimented with accepting it as payment - I could order a pizza with Bitcoin, I could buy an airline ticket, etc; but now those companies have stopped accepting them. There are multiple niches of business which do accept Bitcoin, but overall there has been a significant decrease at least in practical use - there has been some upsurge in digital asset related transactions, but in any case the adoption is certainly not growing exponentially like for other growing technologies, if we look at transaction rates at e.g. https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/charts/transactions-per-second https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/charts/transactions-per-secon... then we're at the same level as of 2017, and below the peak.
didericis 5y ago
There are huge regulatory and societal roadblocks for crypto to be used as envisioned not as present during those other cases of wide technological adoption. For crypto to be valuable, merchants need to use it. Transactions need to be cheaper. A stable decentralized financial system needs to emerge. The use case is a world without central banks and central currency manipulation. People who don’t see the use case don’t understand the scope of what direct exchange of currency without central management entails. There are arguments against that world and in favor of central currencies. The roadblocks are enormous, maybe insurmountable. And perhaps that world would be worse or lead to more authoritarian control rather than less. But I don’t think anyone who believes in the potential denies crypto will take time to have a lot of mainstream use simply because the main use case is so large.
- JackFr 5y ago
  > The use case is a world without central banks and central currency manipulation. > People who don’t see the use case don’t understand the scope of what direct exchange of currency without central management entails. People who see that as a feature don't understand how credit works nor its importance in modern financial capitalism.
  - didericis 5y ago
    Credit and hard crypto currencies are not incompatible. The main difference is crypto sets hard limits on underlying denominator of value and distinguishes it from credit. There are potential liquidity problems and endless debates about whether having everything backed by crypto like bitcoin would be a net positive. I don’t have the background to get into all the economic implications and I’m not entirely sold on this alternative crypto based future I’m presenting being a good thing, even if possible. Rather than dismiss these types of arguments, though, I’d like to see more central bank advocates explain why creditors which accumulate bitcoin would not be able to act similarly to current issuers of credit, but more checked and decentralized because none would have control over the production of the underlying value representation that’s borrowed against.
- lottin 5y ago

by api 5y ago

throwaway6977 5y ago

I strongly suggest doing a comparison of O(log n)-style adoption curves between Bitcoin, and say- cell phones, computer networking, or really any innovation that became ubiquitous and for which we have the data... I think you'd be surprised at the similarities.

manbart 5y ago
Have any such graphs to share?
JackFr 5y ago
Where we measure adoption by cups of coffee purchase with bitcoin. [1] https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1322925/is-there-proof-show-that-log-x-is-undefined-and-make-no-sense-at-x-0 https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1322925/is-there-pr...
PeterisP 5y ago
If I look at the adoption curves of cell phones or computer networking, I see a steady increase. If I look at the adoption curve of Bitcoin as means for payment, the peak was multiple years ago when many companies in my area experimented with accepting it as payment - I could order a pizza with Bitcoin, I could buy an airline ticket, etc; but now those companies have stopped accepting them. There are multiple niches of business which do accept Bitcoin, but overall there has been a significant decrease at least in practical use - there has been some upsurge in digital asset related transactions, but in any case the adoption is certainly not growing exponentially like for other growing technologies, if we look at transaction rates at e.g. https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/charts/transactions-per-second https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/charts/transactions-per-secon... then we're at the same level as of 2017, and below the peak.

didericis 5y ago

There are huge regulatory and societal roadblocks for crypto to be used as envisioned not as present during those other cases of wide technological adoption. For crypto to be valuable, merchants need to use it. Transactions need to be cheaper. A stable decentralized financial system needs to emerge. The use case is a world without central banks and central currency manipulation. People who don’t see the use case don’t understand the scope of what direct exchange of currency without central management entails. There are arguments against that world and in favor of central currencies. The roadblocks are enormous, maybe insurmountable. And perhaps that world would be worse or lead to more authoritarian control rather than less. But I don’t think anyone who believes in the potential denies crypto will take time to have a lot of mainstream use simply because the main use case is so large.

JackFr 5y ago
> The use case is a world without central banks and central currency manipulation. > People who don’t see the use case don’t understand the scope of what direct exchange of currency without central management entails. People who see that as a feature don't understand how credit works nor its importance in modern financial capitalism.
- didericis 5y ago
  Credit and hard crypto currencies are not incompatible. The main difference is crypto sets hard limits on underlying denominator of value and distinguishes it from credit. There are potential liquidity problems and endless debates about whether having everything backed by crypto like bitcoin would be a net positive. I don’t have the background to get into all the economic implications and I’m not entirely sold on this alternative crypto based future I’m presenting being a good thing, even if possible. Rather than dismiss these types of arguments, though, I’d like to see more central bank advocates explain why creditors which accumulate bitcoin would not be able to act similarly to current issuers of credit, but more checked and decentralized because none would have control over the production of the underlying value representation that’s borrowed against.
lottin 5y ago