6 ms·
You're comparing apples to oranges. Decentralized systems by nature suffer for slow adoption (just look at decentralized networks like Mastodon which are objec
by wraptile 5y ago
You're comparing apples to oranges.
Decentralized systems by nature suffer for slow adoption (just look at decentralized networks like Mastodon which are objectively better than alternatives yet lag behind in adoption). Finally, bitcoin is a financial product, I really don't know any other financial systems that we're adopted quickly other than maybe payment processors. We still struggle to adopt centralized systems that come pre-enabled on our phones!
Crypto is just too big to be adopted quickly and one might argue that's actually a good thing.
- fhe 5y ago"Decentralized systems by nature suffer for slow adoption" I don't see why that's self-evident. Decentralized applications get fast and wide adoption all the time, e.g. Napster.
- mvlpn 5y agoIndeed. Another example I have in mind is MIRC but both filled a void. I think there is little room for crypto to fill. Most of the world doesn’t have a need for it.
- TomSwirly 5y agoOr git.
- Ekaros 5y agoTorrents, P2P file sharing in general. I really don't get the argument that technology doesn't get adopted fast.
- pavlov 5y agoThe EU created and deployed instant zero-cost 24/7 bank transfers while crypto was twiddling its thumbs talking about “early days” and puffing out PoW carbon. If even the European Union moves faster than your cutting-edge decentralized system, maybe you have a problem.
- Osiris 5y agoYou're comparing a centralized approach with the force of law to a decentralized approach which requires buy-in by the masses without any coercion. Of course the two approaches will be different.
- jackvalentine 5y agoIs the difference in the approaches that one is actually successful and useful?
- plebianRube 5y agoMaybe they both are, but in different ways, like mocroservices vs a monolith. Some applications are just better on one platform than another, and vice versa.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- pavlov 5y agoTCP/IP was standardized in 1983. Nine years later I had an email address. Two years later I had full IP access (telnet, Usenet, ftp, web). I never stopped using it, even though specific protocols like ftp faded away. In contrast, I bought some cryptos five years ago and dabbled in Solidity too, but there was just nothing to do with it because it’s so clunky and wasteful. I don’t expect to ever touch that stuff again. That’s obviously anecdotal, but it’s clear by now it’s nothing like the early Internet. That organic buy-in isn’t happening.
- webkike 5y agoYou can’t say a social network is objectively better when all of the people you consider to be cool don’t use it.
- nl 5y agoYeah, there's nothing at all objectively better in any way on Mastadon.
- mvkel 5y agoDecentralized systems, like the internet? It was pretty damn big after it was 13 years old.
- dist1ll 5y agoThere was 16 years between the launch of ARPANET and the specification of the DNS. It took more than 20 years for a website to exist on the internet.
- danaris 5y agoThe Internet is a poor comparison, as it required a significant investment in hardware out in the world at large for it to be a practical consideration.
- tluyben2 5y ago> I really don't know any other financial systems that we're adopted quickly WeChat pay
- dmitriid 5y ago> You're comparing apples to oranges. No, we couldn't be. i mean, every time in these crypto threads cyptobros compare crypto to the Internet, and to cars, and to the wheel, and to..., and it's fine. But when we compare it to something, it's apples to oranges? You don't say. > Crypto is just too big to be adopted quickly It's not big.
- winternett 5y agoOr one could easily say on the inverse, Crypto is like Chuck-E-Cheese tickets... All promise big possibilities, and it looks flashy at the top, but then you realize you've invested $1000 to make $100... Social media is the last thing left in pushing this lottery brigade... Social platforms have already demonstrated that most frankly can't succeed in their large oceans of popularity and in competing with wealthy influencers, the same holds true for crypto. It is far too easily influenced by tweets, wealthy influence, and popularity to make everyone socially climb the ladder, and far too volatile for people who can't afford to risk money to play with... Just like regular money.
- TomSwirly 5y ago> Decentralized systems by nature suffer for slow adoption What about Git, or Napster, or filesharing in general, or Tor?