4 ms·
> For some people sure, but not all, and I would even go as far as to say not the main intention of the original product. It certainly wasn't the "main intenti
by tablespoon 4y ago
> For some people sure, but not all, and I would even go as far as to say not the main intention of the original product.
It certainly wasn't the "main intention of the original product," but Bitcoin failed at that. A big part of that failure was the peculiar ideology that got baked in through many of its design decisions.
- jobs_throwaway 4y ago> but Bitcoin failed at that what makes you say that? I use bitcoin to conduct private transactions regularly and its pretty darn solid for that purpose. Doing such a transaction over the internet, before bitcoin, required you to use permissioned rails.
- tablespoon 4y ago> what makes you say that? I use bitcoin to conduct private transactions regularly and its pretty darn solid for that purpose. Doing such a transaction over the internet, before bitcoin, required you to use permissioned rails. Just because it can be used like that doesn't mean it actually succeeded. The vast majority of Bitcoin is held as a speculative investment, and the deflationary aspects are a strong disincentive to regular circulation.
- jobs_throwaway 4y agoit failed at its purpose if it achieved said purpose but a bunch of people are also using it as a speculative asset?
- OOPMan 4y agoAnd yet if a hundred million people tried to use it the way you do, the whole system would implode. A monetary system that only works if a small number of people use it is...not useful.
- jobs_throwaway 4y agohaving permissionless money is quite useful IMO. I'm not concerned with it being a mass phenomenon