4 ms·
This flavor of criticism is odd to me, it seems to have a very rigid definition of "how many people" using as a measure of success and perhaps more perplexingly
by jrm4 4y ago
This flavor of criticism is odd to me, it seems to have a very rigid definition of "how many people" using as a measure of success and perhaps more perplexingly, presumes "the network will always be too slow," as if tech improvements on these networks isn't likely. It may not be BTC or ETH, but given fungibility (and perhaps, clever airdrops) it seems at least plausible, if not likely, that people will come up with "a fast enough network to get stuff done."
There may be one in the works now, I do have literal money on Pulsechain/PRC-20.
- tsimionescu 4y agoThe thing is - the network being too slow is not a technical problem. We already have much much much faster networks, which is why VISA is used by so many more people than BTC for their money. Also, unlike other technologies that can sit very comfortably in their niches, payment & more generally monetary technology needs to be used by the vast majority of people in order to be useful. I was pointing out that BTC or ETH will never be successful as a monetary technology, the way gold or fiat are, because they are impossible to access by the vast majority of people by their very design. Can there be other designs of cryptocurrency that can solve this? Perhaps - time will tell.