> You could entrust a messenger to deliver a message long before electronic telecommunications. That is not what a wire transfer is. > I don't think it will t

> You could entrust a messenger to deliver a message long before electronic telecommunications. That is not what a wire transfer is. > I don't think it will take nearly 200 years for the scale of the difference to be as substantial as the difference pre-victorian mail and modern video calls. But it will take substantially longer than 13 years, that is pretty clear. The first electronic value transfer happened somewhere around 1872 so it is already at 150 years which is far nearer to 200 than to 13. > Even still, it is obvious to me (and many others) that this eventual future is inevitable-- and no amount of price fluctuation, scamming, or environmental concerns can shake that belief because these things simply don't even remotely address the core of what a foundational change this "tech" is in any way. It would be nice to hear arguments on this topic than proclamations of belief. EDIT: Just noticed that in your first post you said: > It took nearly all of those 184 years to get to a point where a majority of people had a regular use for telecommunications. At first I read it as it took 184 years for telecommunications to become widely available, which would be a reasonable comment. Your claim isn't reasonable since even far before 1832 majority of people had a regular use for telecommunications but the technology wasn't there. Bitcoin technology is here but majority of people have no use for it.