4 ms·
I think the core problem with bitcoin acceptance is that understanding the way it functions spans many domains of expertise. There are cryptography, cryptocurre
by ashray 13y ago
I think the core problem with bitcoin acceptance is that understanding the way it functions spans many domains of expertise. There are cryptography, cryptocurrency, decentralized networks, economic concepts (inflation/deflation), centralized banking, government controlled currencies, computing ability, mathematics, human psychology, and ... so much more! It's really something that has a little bit of everything in there.
As such, to an expert in any one of those fields, it's very hard to digest because looking at it from the perspective of one field might suggest it is doomed for failure. But experts tend to look at things from the perspective of their own expertise.
For laymen who might know a little bit about each of those domains, it feels like "Yeah.. this could work..". A simple analogy might be about how hardcore web developers always feel about PHP. They always say it's a pile of garbage and it's bound to self destruct and swallow the earth in the process. However, PHP trudges on with some very large projects and sites under it's belt.. and novice developers will almost never notice a problem with it. Experts can be wrong.
So yes, bitcoin has it's issues if you analyze each aspect of it. But maybe if you zoom out and take an overview it might start to make sense how all the parts get together and even with flaws with each sub-aspect it just might work.
- vincvinc 13y ago> suggest it is doomed for failure Wait, I think we are missing his point. Last sentence of the article: "So let’s talk both about whether BitCoin is a bubble and whether it’s a good thing — in part to make sure that we don’t confuse these questions with each other." I think this article does not go into the 'will it work?' debate. It alerts us instead to another debate, 'to what degree do we want it?' It is an addition to what Charlie Stross was saying. He is just adding "guys, why are your comments replying to a different question?" At least, I think that is the discussion he wants to start. But his talk about the ceiling and floor in value in the middle of the article actually belongs to the OTHER discussion, the one he does not want to start but spends half of the text going into. It is like trying to talk about empirics to consider for deciding national policy, while everyone is shouting their usual political opinions.
- gbhn 13y agoI think this is a good point, but for Paul Krugman, the discussion of the role of the central bank in the stability of the dollar is absolutely, well, central, to the question of desirability. That is, the central bank is in some sense "responsive" to the monetary environment in a way that bitcoin is explicitly and inexorably not. I think Paul Krugman is arguing that that is a big deal.