> from the perspective of anyone interested in using a payment system, the network they care about is the network of people who they can exchange things with N

> from the perspective of anyone interested in using a payment system, the network they care about is the network of people who they can exchange things with No it isn't; the network they must care about is the network that actually works and allows them to securely exchange things. > What you're talking about is like arguing that people use US currency because of the special paper used to print dollars If you think that's like what I'm saying then you aren't listening to what I'm saying. > Whether it's something like Bitcoin's distributed ledger, trusted third parties or a central record keeping system just isn't a detail the average user cares about as long as they can buy a cup of coffee when they want to. Which they can't do unless the network is secure and double spends aren't possible. And we're not talking about a cup of coffee, we're talking about an Internet payment protocol for transferring wealth trustlessly online. > This brings up two areas where Bitcoin's system is a threat to its growth: the huge blockchain increasingly stymies mobile or poorly connected participants Red herring, you don't need to download the blockchain to use the currency. > and the requirement that miners acknowledge transactions adds latency to the transaction time which will be a challenge for speed-oriented businesses Bitcoin isn't built for speed-oriented businesses, it's built for Internet commerce. That it doesn't suit a domain it's not intended for really doesn't matter.