3 ms·
> If it were that valuable, we'd know by now. BTC is a failed currency, but a successful asset. How long do you usually think infrastructure around protocol su
by jerguismi 12y ago
> If it were that valuable, we'd know by now. BTC is a failed currency, but a successful asset.
How long do you usually think infrastructure around protocol such as bitcoin takes time to develop? I personally think we're still early in the game.
> Escaping corrupt and non-existent bank to go after an uncontrolled currency is equally risky and way more stupid.
What is your proposal then? I think holding ARS at least is not very wise move, but many still seem to do it. Physical USD cash is widely used in the streets, but bitcoin or something like it could be much more accessible alternative in the long term.
- atmosx 12y agoNo we're not early in the game. I believe BTC has already proven itself an asset and has a place in our future. But as a currency it's already failed. I believe it is a failed by design[1]. My proposal is to educate people to make better decisions voting-wise. Other than that, you're switching back and forth between systems of controls and BTC is extremely worst compared to what we have today because it is anonymous and decentralize. What average Joe developer sees as the big strength of the protocol is the biggest weakness of the currency. [1] http://www.convalesco.org/blog/2014/02/11/on-the-matter-of-bitcoin/#33 http://www.convalesco.org/blog/2014/02/11/on-the-matter-of-b...