Bitcoin Forum

Just watched this guy speaking:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYJdOiLqSxE

People like him would really regret it and eat what they'll say about bitcoin. Bitcoin's future is bright. "The theory of greater fool" yes it is but as I always believe in this quote "Strike the iron while its hot".

I look forward to bringing that link up again in a few years and having a good laugh.

The CEO of Bitcoin committed suicide, I heard. All the monez was stolen by a guy wearing a magical tux.

I can already see their faces in the future. They'd be like:

http://wizbangblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/mckayla-maroney-meme-500x336.jpg

Just think of it rationally and logically ... Bitcoin uses a base standard currency = USD / EUR / CNY .... now think of it, those currencies alone account for 80% or more of the worlds GDP with established economies and backing of those currencies with the IMF and in net imports and exports to account for their value. How ever Bitcoin is based on backless speculation of a realized "Value" ... How is this value determined?? a ledger? value in property? value in its source code? backed by debt? ... There is only one way to increase "bitcoins value" currently its low volume and an influx of increase of buyer side = short term DELTA of a sellers market instead of a "buyers" market... just think of it as wanting to buy candy and the candy maker was not expecting for an increase in 100% of volume so he has to increase the price to decrease the volume. This is easy to manipulate when there are very small key players in the market. So to the question of delusional... it is up to you to understand the economics and viability of bitcoin. It is only valued as people pump real currency into it and this money is held by your Exchanges... Remember what happened when MT Gox? that is just a reminder.

Edit and addition to my post.
Jeffrey Robinson is quite correct about virtual and digital currency as the future path for currency as its more efficient and is the only measurable answer for the future. Example is Denmark, how ever it is not a "Crypto" system of money its more of a standardized system like using your debit card. This way they can deter fraud and account for various aspects of the system.

He is the delusional retard if he expects that a government will be able to mimic bitcoin in order to facilitate digital payments and digital cash!

Wow, sounds revolutionary, and not already completely saturated. People who want a central party to "back" bitcoin (with the servitude of people's future labors), would best be advised to shun, stay in low load mutual funds, cash, and bonds plz.

LOL, I had a good laugh, Thanks Cconvert2G36 ...
The current question boils down to what purpose can a crypto coin serve that current currency/ banking has not already served?


Side note:  There are still lots of liabilities in crypto coins Eg. Lost Wallets, irreversible transactions, no insurance, Exchange defaults, liquidity etc..

It has inflation that approaches zero, vs approaching infinity. QED

The liabilities you name are commensurate with its status in the global financial market, i.e. tiny, illiquid, volatile, and unforgiving. Scale and services will rise to meet this challenge, and/or the burden will be on the holder of the keys, as it always has been.

I don't know if you have the appropriate idea of inflation vs deflation and the usability of currency, but ill use a case example. Lets just say by 2025 bitcoin reaches 95% of all of its coins into the market, Lets put this figurative number at 20,000,000 coins... Then lets just say every year per annum (year over year) approximately 5% of coins are lost  (currently as of 2015 30% of all bitcoins are "lost").... so by year 2025 there would only be approximately 20-40% viable coins left(4,000,000-8,000,000) ... Okay and then lets account for the halvings as well. At this point lets just say there are "active bitcoin holders" of 100% increase every year lets just say by year 2025 that is a total 250,000,000 active bitcoin holders (not accounting for empty wallets that number could be in the "billions") ... so if we calculate everything people would have to be accounting their bitcoins in satoshi's how would that work out as a viable solution for economical trade. Will everyone have to be a millionaire to even purchase 1 bitcoin?


addition to post:
my brain went on a tangent and forgot to give case example for inflation of the base currencies of USD / EUR / CNY .... currency for inflation on the high end for USD = 3-4% inflation , EURO = 1-2% , CNY = 3-4% ... (These values are greatly optimistic in inflation) ... so 1 dollar in 2025 would still be valued at approximately 80ish cents but you have to remember standard of living and minimum wage increases as a whole, as well as gdp should in the case it doesn't then natural deflation or stagnation occurs.

An owner of 1 btc holds 100,000,000 satoshis. An explicitly and provably deflationary currency may have problems of its own, but unit measurement need not be one of them. For every price increase, some of the early hoarders pull the ripcord, this distributes the coin in the fairest way possible.

 

What else is he proposing as digital currency/payments?

Paypal...? ::)

Anyway, this seems like one of those guys who think the price should've gone from $0.01 to $5million overnight. Rome was built in a day and so on.

Was that directed at me? I am just simply stating case and scenarios of the viability of scale. Also the author presented in that youtube vid has a knowledgeable answer to how he thinks the way of "virtual currencies" will go, never mentioning "cryptocurrencies" because he thinks those will be phased out, just a thought that  I think that should be pointed out.

All I know is that paypal and western union are terrible.

That is enough for me to know bitcoin will succeed.

How are they terrible? The fees?, and how are those 2 companies an example of how bitcoin will succeed?


Side note: The reason for virtual currency(like in Denmark) is to essentially weed out those type of "wiring exchange houses" so you can send money like via venmo , where debit card to debit card transfers = 0 fees and practically "instantaneous", with bitcoin you have to go into another country that recognizes bitcoin, and then exchange it for their currency and itll be a different value than your home country(sometimes by losing money on the exchange), while if you were to wire transfer your money it would cost a base fee of 45$ to wire it and then if you have a card that waives international exchange fees = way less in cost than bitcoin and more secure.

extra side note: i guess unless you are extra anarchist type, that doesn't like taxes or government to hide your dealings welp, not much of an answer or excuse there i guess...

Am I the only one here who thinks the guy in the video sounds like a carnival barker?

The word "shill" comes to mind.

He also speaks of regulation as if it were a good thing and ignores the decentralized ability of Bitcoin to resist control.

Did he really refer to the Winklevoss brothers as "kids"?  ::)

LOL What a joke.

I have no clue what you are trying to point out?? ... out of all the points within bitcoin you point out regulation? ... you do realize to be recognized as a currency it has to be regulated right (who wants to utilize a system where the price can fluctuate so widely?).. you also didn't point out how bitcoin pricing works, money has to go into the system to give bitcoin a value. so bitcoin is more of an "account" where you hope that the value of 1 bitcoin stays or becomes greater than the value that was there when you originally purchased 1 bitcoin. The reason why you have money in your pocket is that you know when you use that 1 dollar to buy a soda it'll still be worth a soda , what if the bitcoin could no longer buy that soda?

WU = Fees

Paypal = (3% fees arent that bad) They do 180 day balance freezes. No reasons necessarily supplied. They can also shut your account down. Just google it. Plenty of people are regularly screwed by them.

(including my sidenote that was left out)
Side note: The reason for virtual currency(like in Denmark) is to essentially weed out those type of "wiring exchange houses" so you can send money like via venmo , where debit card to debit card transfers = 0 fees and practically "instantaneous", with bitcoin you have to go into another country that recognizes bitcoin, and then exchange it for their currency and itll be a different value than your home country(sometimes by losing money on the exchange), while if you were to wire transfer your money it would cost a base fee of 45$ to wire it and then if you have a card that waives international exchange fees = way less in cost than bitcoin and more secure.

extra side note: i guess unless you are extra anarchist type, that doesn't like taxes or government to hide your dealings welp, not much of an answer or excuse there i guess...
_____________________________________


Why did you leave out my Side note , it was the most essential part to helping you understand the value of other companies that provide a near peer 2 peer solution in hind sight of western union and paypal, also paypal has set up those flags to prevent money laundering and fraud, if you are a business or a consumer that has identified themselves as such what do you have to worry about, heck you can transfer 10's of thousand to even hundreds of thousands and they wouldn't bat an eye because they are making money by you transferring that money. It's also a lot more liquid in terms of steps to obtaining that money.


Extra tangent:
Bitcoin exchanges now a days require some form of identification and freezes your accounts when withdrawing a certain amount to your bank account so your reasoning is kind of flawed..

additional tangent: Bitcoins have fees as well =/

"The system"?

It seems you're missing the point of Bitcoin.

It's not about USD, EUR. CNY or any other currency. It's also not about the existing banking system.

It's about a decentralized wealth transfer system immune to outside control and/or meddling by governments or other entities.

When someone paid 10k bitcoins for 2 pizzas he gave Bitcoin value beyond fiat currencies or the existing monetary system.

He made a point of saying that he didn't mind if the pizzas were homemade and listed ingredients he liked and didn't like.

The fact that the person acquiring the bitcoins used a credit card to pay for delivery of the pizzas is beside the point.

Barter is barter. Instead of pizzas and bitcoins it could have been alpaca socks or liters of maple syrup.

What caught my attention in the video was the shill-like anti-Bitcoin stance displayed by the commentator. It seemed typical of many in the financial community.

Of course bankers and others in financial service industries (including their media) are uncomfortable with Bitcoin.

Some governments are as well, obviously, because of taxation issues. Smarter governments realize that the open nature of the blockchain is actually a boon to tracing the movement of wealth. Here in Canada, income paid in barter is taxable, and Bitcoin is treated like any other commodity, be it chickens or barrels of crude.

You do realize he marked crypto-currency as non existent in future value right, due to many factors etc etc etc (do your research)
but he did in fact agree that future is for "Digital currency and payments are the future" Like Denmark is doing now. but that currency is backed by the government etc etc... Bitcoin can not be marked as a currency because its an "account" just like a commodity. when you put your money in bitcoin it fluctuated you hope that 1 bitcoin is still of the same value or greater than when you put it in just like when you bought a pig or a barrel of crude or even a gallon or barrel of maple syrup you hope your $100 investment into the "commodity/account" stays at $100 or greater value when you use it and (not $47,50,90) ...

Just like the house you bought in 1970 for $45k is still worth 45k. Fiat currency stability 4EVA.

Oh god, you definitely need a lesson in economics, land is a non depreciated asset, land was here before you and will be here after you die for many millenia's to come. The population will increase and demand stays for that land and increases as well. While currency comes and goes with the tides of business cycles and governmental growth and reclines... Also you can not equate land to currency and you cannot equate that to a commodity etc etc...


side note: Standard of living and minimum wage and other variables also increase as years go on ...

additional tangent : also in fact in some parts of the USA you can still buy a home for 45,000 or even less , granted they might not be in great shape or other things but it still is a hosue...

You still just don't seem to understand.

It's not about "digital currency and payments".

It's about decentralization and immunity to outside meddling or control.

Bitcoin is backed by its own protocol, based on mathematics (to be specific, cryptography). You need to solve equations in order to produce new coins, and solving those equations require computation in the form of miners, and miners require power and operational costs to run. The true value of the btc will be based on the costs to mine those coins. Without miners, you won't get bitcoins. And in within the mining world is another free market at play: operation costs, how fast miners can hash, electricity rates etc. All these would give btc its true value. Bitcoin as a protocol is a lot of things, being a currency is just one of its utility. It's fully independent of any control until a time one has more power than the rest combined, be it in the form of hashing power or having a huge bankroll to influence its natural progression.

All currencies in the world are currently backed by debt, controlled by the government, with full authority to print as much as needed and as when feel like it. This debt-based money system is illusionary and is not sustainable, as shown by the latest, biggest example of it all: A country, Greece, going bankrupt, and simply just walk away. And they should, it's money created out of thin air anyway.

At that point how would you quantify exchanges for imports and exports? "decentralization and immunity" is such a joke point of benefit for bitcoin in the modern ages of the IMF ... You can't have a decentralized currency ....we don't live in a utopian society that allows for such as business runs its course with society. It would be the wild west and dark aged era of life if it were decentralized with THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of different currencies ... just like with alt coins there is a crap ton like litecoin doge coin ripple etc etc... What is your point for decentralization and immunity?  What is the benefit that humanity will have? Will people abuse their status to create more of that currency and invest it to failure? what is the benefit you see and explanation for "decentralization and immunity".

Gold as a unit of official US currency value was only completely forgotten in 1971. We have another 6000 years of history you need to answer for.

Holy cow,you need to also take a lesson in economics, O_O My brain is literally bleeding from your statement, ( not meaning to offend you) ... The fact that bitcoin has to be mined and depends on coin hashing is in itself flawed also a deflationary currency doesn't work as with the case scenario of lost coins etc etc... viable coins will be to limited to host enough trade, also bitcoin is not a currency its an "account/commodity" per definition of its act its more of an m3 account than anything. Also currency values aren't just magically printed to kingdom come. Just like with Germany and Zimbabwe and many other failed currency and governments, they only retain value by what they produce and other countries seek price value exchange in the fair market etc etc (research this topic on your spare time) ... Also Greece's debt has to do more with its reliance on Germany and what happened after ww2 .. (again research this on your time) ... and the money isn't just created out of thin air. It's a retained debt that has to be paid off through some sort of liquidation ex. IMF , Government resources etc etc....

side note: money isn't just created out of thin air ....


Also in answer to Cconvert,
past 6000 years you mean past 10,000 years well there was bartering then an evolution to kingdoms like an authoritarian where thousands of coined currency in silver and gold and bronze etc etc were used and if you have the spare time research of history of currency it'll brighten your day

6,000 to 10,000, bartering or coin, all distinctions that dance beside the fact you just got owned, about monetary inflation for benefit of state = necessary/good

Lols wait what how did I lose? I simply pointed out your scenario of  [1970's 45K Home is = money stability](obviously you stated it in sarcasm)  X_X ... I stated currency changes with business cycles  and governmental cycles in growth and recline etc etc .. anyways

Your objection is flawed. A single bitcoin is enough to host all the trade in the world. Let me expand just a little bit on that statement. If, hypothetically speaking, Satoshi had programmed an upper limit of 1 bitcoin instead of 21 million bitcoins, it would not have made any difference on how the whole thing functions. The total valuation of all circulating bitcoins in existence expands or contracts to whatever it needs to be. I suggest you ponder the basic idea of a unit of measurement and what it means to change units.

If you want to study the history of currency and banking, you should read about the history of economies that have run on privately-issued currencies without any government-issued currency at all. This is referred to as "free banking." Scotland had a pretty long run in the early 1800s (iirc) of free banking. My point is that currency does not necessarily imply formalized government-issue or government-backing.

I think you mean "figuratively" bleeding. Not "literally." At least I hope so.  :o

Holy cow, from what I read, and inferring your thought process of like a hyperactive brain with many tangents like me. Uhmmm, I don't think 1 bitcoin would work ... 100,000,000 "satoshis" .... whats smaller than a satoshi??  Also money is taken into the government, destroyed , renewed, redistributed out ... Where as for bitcoin it is destroyed and destroyed and lost ... etc etc . Then you have the problem of facilitating trade... Please elaborate your idea of trade on 1 bitcoin or a currency without government-issue / backing .. lets use zimbabwe / Panama / somalia as a per se case value in this hypothetical ...


Side note: And in response yah my brain was figuratively melting to blood =[ ...

Are we delusional?  Well, maybe. But this dude didn't do a particularly good job of making that case.  So he claims that the people who believe that Bitcoin is "going to take over the entire planet," i.e. become the dominant global currency, are "delusional."  He also says that "virtual currency is the future. There's no doubt about that. Digital payments are the future.  Bitcoin is not that. Bitcoin is a step along the way. It will eventually disintegrate and atrophy. But yes, digital currencies and digital payments are the future" and that "the original genius of Satoshi is the blockchain."  

Ok... so there's "no doubt" that "digital currencies are the future" and Satoshi is a "genius"... but Bitcoin is still destined to fail for ... reasons.  

So what actual arguments does he advance in support of his claim that Bitcoin will not succeed in becoming a major world currency?  Well, his primary argument for why Bitcoin won't become a major world currency in the future is that Bitcoin is currently relatively small with only a few hundred thousand users worldwide.  Do I really have to explain why that argument is not terribly persuasive?  

And then in response to the question "where did it [Bitcoin] go wrong?" he replies: "the get-rich-quick kids, they got into it and everybody saw a huge profit. You've got people like the Winklevoss twins who are pumping this thing because they're now holding 1% of all the bitcoins.  And they're pumping it and saying '40,000 dollars a coin.' Well, the theory of the greater fool comes in here. If you've been fortunate enough to buy that many, the only way you're going to get out is to find greater fools to buy it from you. That's where it went wrong."

Huh? So the problem with Bitcoin is that people are speculating on its future value? I guess every financial asset in the world (including every currency) is fatally flawed.  And this bit about the "greater fool" suggests that he fundamentally misunderstands the nature of money.  As I've written before:


So, to summarize, Bitcoin is doomed to fail because it hasn't yet succeeded in taking over the world and because some people are speculating on its future value.

If the need were to arise, we could add one or more decimal places and work in fractions of satoshis. If we wanted we could even give it a name like 1 satoshi = 10 "finneys" (named after the late great Hal Finney). At some point in the past, people in the US used "mills" where 10 mills = one penny. Eventually people stopped using mills because 1/10 of a penny just wasn't worth the effort; but nothing fundamental changed when that happened. (The monetary base M_0 didn't suddenly change when we dropped the mill, for example.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mill_(currency)

EDIT: If someone were to suggest we change the 21 million bitcoin cap, basically everyone would oppose that. Once you pick a cap you have to stick with it. But if someone suggested adding an extra decimal place like in my 10 finneys = 1 satoshi example, that wouldn't be nearly such a big deal. Just like using versus not using the mill is not a major issue.

LOL Solid solid summary conclusion AHAHAHAHAHAH, oh my god. you even transcript-ed a portion of the interview but the wrong portion as well =[ ... he said bitcoin will atrophy and disappear because of the fact of its disappearing and deflationary system .. etc etc =] just my 2 cents

additional note: technically you had transcript-ed the right portion but not all =[ ,
2nd note: after further analysis of your sentence long conclusion and settled my laughing ... I think you have to understand that bitcoin CAN't take over the world as a centralized currency because no country would recognize it , but USD is current reserve currency for many other aspects tho ...

and response to btctrader71 ... ehhh 1 usd = 330,000 satoshis ... so in the future if 1 dollar = .000001 of a satoshi then what happens ?

I understand how the money system works well enough, but you have to explain why do you think a deflationary currency is a flawed one? Even money needs to be printed, so why is Bitcoin having had to be mined bad? and what has lost coins got to do with anything? And since you brought up Germany and Zimbabwe, you just provided 2 real world cases of why debt-based, inflationary currency will always adjusts its value according. It's a proven that creating more money to cover past debt incurs even more debt, not only not solving the problem at hand but decreasing the already depreciated value of current money even more.

Whatever fancy words you use to term it, it's still the same. Quantitative Easing is but a fancy word for "let's print more money and inject it into the economy". Those retained debts you speak about were still created from nothing ever since the money system went off the gold standard.  It's even worse, using debt to create new money is mathematically illogical and unsustainable. It should be very, very obvious by now.

I would not be surprised to see 1 dollar = 1000 or 10,000 satoshi [1 bitcoin = $10,000 or $100,000, hope I counted decimal points right ...] in 5-10 years or so, maybe sooner. 1 dollar = .000001 is unlikely to be anytime soon. (I'm talking 2015 dollars here, just to be clear.) But regardless ... what do you mean "what happens" ? If we do get to 1 bitcoin = $ 100,000 it will mean in all likelihood that bitcoin is fulfilling its promise as a payment system, currency, and commodity. (simultaneously).

I am quite familiar with the arguments that deflationary currency is a would-be plague upon all of humanity and I am quite unconvinced. I think it serves TPTB to promote these arguments, flawed though they be, because it justifies the state's control of money.

Hey there nuff, I think you have solidly fried my brain today =] ... thank you so and thank you to Roger_murdock as well haha =] ... made my day in those comments, anyways have a read of this article http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/11731/debt/what-happens-when-the-government-runs-out-of-money/ (http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/11731/debt/what-happens-when-the-government-runs-out-of-money/) it helps you out to understand what it means to "print money" ... printing money doesn't always has to involve debt ...

additional note: In Response to btctrader71 , at that point you are expecting millionaires and ultra high net worths and banks to only be able to exchange and liquidate your $100,000 bitcoins?? lols in reality I don't get how that would logically and realistically play out X_X and that is scary.

An inflationary currency is (so the argument goes) a good thing because it promotes spending, and spending encourages economic growth, and economic growth is A Good Thing. Therefore, TPTB target some low level inflationary rate. Then they turn around and write IRAs into the tax law because they want to encourage savings, and savings is (so they say) A Good Thing. So they encourage spending with one hand, encourage the opposite [savings] with the other hand ... they can't even get their reasoning straight. My God, and people fall for this sh*t.

TPTB = The powers that be?? if thats correct??
IRA = Individual retirement account ?? (or irish republic army??) lols...

If those acronyms are correct then ... IRA's are not fully tax immune they are tax immune up to a very small precentage = approximately 8000 USD ... for any amount over you are taxed so it really isn't a saving as much as stimulating the markets etc etc =]

I don't understand your objection. Why would only ultra net worths be able to liquidate my $100,000 bitcoins?

In reality, anyone who (today) owns (let's say) 100 bitcoins will probably convert many if not most of them into other assets (USD, stocks, commodities, etc), a little bit at a time, as the price goes from $308 to $100,000. If your portfolio was 99.99% in one asset [which will happen if your $30,000 in bitcoin becomes $10,000,000 in bitcoin in the coming months/years] it just makes sense to diversify.

And some of it would be "liquidated" by spending it, on things like bedsheets on Amazon and olive oil from Greece and whatever they export from Zimbabwe and whatnot.

Yes, acronyms correct. (Not irish repub army, lol.)

So you're saying the right hand is only working against the left hand by a very small percentage? Still, their actions are opposite. SPEND MORE PLEASE! (( save more please! ))

SEP IRAs btw allow $53K contribution per year. Probably, net effect of this is to transfer wealth from poor to rich. Only rich [relatively speaking] people set up IRAs.

Do you realize theres not that many ultra high net worths and they are considered smart money , they run with the herd of money ... meaning they seek safe but rewarding investments like bonds , ventures , funds etc etc ... but yah lols I have no clue how they would liquidate 100 bitcoins at $100,000  or why they would want to liquidate 100 bitcoins at 100,000 (value = $10,000,000) ... i don't get where that scenario plays out ...

Also Sep iras ... arent those meant for the upper end of the employment scale aka self employed / corp and business owners ?!?! correct me if i'm wrong the value is capped at 50,000 because they want business owners to save their income for future fall back if their business / corps fail .... and those individuals generally make way more than that cap so they pay tremendously in taxes lols.


Friendly Side Note: current btc price as of posting 283 USD

Will we have to make impassioned pleas for these belevolent early hoarders to exchange some of their precious hoard with the common folk for "worthless" fiat currencies, or will they only take property such as real-estate?   Those early hoarders sure are nice people.  Without them, the Bitcoin economy couldn't function.

Or, is that the 1% in a fiat-based society?

lmao ... unlike real currency (USD EUR CNY) ... when the top 1% of wallets controls more than 80% of the bitcoin supply that seems like such a dire situation when you look at it because bitcoin is  a deflationary + depreciating (lost wallets and coins year over year) intangible asset. While currency on the other hand the 1% may have 30-50% but they put it into investment accounts and that money is not just "locked" up nor confined or restricting other users from the money supply ... while bitcoin on the other hand has a fixed cap and is definitely restricting with inactive wallets.

side note: so don't confuse yourself and delusionally think that fiat is restricted and bitcoin is not =/

They will not do this out of benevolence but out of self-interest. It will make financial sense to maintain some degree of diversification even as the bitcoin price rises to (for the sake of discussion) $100K. That means converting bitcoin gradually, as the price rises, to a range of other assets: commodity, stocks, bonds, fiat, property, etc. They will not keep the vast majority of their wealth in one asset (bitcoin) because that would be too many eggs in one basket.

Everything about bitcoin is based on the realistic assumption that people tend to act in their economic self interest. Everything.

I know I'm not. I don't do delusions or illusions. The glass is not half empty or full, it's completely full. Half with water, half with air.  ;)

Reality is my guide.

He gave not a single good argument against Bitcoin. He just made some irelevant comparations, and he is most probably a paid shill to talk against Bitcoin. Stupid motherfucker, that's what he is.

lol

You don't think the relative value of foreign exchange rates is based on speculation? If so then why is 90% of FX volume speculation related?

Global fiat currencies and the international banking system are backed by nothing except money printing and perceived value, most financial institutions are technically bankrupt since 2008 and the whole system is very vulnerable to intermediary insolvency. The only reason banks remained as the international value ledger system after the GFC is because everyone is running on their closed source cartel API and they will destroy the ledger if they go bankrupt. Central banks have printed (electronically) in excess of US$15 Trillion in the last 7 years just to keep the current system running. Their own trust in fiat currencies is actually so low that they also hold 10,000s of tonnes of a relatively useless yellow metal to barter with. This is very heavy and hard to move around.

In contrast, cryptocurrency is an open source public value ledger, trustless and almost instant in comparison. Bitcoin has it's own technical problems, yes, so it won't go on to replace the global financial system, but crypto is, in my opinion, very likely to, so this is the start of a very positive move by the global economy.

This video made me smile.  He can't really find any fault with the brilliance of the blockchain.  The only reason for it not being "successful" is that there are only about 250,000 holders of BTC!?   ;D For us holders that is music to my ears! 

We are still so early in this game.  People just have no idea.

essentially he is talking about adoption rate being very slow, and it's true nowaday you need to catch up fast or you will be forgotten quickly, we aren't in the 1800, where new tech were embraced and supported for decades

there is the risk that if bitcoin will not skyrocket let's say in 10 years at max, it will remain only a nice niche market and nothing else, even satoshi predicted such a thing but in a more catastrophic view

I was just having a little debate with my husband about this last night.  He thinks people are losing interest.  I think that we have just plateaued a bit but there are so many uses in the development stage right now that we cannot see the outcome of that from this side yet.  It will take a little time.  The "need" might be caused by more situations like what is happening in Greece, more people being informed about how much they can save with international transfers, ease of use, etc. . .  The next time we bubble and more people are interested in this "niche market" we will be in a much better position to keep the ball rolling than we were in 2013.