Bitcoin Forum

I think that this is my first self-moderated thread since I'm on the forum, but there is a reason for that. Pointless comments will be deleted.

My personal opinion is that Bitcoin (or any cryptocurrency in existence for that matter (well, Ripple could be an "honorable exception")) is not going to be widely accepted as money. Not because it's bad or good, but because it can't be controlled, at least not in the way the governments would want to. Bitcoin is hard to explain to the average Joe and personally I gave up on doing it to my real friends, because probably 95% of them are seeing it as a speculation/bubble. But do you know what? That doesn't really matter. I believe that Bitcoin (and some altcoins) would find their market niche and for that they'll only need to be accepted by some part of the masses. It's hard to say how many people are really using cryptocurrencies, but I think it's safe to say that they are under 1 million (which is like 0.0128% of world's population). 10-30x increase in the user base would make a huge difference. Bitcoin is currently the king, but definitely it's not going to be the only one.

What do you guys think? How you are seeing things?

Cheers,
Spartak

I agree of course with you.  Bitcoin was the very first prototype.  It CANNOT be accepted as universal money, because it cannot handle it technically.

I think however, that bitcoin put in move a whole new concept, that is slowly trickling down society.  I think bitcoin is something like the invention of science in the 16-17th century.  Similar critique will apply.  In the end, though, science killed state religion, which was a pillar of power.  Financial monopoly is also a pillar of power.   But bitcoin showed that things can be different.  Of course, our generation will not wake up one day, and see that finally, state monopoly of money is gone, and we are all using bitcoin or a successor.   Galileo didn't live to see the separation of state and religion and the liberty of thinking and of expression wrt. religious/scientific matters.  It took centuries.  But the poison is out with bitcoin and its successors.  There will be ups and downs.  But the fundamental notion, that the state must be the steward of monetary things because it is impossible to do otherwise, is proven wrong.  This poison will slowly but steadily kill the financial hegemony, like science slowly but steadily killed the basis of the religion-based state power.
It will take generations.  I think that, just as with science (the first distributed system ever invented), first it will be ignored, then it will be ridiculed, then it will be fought, and then it will win.  But I think this can take centuries.  Crypto's fundamental contribution is not so much financial freedom, but the fact that it is DISTRIBUTED and immutable.   The ultimate excuse for state power always has been that in order to avoid people cheat on each other, there must be an arbiter.  If a distributed system can do so too, then this takes away the most pressing reason for state. 
But just as the concept of proposing hypotheses, doing observations, and confronting them as way to find the truth about this world (the invention of science) was a bold, ridiculous, and unseen proposition when for centuries, the truth about the world was centralized, came down from heaven, through the Pope, and the cardinals, down to the priest, and you were a BAD PERSON if ever you dared to think otherwise, the idea of not needing states, governments, and dictate of the law seems to be a ridiculous idea to people when you are a BAD PERSON if you go against the law.
But in the end, as science prevailed, I think that the distributivity of systems will in the end prevail over centralized privileges, in one way or another.
But just as science progresses one death after another, society progresses, one dead generation after the other.  It takes time.

I think you're wrong.

1. Science reduced the power of the religion, but it did not killed it. Not at all! Religion is still a great power, which is often used to control 100s of millions people. For example here in Bulgaria there are number of holidays on which people goes to church, even if they don't believe in God. But I do think that religion has many positive sides and I have nothing against it. 
2. Galileo is probably one of the best historic examples on why decentralization is a dream and why people should not expect to have their full privacy. He was condemned and accused in heresy by the Catholic Church and the guy didn't even received a proper burial. I am sure that Galileo had some tough life. There were also a lot of revolutionaries (such as Galileo) who fought wars, invented stuff. These actions change some things, but never changed the fact that the masses are under control over their entire existence. It could be by some pharaoh, king, the Church, dictator or government, but it's there.

Bitcoin is indeed the very first prototype, but its main problem is that people are putting too much thinking into it. I will give you 2 examples:

1. Conferences.
Why the hell you'll need to sit and listen/watch countless 1-2-hour conferences/videos were someone is explaining what Bitcoin (or whatever altcoin) is? There are already geeks who are taking care of it and have deep knowledge on the technology. Do you think that the average Joe would have the patience to be taught? I don't fully understand Bitcoin, but you know what? I don't need to! All I need to know is what it can do or achieve and how to preserve it - that's it. Simplicity is what matters. Do you see the banks explaining people how they work? They already "know" (i.e., they think they know) the basics.

2. Yesterday I had a long conversation with our Lead dev and we were discussing some of the features which we should deliver. I have always supported Litecoin's creator Charlie Lee statement that cryptocurrencies does not need gimmicks in order to succeed, but many developers fails to see this. Do you know why? Because they suck at marketing! And I'm telling you from my experience with 10s of coders! I gave our dev this video as an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpbNH072tNg. Then I have asked him if he can explain it. Do you think you can explain it? What do you think of it?

I didn't say that science killed religion.  Science killed STATE religion (not entirely, there is still a part of the world living in that barbarian state, and this is where we get a lot of troubles from but they have a lot of oil), as its pillar of power. 


We are removing, one by  one, the pillars of this.  Science has taken away one pillar.  It could not be killed because it was a distributed system.  I think the internet has taken away another pillar (the monopoly of mass communication).  Crypto is yet another pillar being sawn away.

I do not see a future "French revolution" but rather a dissolving of the privileges of state.

We are in a better shape than in the time of Galileo, concerning freedoms.  We have won freedom of thought (science).  We have won freedom of expression.  We have won freedom of publication (the internet!).  We still do not have economic freedom.  This is what crypto is fighting.  It will be a tough one.  With it, we may even obtain one day, democracy (that is, in as much law exists, it is voted by people, and not imposed by politicians).  If you thought we had democracy because we are obliged to give a mandate to an elective aristocracy, you're wrong of course.  We live in an elective aristocracy (as compared to the old hereditary aristocracy).


I think you are missing the point: these conferences are not needed or advantageous for the crypto, but for the devs.  People always seek their proper profit, and then represent it as "for the general good".  Devs need these things to exist.  So they happen.  Generals need wars to exist, so they happen.  The responsibility of the propagandist of the moment is to sell it as "for the general good", but it usually isn't.  If someone talks about "the general good" you know that there is some scamming going on.  If someone tells you he wants to take advantage, there's a chance he's being honest.

No, it did not. :) There are also some african countries with state religion. How about european countries (England)? We are still talking about 100s of millions people. If Bitcoin had so many people involved, oh boy, the price would be probably $1Mn/coin. :)


I can agree with that, but truth is that the control over people is evolving too and probably it's even worse than 500 years ago. Yes, we're not burned on stake like some "witches", but we do have Facebook, Google... this forum... Freedom of science you say? Why we're not driving cars using water (or whatever)? Why there are so many deceases with no cure for them? How big is the oil/drug business and why? There are some battles won, but to me is more important that the masses are still in control of handful of people.


I'm not missing the point. These conferences/videochats are mainly to explain and promote certain currency. People like Andreas Antonopoulos (one of the main examples) are of course needed and they are very smart and useful to Bitcoin, but I am talking about the masses here. People are sheep in general and they need to be taught with simplicity. :)

P.S. You haven't said anything about the video I gave you.

It is too early in the game to know. I mean, hardly a million people ever used Bitcoin as a currency. Very few use it regularly. However, there are a few things that you ought to remember:

1. The people who regularly use Bitcoin as a currency has a specific use-case like financial privacy and autonomy that cannot be replicated with regular money/banking systems. They will continue to use Bitcoin or a cryptocurrency like it.

2. Historically, money has almost always been formed by markets, not governments. As late as 1800s, government bonds were considered riskier than corporate bonds. Governments didn't have anything to do with the creation of money. In the modern day system, banks (and to a smaller extent central banks) create new money. This is a relatively new system. There is no reason to think this is better than thousands of years of markets determining money.

3. Even if Bitcoin isn't used as everyday currency/money by everyone, it is possible to be abstracted away. How many people know about the pipes connecting continents or BGP negotiations at countries' borders when they open their Facebook app?

I agree with you. That is why I gave examples with the fiat money (~1000 years of existence) and some of the banking code (~50 years of existence). But that is why I've implied that people should only know the basics of cryptocurrencies.   

In England, you don't go to jail because you do not live according to some or other religion, and the prime minister doesn't derive its power from religion.  Religion is not a pillar of power in England.  It is in several African and middle east barbarian countries, still.  But 1000 years ago, religion-based state power was general.  Now it is reduced to some barbaric regions.


You're not obliged to use facebook.  I don't.  I don't use any centralized social medium, apart from forums, where I discuss the subjects of the forums, but do not involve my personal aspects.  But it are exactly these things which will end up getting decentralized.  It will take time.  And like the barbarian countries basing their power still on religion, of course centralized spying social media will continue to exist, BUT THEY WILL NOT BE COMPULSORY.  That's the whole point.  With freedom comes the freedom to give your freedom up, of course.


I'm a scientist.  I can tell you, because solving these problems is harder than some charlatans may let you think.  Cars don't run on water.  That's not a big oil conspiracy, it is because it doesn't work.  There are a lot of diseases that can be cured, and still many more that can only be cured by killing the patient.  Believe me, science is about the most robust distributed system that has ever been built.  Of course it is also full of fraud, deception, scam and everything, but IN THE END, the scientific method prevails.  Of course, states can push scientific development in one direction or another by financing, but they cannot invent bogus science, or stop scientific truth from being revealed in the end.  They can eventually hold back something temporarily, but because of its distributed nature, science cannot be locked up in any cage.



When you start saying that "people should this or that", cold statist shivering runs across my spine...

You should read "Debt, the first 5000 years" by David Graeber, to explain how much states have always be involved with money, contrary to appearances, and most economic teachings.

Money has been much much more a state affair than one may think.  Even gold and silver.

I'm not talking about other stores of value, but *currency*.

Facebook was just an example. It is a fact that 25% of the humanity is using it. I'm not obliged to use my cell phone either, but it is something we need. "They" could always track you down. It is a conspiracy matter, but I've heard that agencies have satellites with which they basically can read your book/newspaper you are reading on a park's bench.


I agree. Cars running on water was again just an example. There are a lot of charlatans, but I think it's safe to say that a lot of technologies have not seen light, because of "some interests" (oil, drugs, weapons). Science can be "locked up". I think you will agree if I say that the majority of the humanity doesn't know how much we are advanced at science and technologies. That would scare the "sheeps" and made them think more. :) Science is one of the oldest ways to control people (priests, wizards...).   


I am saying these things, because it is the reality. It doesn't really matter what are our thoughts about the situation. Our personal opinions won't change the fact that we are indeed controlled... one way or another.

That's simply optics.  You can do that too, with good optics and a drone :)
I think it is not the normal print, but the head lines - but of course you can just get any resolution, by increasing the size of the aperture.  That's the whole art of making big telescopes.


Frankly, no.  Some *technologies* may have been retarded somewhat before going public.  Scientific knowledge, no.  Hell, the biggest scientific secret ever, the nuclear bomb, was out even before the war was totally over.  We even know the next biggest secret: the thermonuclear explosion.

Scientific discoveries are like zero-day exploits.  You can find them, and keep them  for yourself.  But if you use them, some will find out about it, and in any case, if you could discover them, then there is a finite probability (growing in time) that others will find it too.

Even better: science works best when it is in the open and communicated publicly.  Every "totally secret science project" has had problems of not sufficient peer review, and going off the cliffs.  The bigger the community, the more open the communication, and the larger the network, the better it works.

So no, there are no scientific discoveries that will be kept secret for a very long time.  First of all because it is very hard to do secret scientific discoveries without a large network of peers guiding and helping ; and second, because if you can do it, someone else can do it too.


But the minority knowing, is still very vast and growing.


You can be controlled.  The question is whether you have the possibility to free yourself from it, or not.  That's freedom.  But of course, trying to control others is not only freedom, it is the fundamental nature of human beings.  So it is normal that it is attempted.  The question is simply whether in principle you can have the means to resist or not.

I meant that they can do it from space that is why I used the word satellites, not drones. ;)


Is there any manual to read on how to build a nuclear bomb? I don't think so. And I'm not referring to "retarded technologies", I was talking about technologies, which could be useful, but there are others (less efficient) that could earn more money.


Do you think that you have such possibility? There are literally thousands of ways to control people. Mass media, social media, Internet, monopoly, laws etc. etc... You can turn off your TV, but you'll be vulnerable to your ISP.

Do you know on what I am often frustrated at? I am living in a small and poor country called Bulgaria. The "big guys" reaped off our economy and now everyone in here is under some form control. My point is that richer countries have more choices. It's like a pyramid. You start with the little economies and end up at the top were the guys with the money are. Want to know one of my favorite examples? Luxembourg! How the hell a country with less than 600k in population has $3.6 trillion in external debts?!

Anyway, this has nothing to do with Bitcoin and altcoins.

This is what I think. Bitcoin will be hard for ordinary people to accept because their definition of money is the one that always involves banks. It is what is "true" for them. What they do not realize is that bitcoin is making money what it used to be. A currency that is exchanged directly from person to person. Our advancement in technology is making this possible on a world wide scale.

Imagine if we are all psionic beings and we are all connected with our minds where we all know who owes who and how much with a quick search in our minds. Do you think we will need "money" if we could do that?

You can start with:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Alamos_Primer

There is a lot of information in:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Making_of_the_Atomic_Bomb

and in its sequel: Dark Sun.

These are historical works, but they contain all the necessary *scientific and technological principles* to build a nuclear weapon, if you complete that with normal engineering competence.  That doesn't mean that you have a *manual* to give to a technician to build a bomb, but all the scientific principles are there.

All the physical data you need can be found on: http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/

This is all the science you need to go of.  The difficulty in making a nuclear weapon doesn't reside in knowing or not knowing the science and technology.  It resides in the capital investment needed, and the visibility of your endeavour.  And you will still need to "tune" practical stuff.  For beginners, I would suggest a U-235 bomb.  That's what the US started with on Hiroshima too.  The plutonium bombs are harder to trigger (all the science is there, but to get the trigger right is tricky, and a matter of classical fireworks).

The reason why people don't make nuclear bombs in their basement is simply that it takes a huge capital investment, and that it will be noticed and that you will get a few classical bombs on your practice area before you really get off.  Not that its science would be hidden.


Economically, that only makes sense if one can use state privileges.  If you cannot use state privileges, the most efficient technology will also be the most profitable.
However, the point is that many embryonic technologies LOOK simple and efficient at naive first sight.  The fact that it isn't done in reality then gives rise to conspiracy theories.  But the real truth is that the technology is MUCH HARDER to put in practice than at first sight.


Do you mean "controlling you" or do you mean "spying on you" ?  Controlling can be fought by learning, informing, and practising logic and science to a limited extend.  The spying can be rendered difficult or useless.  I run things like trackmenot, that do hundreds of random and bogus internet searches.  I'm working on a project to send noise over the internet.  You remember the Danish reaction to the Nazi chasing the Jews there ?  Everybody put up a yellow David star.  


This is nothing but the quirks of the fiat system.  It is a fascinating engine.  Luxembourg is one of the richest countries in the world, btw.  These "debts" don't mean anything.  If anything, a national debt only means how much money the country as put in circulation.  That is the initial meaning of state debt.  It has not the meaning of an actual debt.  This is a very, very deep misunderstanding, because of the very strange nature of the fiat system.  A very high debt only indicates that your country has managed to rip off the rest of the world a lot.  Something to be proud of :)

There is a great reading:

https://www.princeton.edu/~kiyotaki/papers/Evilistherootofallmoney.pdf

I think for any coin to reach to the level where bitcoin is in terms of acceptance and use cases will take more than decades and by that time bitcoin may get more than what it is today. So basically if there will be no any fault found in bitcoin codebase, bitcoin being downgraded in crypto world is almost impossible. Bitcoin may remain king in crypto, but i also think bitcoin replacing traditional fiat currency is not quite possible.

Do you believe your premise will still hold true when events like this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=160292.0) become an everyday occurrence?

Almost the same btw happened in Bulgaria with CCB (Corporate Commercial Bank) back in 2014. The bank ended up with a 4.2 Billion BGN loss ($2.43 Billion or 2.15 Billion EURO). To get the bigger picture, I'll say that GDP of Bulgaria is about $50 Billion and that loss represents ~4.5$ of entire country's GDP. Some time ago they gave ridiculous rates on term deposits (up to 7%/year) and a lot of people got burned. I'm not sure if people got part of their money back (up to 100k EURO, of course... no matter if you had 200k or 2Mn).   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Commercial_Bank
http://www.novinite.com/articles/161964/Bulgaria's+Central+Bank+Revokes+License+of+Corporate+Commercial+Bank

There's a difference.  A crazy bank doing essentially a ponzi, and then going on its face, I think that is not only normal, I find it normal that its gambling customers lose their money.  They were in for the 7%, they played, and they got burned.  Fair game.  It is even unfair to the taxpayer, that he has to cough up part of the gamblers' losses of those bank customers through state warranties.

However, in Cyprus there was simply a haircut *by the state* on ALL bank accounts.  That's (usual, but in this case excessive) state theft. 

The Euro is a very special construction.  The Euro is the first and probably only "private money" that is common fiat to several states.  It is the first time that a state doesn't control its fiat, but a private entity does.
The Euro was invented by European federalists, in their wild dreams to make a United States of Europe, with grave neglecting of the communities and different nations (people) that they were putting artificially together in one big state power house.  They tried to shove the European Union of Socialist Soviet Republics through the throats of the different people, with the collaboration of their states, but it failed.   As such we are in this funny experiment, where states have given up their monetary prerogatives to a weird club of bankers in Frankfurt.
On the other hand, this has decoupled the Euro from the standard frauds that states usually do with their own money, and for the first time in history, states are kept to do vaguely correct bookkeeping of their revenues and expenses, without cheating too much. They aren't used to that, and this is why almost no European state gets its finances in order.  They never did, but could print money in the old days.  Now they have to borrow money from the bankers of Frankfurt.   

Same goes for Luxembourg and their external debt. It is a GRAND scheme with over 100 different banks involved. And guess who pays for it? :)


Euro is the evil... same goes for the "almighty" $...

Tough for me to predict..

I have a few random thoughts though  8)

Why do we assume it has to be a block-chain based system ?
Who is innovating this aspect of coins ?
NOBODY.

What if someone does down the road ?
I have said since day one i come here to see if something revolutionary gets rolled out.
It could happen !
And it could sweep Bitcoin aside instantaneously.
But no one is trying..

What else do we have ALREADY for "digital Money" as your topic title said ?
Interac eTransfer.. Paypal.. Credit Cards.. Apple Pay / Android Pay etc.

Difference ?
Trading "coins" on centralized exchanges for profits.
Hence WHY Bitcoin got as big as it did.
Which shows what it's really about doesn't it ?

Niche markets ? crock of shit !
They are poor excuses for trying to make an altcoin (that can be traded on exchanges for profit)
Like Pot / Weed coins.. we need them to buy dope ? LOL
Of course not..

We need a coin that builds off of Prime Coin or Grid Coin.
Wasting electricity mining BTC's is stupid.
If a brand new type of monetary system was unveiled that harnessed a useful purpose we NEED
AND could be traded as a commodity like "coins" then we have a winner !

So far all i see is Block-Chain mod's or worse.. scammy 100% premine coins called IPO/ITO/ICO's
There has been no real innovation.. nothing but an illusion and 6,000 ANN topics for more centralized exchange coins to trade for Bitcoin (ANN topic #1)

Quite likely there will be increased tougher regulations and that may change the environment in the Altcoin scene.
So far all these guys think they are untouchable and can do anything with virtually no repercussions.
I don't see Governments sitting on their hands forever about this.
How this will effect the altcoin scene though i am not sure when it comes to what coins we will have.

I do know one thing.. they will keep making them.
So...
How is it the world is going to settle on 1 as the winner when more and potentially better ones come out ?
We're talking about technology advancement.. it will plow forward.

I like to hope a game-changer coin will come out that fulfills what i said earlier.
I always envisioned a scientific type coin that could harness the worlds miners mining
for scientific projects that would solve problems we need super computers for.
Helping humanity move forward is the goal.

Or ? Who knows maybe it will stay like this forever.
Go look at the stats page here and see how many people log-in per 24/hrs.
That level of user base forever trading 6 or 16 or 160k coins

So..
Greed is good.
Free Market
NO REGULATIONS
Topple the government.

Right ? LOL

PS:
There is no RULE that says a "coin" needs to use Cryptography guys.
look further than your pocket book for once.
Try and be as visionary as Spoetnik  8)

my prediction btc will not be used as a currency, it will be used as the greatest store of value avialible . it will be value so high  the little bit of transaction fees is enough  to feed the miners to keep it running. the global govt will have no problem with btc sitting in the sidelines like gold . as for the alt coins, they will all be overpowered by the govt fiatcoin they will come up with. the best chance for any crypto is to work on the store of value aspect, u cant complete with the global govt, too many sheeps backing it.

Yeah, this is one of the most likely scenarios. But I wouldn't rule altcoins/assets/tokens out. I think we have at least 150 currencies circulating around the world, so there might be some free spots to be taken by others.

Uhmm... Everything can happen on digital currencies include they will gone and growing, should they growing (bitcoin) because there are not like this before and it is something new in the world.

I can see this picture, but I honestly fail to see the use.  It is as if one is asking the question "what can we do for crypto", and not "what can crypto do for us ?".  Crypto is a tool to obtain something, and my point is and remains that its only use is to obtain freedom that has been taken away.  Crypto is NOT practical, crypto is not environment friendly or computing friendly.  To go through all that hassle, you must obtain something that you couldn't get otherwise, and all the hassle of crypto comes from the implementation of trustlessness, which is of course a concept related to freedom.  Without freedom, trustlessness doesn't mean anything, because you are forced to trust the one that takes your freedom away, the centralized authority.  And if you have true freedom, you cannot be supposed to trust a privileged elite, so the system has to be egalitarian (in rights - no "masternodes") and hence cannot be trusted otherwise than by  cryptographic proof.

So in either case, whether you are WILLING to give up your freedom for that centralized authority, or because you've GIVEN UP and consider that it is simply too strong, and you are AFRAID of it, all the hassle of crypto is useless.

This is why a "regulated crypto" (like bitcoin is becoming) is an oxymoron.  If it is regulated, there are much much simpler ways to do the same thing.

So the question now is: do we NEED a digital gold that is not a currency ?  What can we do with it that we can't do with gold ?  The biggest problem with a store of value on the long term is that states want to take it away.  When you see how states are chasing people that have "hidden bank accounts", you see what I mean.  In as much as bitcoin would obtain an extremely high market cap, for sure the chain will be analysed, will be taxed, and most of bitcoin will end up in a digital Fort Knox.  So if you're trying to hide long term digital gold from the states, on the transparent bitcoin chain, that's a risky thing to do.  And if you are playing it according to the rules, why would you use bitcoin in the first place ?

There are very many reasons not to trust bitcoin as a store of value in the long term.  I would say that the main reason is that sooner or later, bitcoin will start to fork.  In fact, I'm amazed it hasn't forked yet.  Ethereum showed the way.  If I were to make an altcoin, honestly, I wouldn't start a new chain with a genesis block, but I would fork off bitcoin.
Each time you fork a coin, you split (unevenly of course) the market cap.
Another reason is that such a purely speculative asset is highly volatile.  Gold is a different beast, because it has 5000 years of history as a value keeper.  But apart from gold, an asset that has no "stickiness of prices" and is pure speculative belief, is highly volatile.

So again, I don't see the use case of crypto, like bitcoin, if it is "storage of digital gold" on a transparent block chain in agreement with the laws of the day.  I think that holding gold (paper or physical), or holding a diversified set of shares, is the classical, and still much better way which will be preferred by the vast majority of law-abiding and less law-abiding wealthy people.

The real use of crypto is as a currency, to do those economic interactions that are hampered by law and state in one way or another.   In other words, as a short-term store of value between two trades.  There, and in my opinion ONLY there, crypto has its place.  The hassle is worth it, because it is simply not possible to do without, because the laws are forbidding you, stealing you, or making life impossible to do so, and hence it is impossible or highly risky to use classical means of payment which leak information to the state.  But crypto is a pain to use, compared to VISA.  So it has to be worth it and has to offer sufficient protection against being traced.

I don't see any other use of crypto, honestly.  If it is not to free trade, and if it is to do, with more troubles, what you can already do, I fail to see the point of it.

It is very easy to set up a state crypto, that undoes everything that crypto stands for.  You can, like ZCASH, have a trusted setup, where the state has the golden key.  You can also have a state golden "mining" key: instead of PoW or PoS, you have PoK : proof of key, to mint blocks.  So only the state can mint blocks cryptographically.  You can have a fee system that is nothing else but a kind of VAT: a percentage of every transaction goes to the state.  The state can make as much money as it desires.  The state could have a view key that can reveal the full transaction history, which is hidden for all others.   It would be true crypto, and I would totally fail to see its point: it is even worse than the banking system concerning Big Brother stuff.  So I fail to see the joy that would come with this "adoption of crypto".

This is a bit like saying "why should it be computer and network based ? Who is innovating this aspect ?".

There must be some public knowledge of spending, to avoid double spends.  The point is that digital data can be copied and transmitted as many times as you want, and in order for you do accept a digital coin against value, you don't want the owner of it to be able to spend it 5000 times to 5000 different people.  Now, the ONLY way to know that a coin one is giving to you has not been spend, is to be able to verify in one way or another whether it has been spend already or not, and the only way to do so, is to have a common database of "spent coins".  Also, you want to verify that when the spending is done to you, that the previous owner has "put his proof of spending" in that common database.

This common database has not to take on the form of a block chain, but it is close.  Because if it doesn't, you "had to be on the network when the spending was broadcast".  And the previous spending might be 7 years ago.  If you weren't on the network 7 years ago to capture the spending proof, you may not see that the coin he's giving you, has already been spend, unless that spending proof is locked up in an immutable database: a block chain.
Because it would be too easy not to broadcast your spending on the whole network, or to have it erased from the database at some point where people "pump the database from".

So the only way to have this kind of certainty that a coin has NOT been spend, must be a secured, immutable database, which comes close to a block chain, isn't it ?

That said, you don't truly need a block chain at this point.  You need a block chain because there's another necessity: the necessity to prove that new coins have been created in limited amounts, according to the rules of the protocol.

As a centralized entity, I could emit a certain number of distinct coins, namely, my digital signature of the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, .... N (N coins).  These N files are then the "coins" and I have all the seigniorage.  The "coins" become appended with all transactions, and only their successive spending has to be public.  You would only need a distributed immutable database of spending proofs that way, and not a genuine block chain.
But if coin creation is part of the distributed system, there's no other way but to record the unique creations once and for all, and you end up with a block chain.

So yes, at the basis of any distributed monetary system will be a block chain.

Iota does.

But you haven't paid attention because you like to talk random shit but actually know nothing. Even complete n00bs start to figure out they shouldn't listen to you any more because your knowledge of cryptocurrencies is... well... limited, to put it as softly as possible :)

What I am 101% sure is that digital currencies will be widely used in future. They could and they will be a store of value. But, in my humble opinion, comparing them with gold is not serious. dinofelis has some point when saying that if a states accept that Bitcoin (for example) is money, then it must be hard forked and they must have full control over it (keys, distribution). Banks are already exploring the blockchain technology and I am not going to be surprised if the ECB comes up with their digital EURO. Same applies to FR of the USA. Bitcoin is not (and it is not serious to think it is) in the picture here.  

But here people forget something. There are other parts of the world. Everyone is talking about profits and governments to which we are (or we could be) depended. There are a lot more economies with trillions of $ combined wealth. We don't have only $, euro, CNY, RUB or JPY... we have hundreds of currencies more. What if I tell you that there is a country with 250M+ population and GDP close to a trillion $? I am talking about Indonesia. Why nobody is talking about Indonesia as a factor? Do you know that our "shitcoin" alone has 150+ members in its indonesian group? I have like 15 of them as friends on Facebook. Every single day like half of them is talking about cryptocurrencies. Most of them are happy with very small daily profits and they are constantly posting about different coins. You should see their discussions too. One if them is posting and immediately like 10 people are engaging in less than an hour.

So, guys, Bitcoin probably have its future, which is not depended on banks and their decisions on cryptocurrencies. I've said that if its user base becomes x10-30, it would be huge. I've also said that Bitcoin cannot fight the banks, but as dinofelis implied, it could achieve a certain freedom.

EDIT: freshman777, I haven't deleted his comment on purpose, but if this "fight" continue, I'll delete your new ones.

Why? He is misinformed or outright telling lies when he says nobody. Do you think it's wrong to stop that? But it's your thread, you're the boss. Let's see how pro free speech you are.

I agree he is most likely misinformed, because there are several projects which probably needs more attention. I also agree that his posts are not always constructive and he often likes to bash everybody, but himself. Are you happy now? :) I'm not the boss, but there is nothing wrong if I want my first self-moderated thread to be constructive. :)

I agree, with this and in my opinions bitcoin will never be a universal currency.

And that's like bitcoin is more be a natural currency and no one can be controlled him and alhought bitcoin is made by human.
They're just familiar about bitcoin like the trading forex.
The bitcoin is already finding their niche and in this time they are just waiting for the development of bitcoin
too difficult for calculating about the users of cryptocurrencies and especially if someone is already having more than 1 wallet for storing the cryptocurrency and there are a various cryptocurrency and that's why we can't put the clear factor

Back to constructive.

In my opinion Bitcoin is a pilot project. Sometimes pilot projects do evolve to encompass users' needs, sometimes they don't. Let the best cryptocurrencies win. If this should be just Bitcoin out of all, let it be Bitcoin.

Purposeful wishing that one cryptocurrency wins just because one holds it is narrow-mindedness and setting oneself up for losing in the end, because the strength is in numbers. This includes numbers of cryptocurrencies. One can be wronged in some ways and lose its original goal; when there are many, it's a whack-a-mole game. To win this fight we need redundancy both in technology (nodes, miners, etc.) and of technologies (PoW, PoS, PoW/PoS, PoWhathaveyou, blockchain / not blockchain) if you know what I mean.

I agree that if there is a future to free crypto currencies, then they must be multiple.  This is actually killing some (naive) economic ideas behind bitcoin, such as the "sound money doctrine".
Let us agree that when we talk about crypto, we talk about *free* crypto.  Using the *technology* or part of the technology in crypto to implement a kind of fiat, is not what crypto is about, even though it may use PoS, block chains, and several cryptographic ideas that can also be found in bitcoin and altcoins.  It is not because it uses chained blocks with hashes, that it has something to do with free crypto.

Indeed, although a single block chain is distributed, and has no single "node of failure", it has a "single network of failure" and can easily be attacked by TPTB.  However, if there is a continuous creation and continuous forking of coins, then this brings us to an even more distributed system which is much, much harder to break.  However, you cannot afford "long term digital gold" on such a living, warping, muting ecosystem of interacting crypto.  It can only serve short-term store of value.

An economic consequence of an ecosystem of forking and creating coins, is that there's not much left of the "sound money doctrine" ; and actually, this is normal, because the sound money doctrine contains a fundamental flawed hypothesis: namely that it is the UNIQUE and UNIVERSAL currency.  The sound money doctrine could apply to a central bank with its imposed fiat (but then it is radically opposing the hidden and announced purposes of central banks).  But the sound money doctrine has no leg to stand on when new currencies are continuously created and taking variable market share in the "currency market".  Each individual currency can be in "finite supply", if the supply of the NUMBER of different currencies is elastic, or the FORKING of currencies is elastic, then there's nothing left of that initial economic goal.

So I think that the future of free crypto is an ecosystem of continuously creating new coins and forks of coins.

Agree on the "sound money doctrine" having no grounds to exist in the cryptocurrency space. Cryptocurrency is code at its core, an idea, reproducible and clone-able in many forms, with permutations. Get used to like and embrace this notion or be frustrated that it doesn't conform to your illusions. It always cracks me up when Bitcoin maximalists refer to Bitcoin as digital gold.