I'm putting this here so it will be indexed by search engines and come up in relation to the article posted here:
(Also, I suspect there is some kind of moderation that may result in my response not being posted.)http://www.openmarket.org/2011/06/06/bitcoins-four-objectionsI really enjoy articles like these, because they mirror similar objections people have had about
groundbreaking inventions or advancing technology. The main flaw here of course, is that "A" can't
possibly supplant "B" because it is "too different" (or insert similar anchored-assumption here.)
Web commerce was "too different" for many companies before they had to scramble to keep up, now it is an
accepted method of doing business.
Bit-torrent was a technology that many companies couldn't get their heads around, so instead of adapting,
they wasted millions trying to 'stop' it.
What you are witnessing with bitcoin is a fundamentally new and "too different" technology that is very
appealing to those who have lived their lives online, know how complex technologies work, and have no
problem adopting disruptive ideas.
After all, that is what the internet is. Why should it be so surprising that some of the biggest changes
in the world start there?
Circling back to bitcoin, I submit to you that any objection you can come up with equally applies to
cash, since both exist in digital and physical form (bitbills) and have the same problems (used for legal
and illegal transactions).
Your insistence that all currency must slavishly plod along a given path to be accepted as 'legit' is
laughable and irrelevant. It's like someone who doesn't understand a car insisting that you need to
design a special place for the horse to sit.
We don't need the old system anymore, and bitcoin will readily prove the point.
You'll see...
