Bitcoin as the electric train

[The Count of Monte Crypto]

Wait, electric trains failed?

https://i.imgur.com/brCBrp5.jpg

[1714837662]

1714837662

[1714837662]

1714837662

[1714837662]

1714837662

[1714837662]

1714837662

[frankenmint]

reason we don't see these fancy new things get to reality = cost prohibitive, bottom line. 

I don't buy the whole "it destroys infrastructure so just shelf it" for superior technology because, those in power would have just casually introduced the disruptive technology at a higher cost and would have gradually introduced it to the upper echelons of society. 

Cases in point = Moller international flying car, Optical Stealth by Susumu Tachi, and the JetLev.


None of those things exist with the exception of the JetLev and that is far from what we all originally wanted (something from the rocketeer - an actual, practical jetpack)


I will always call Bullshit on "free energy" stuff because a:

they always break the 2nd law of thermodynamics

there is always a catalyst of some sort that begins the chemical reaction that is NEVER considered/ ALWAYS ignored

because these products and innovations are "in theory" or "on paper" but never executed upon because of my first sentence.  Why aren't there HUDs yet in average consumer grade automobiles?  Why don't we have mag-lev enabled roadways yet with autonomous cars?  (those could certainly be automated to provide both fuel efficiency and safety!) 
 

[CrazyBit]

I will always call Bullshit on "free energy" stuff because a:

they always break the 2nd law of thermodynamics

What about this video then:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiAhiu6UqXQ

Seems ok?

[LAMarcellus]

Back around the turn of the century, 1900, the American people trusted their government because it was trustworthy.

Today we have the internet and people are actively waking up to the corruption and cronyism of the untrustworthy kleptocracy.

If the Electric Train failed, not on it's own merits, but due to some sort of malice....
Well I think Bitcoin could survive this because we have the truth at our fingertips.

Lies and half-truths won't cause me to abandon BTC. The internet gave me enough information to make up my own mind.
I have better sources of information than our snake oil politicians and their cronies in the private sector.

Just like the Gutenberg Press led to the Protestant Reformation, renewed liberties, and the end of paying for absolution...
The Internet is waking us up to the evils of the United States Empire, the welfare-warfare state, the criminal nature of the IRS, etc etc.

Did you believe them when they said bitcoin is the preferred money of terrorists and drug dealer??

Of course not... The internet helps us to verify this information....   the United States Dollar is the preferred currency of criminals worldwide!

Be your own conductor.

[knightcoin]

eletric what ?

[knightcoin]

[knightcoin]

Hope Dorian next model will be something like that

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AtE54HpXBM

[ArticMine]

I prefer the following analogy:

Precious metals - Animal powered transportation. For example: Horse and buggy, chariots, elephants, mule carts etc. gold - horse, silver - mule etc.
Fiat currencies - Mechanical ground transportation, steam engines, electric engines, internal combustion engines, diesel engine, etc. For example: GBP - steam engine, USD - internal combustion engine, EUR, CNY, JPY high speed electric trains. etc
Crypto-currencies - Air / Space transportation. For example Bitcoin - aircraft, Litecoin -  helicopters etc.

The more I look at Bitcoin and related crypto-currencies the convinced I am that it is gold, and precious metals rather than fiat that will take the bulk of the the "Bitcoin hit". Yes Bitcoin and related crypto-currencies will take a bite out of fiat but the bulk of the wealth transfer may very well come from gold.

[ryanmnercer]

I'm bullish on Bitcoin. 

But I've been thinking of examples of technologies that failed despite their obvious superiority, and the example I can come up with that represents this is the electric train/car/taxi.

Yes because Chicago has no amtrak trains, NYC no operating subways and San Francisco doesn't have ANY trolleys. Japan and China CERTAINLY don't have electric high-speed rails...

[tabnloz]

I'm bullish on Bitcoin. 

But I've been thinking of examples of technologies that failed despite their obvious superiority, and the example I can come up with that represents this is the electric train/car/taxi.

Yes because Chicago has no amtrak trains, NYC no operating subways and San Francisco doesn't have ANY trolleys. Japan and China CERTAINLY don't have electric high-speed rails...

I'm unsure if you're being sarcastic or you're just stupid. I suspect sarcasm, but, then again, think of how stupid the average person is and realize that half of the population are, by definition, 'stupider' than that.

Maybe that's you, the Honey BooBoo of bitcointalk.

So incase you are stupid: my point is that electric trains did not become the dominant system at a time when their technology was vastly superior and their infrastructure widespread. This is circa 1900. Gasoline / diesel powered systems were inferior and the electric networks had the upper hand, yet they did not spread nationally. They were confined to a few metro areas, largely due to the actions of the company owners.

And electric cars and taxi's are still either non existent or fledgling (but you didn't mention this of course).

[ryanmnercer]

I'm bullish on Bitcoin. 

But I've been thinking of examples of technologies that failed despite their obvious superiority, and the example I can come up with that represents this is the electric train/car/taxi.

Yes because Chicago has no amtrak trains, NYC no operating subways and San Francisco doesn't have ANY trolleys. Japan and China CERTAINLY don't have electric high-speed rails...

I'm unsure if you're being sarcastic or you're just stupid. I suspect sarcasm, but, then again, think of how stupid the average person is and realize that half of the population are, by definition, 'stupider' than that.

Maybe that's you, the Honey BooBoo of [Suspicious link removed]o incase you are stupid: my point is that electric trains did not become the dominant system at a time when their technology was vastly superior and their infrastructure widespread. This is circa 1900. Gasoline / diesel powered systems were inferior and the electric networks had the upper hand, yet they did not spread nationally. They were confined to a few metro areas, largely due to the actions of the company owners.

And electric cars and taxi's are still either non existent or fledgling (but you didn't mention this of course).

Except for the part where you couldn't travel across the country with an electrified train because well... there weren't power-lines spanning the country... now who's the groundling?

[pungopete468]

reason we don't see these fancy new things get to reality = cost prohibitive, bottom line. 

I don't buy the whole "it destroys infrastructure so just shelf it" for superior technology because, those in power would have just casually introduced the disruptive technology at a higher cost and would have gradually introduced it to the upper echelons of society. 

Cases in point = Moller international flying car, Optical Stealth by Susumu Tachi, and the JetLev.


None of those things exist with the exception of the JetLev and that is far from what we all originally wanted (something from the rocketeer - an actual, practical jetpack)


I will always call Bullshit on "free energy" stuff because a:

they always break the 2nd law of thermodynamics

there is always a catalyst of some sort that begins the chemical reaction that is NEVER considered/ ALWAYS ignored

because these products and innovations are "in theory" or "on paper" but never executed upon because of my first sentence.  Why aren't there HUDs yet in average consumer grade automobiles?  Why don't we have mag-lev enabled roadways yet with autonomous cars?  (those could certainly be automated to provide both fuel efficiency and safety!) 
 

I agree with you on the "free energy" bit usually being a bunch of crap. However, free energy isn't the same as scavenged energy, the system isn't perpetual because the source of the emission is constantly suffering decay as the particles containing the energy are released. This isn't a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics because sub-atomic particles have an intensive property of entropy. Solar power is an example of wasted energy until you convert it into something useful.

The end-cost is relative and is rarely a good representation for the actual cost...

I think the economic barriers to new technology are often the most prohibitive. The world is fueled by money, economic walls exist that serve to prevent technology from expanding too quickly. The investors like to see returns on their investments before pushing the next generation of tech; essentially pushing the old tech into obsolescence. Occasionally you have competing technologies from separate sources that will force a change but it's not a guarantee. Technology is growing too quickly; many new tech innovations are actually shelved until the "tap begins to run dry" so to speak. When that happens they unroll "the next big thing" and the profits come flowing in...

Also, the HUD thing is a good one. They put HUD's in some older Cadillacs, I think people were "distracted" by them. The mag-lev roadways with autonomous cars is entirely possible with consumer-grade tech but the fundamental resistance to change, lack of urgency, and high cost are all major road-blocks.

The Moller Sky Car was too much like an airplane yet significantly more expensive, and it didn't incorporate full manual flight control.

Optical Stealth is still promising...

[tabnloz]

I'm bullish on Bitcoin. 

But I've been thinking of examples of technologies that failed despite their obvious superiority, and the example I can come up with that represents this is the electric train/car/taxi.

Yes because Chicago has no amtrak trains, NYC no operating subways and San Francisco doesn't have ANY trolleys. Japan and China CERTAINLY don't have electric high-speed rails...

I'm unsure if you're being sarcastic or you're just stupid. I suspect sarcasm, but, then again, think of how stupid the average person is and realize that half of the population are, by definition, 'stupider' than that.

Maybe that's you, the Honey BooBoo of [Suspicious link removed]o incase you are stupid: my point is that electric trains did not become the dominant system at a time when their technology was vastly superior and their infrastructure widespread. This is circa 1900. Gasoline / diesel powered systems were inferior and the electric networks had the upper hand, yet they did not spread nationally. They were confined to a few metro areas, largely due to the actions of the company owners.

And electric cars and taxi's are still either non existent or fledgling (but you didn't mention this of course).

Except for the part where you couldn't travel across the country with an electrified train because well... there weren't power-lines spanning the country... now who's the groundling?

Well, that is exactly my point. Thank you for noticing.

You've ignored that there were operational electric cars / taxi's circa 1900 (& charging stations etc.) and are focusing on trains.

Electric trains had the existing infrastructure but you couldn't travel across the country, although it was extremely widespread. Putting in the connecting miles was not such a difficult job. IIRC one of the sticking points was connecting northern cali (although i may be mistaken). The business was profitable but connecting the 'black spots' didn't happen for a few reasons, one being the owners of the electric train companies ran their companies into the ground for profit, giving gasoline / diesel powered technology an easy market entrance despite the fact that they had been demonstrated to be extremely inferior.

But again, the trolls in this thread take away from the original point;

bitcoin is often compared to early days of the internet / email - technologies that were better, were initially dismissed, and then proved universally successful. I also hope bitcoin follows this path. But are there examples of a technology that was superior but 'failed' like electric train/car/taxi's (and yes I am aware that there are electric trains that operate around the world).

[ryanmnercer]

I'm bullish on Bitcoin. 

But I've been thinking of examples of technologies that failed despite their obvious superiority, and the example I can come up with that represents this is the electric train/car/taxi.

Yes because Chicago has no amtrak trains, NYC no operating subways and San Francisco doesn't have ANY trolleys. Japan and China CERTAINLY don't have electric high-speed rails...

I'm unsure if you're being sarcastic or you're just stupid. I suspect sarcasm, but, then again, think of how stupid the average person is and realize that half of the population are, by definition, 'stupider' than that.

Maybe that's you, the Honey BooBoo of [Suspicious link removed]o incase you are stupid: my point is that electric trains did not become the dominant system at a time when their technology was vastly superior and their infrastructure widespread. This is circa 1900. Gasoline / diesel powered systems were inferior and the electric networks had the upper hand, yet they did not spread nationally. They were confined to a few metro areas, largely due to the actions of the company owners.

And electric cars and taxi's are still either non existent or fledgling (but you didn't mention this of course).

Except for the part where you couldn't travel across the country with an electrified train because well... there weren't power-lines spanning the country... now who's the groundling?

Well, that is exactly my point. Thank you for noticing.

You've ignored that there were operational electric cars / taxi's circa 1900 (& charging stations etc.) and are focusing on trains.

Electric trains had the existing infrastructure but you couldn't travel across the country, although it was extremely widespread. Putting in the connecting miles was not such a difficult job. IIRC one of the sticking points was connecting northern cali (although i may be mistaken). The business was profitable but connecting the 'black spots' didn't happen for a few reasons, one being the owners of the electric train companies ran their companies into the ground for profit, giving gasoline / diesel powered technology an easy market entrance despite the fact that they had been demonstrated to be extremely inferior.

But again, the trolls in this thread take away from the original point;

bitcoin is often compared to early days of the internet / email - technologies that were better, were initially dismissed, and then proved universally successful. I also hope bitcoin follows this path. But are there examples of a technology that was superior but 'failed' like electric train/car/taxi's (and yes I am aware that there are electric trains that operate around the world).

You are ignoring that battery technology at that time (and still) is a joke, every car would have had to operate as a trolly with connections to overhead lines to go any worthwhile distance, it would have been horribly dangerous and very cost prohibitive to have every lane of every road having overhead lines, lane changes and turns would have been a royal pain as well. THIS is why they failed. Electric cars may have been there, the battery technology was woefully lacking (and still is).

[pungopete468]

It's true that technology can be stifled by economic powers. The problem with the electric train wasn't with the technology itself, rather the ownership of the technology and the failures of a few.

Bitcoin, unlike the electric train doesn't require that it be "allowed" because it's a harmless technology and logic is overwhelmingly against a legal restriction to Bitcoin. People must agree on some level to legislation in order for legislation to be successful. Legally restricting the use of Bitcoin is akin to the reasoning behind restricting the cup size of a fountain drink... Too many people won't accept it.

Bitcoin would likely fail if it weren't open source. The open-source nature of Bitcoin ensures its success for as long as the benefits outweigh the dis-advantages. Considering the economic state of the world, I don't think Bitcoin will be going away...

Bitcoins main vulnerability is in the exchange to government issued currencies.

[tabnloz]

I'm bullish on Bitcoin. 

But I've been thinking of examples of technologies that failed despite their obvious superiority, and the example I can come up with that represents this is the electric train/car/taxi.

Yes because Chicago has no amtrak trains, NYC no operating subways and San Francisco doesn't have ANY trolleys. Japan and China CERTAINLY don't have electric high-speed rails...

I'm unsure if you're being sarcastic or you're just stupid. I suspect sarcasm, but, then again, think of how stupid the average person is and realize that half of the population are, by definition, 'stupider' than that.

Maybe that's you, the Honey BooBoo of [Suspicious link removed]o incase you are stupid: my point is that electric trains did not become the dominant system at a time when their technology was vastly superior and their infrastructure widespread. This is circa 1900. Gasoline / diesel powered systems were inferior and the electric networks had the upper hand, yet they did not spread nationally. They were confined to a few metro areas, largely due to the actions of the company owners.

And electric cars and taxi's are still either non existent or fledgling (but you didn't mention this of course).

Except for the part where you couldn't travel across the country with an electrified train because well... there weren't power-lines spanning the country... now who's the groundling?

Well, that is exactly my point. Thank you for noticing.

You've ignored that there were operational electric cars / taxi's circa 1900 (& charging stations etc.) and are focusing on trains.

Electric trains had the existing infrastructure but you couldn't travel across the country, although it was extremely widespread. Putting in the connecting miles was not such a difficult job. IIRC one of the sticking points was connecting northern cali (although i may be mistaken). The business was profitable but connecting the 'black spots' didn't happen for a few reasons, one being the owners of the electric train companies ran their companies into the ground for profit, giving gasoline / diesel powered technology an easy market entrance despite the fact that they had been demonstrated to be extremely inferior.

But again, the trolls in this thread take away from the original point;

bitcoin is often compared to early days of the internet / email - technologies that were better, were initially dismissed, and then proved universally successful. I also hope bitcoin follows this path. But are there examples of a technology that was superior but 'failed' like electric train/car/taxi's (and yes I am aware that there are electric trains that operate around the world).

You are ignoring that battery technology at that time (and still) is a joke, every car would have had to operate as a trolly with connections to overhead lines to go any worthwhile distance, it would have been horribly dangerous and very cost prohibitive to have every lane of every road having overhead lines, lane changes and turns would have been a royal pain as well. THIS is why they failed. Electric cars may have been there, the battery technology was woefully lacking (and still is).

Im not ignoring battery technology at all. How were they a joke in 1898?

How were they a joke when Edison unveiled his Twentieth Century Suburban Residence or when an electric vehicle hit over 50mph's in 1901?

And no, they didn't require overhead powerlines as they had battery recharging stations.
 
THIS IS NOT why they failed.

Never let assumptions get in the way of facts.

Point is that electric models were more advanced & efficient than any other at the time and stood on the cusp of being the mainstream way to travel for a number of years.

[tabnloz]

It's true that technology can be stifled by economic powers. The problem with the electric train wasn't with the technology itself, rather the ownership of the technology and the failures of a few.

Bitcoin, unlike the electric train doesn't require that it be "allowed" because it's a harmless technology and logic is overwhelmingly against a legal restriction to Bitcoin. People must agree on some level to legislation in order for legislation to be successful. Legally restricting the use of Bitcoin is akin to the reasoning behind restricting the cup size of a fountain drink... Too many people won't accept it.

Bitcoin would likely fail if it weren't open source. The open-source nature of Bitcoin ensures its success for as long as the benefits outweigh the dis-advantages. Considering the economic state of the world, I don't think Bitcoin will be going away...

Bitcoins main vulnerability is in the exchange to government issued currencies.

Agreed.

The power in the hands of a few companies & patent extension laws were the main killers of the electric train and electric car respectively.

[ryanmnercer]

I'm bullish on Bitcoin. 

But I've been thinking of examples of technologies that failed despite their obvious superiority, and the example I can come up with that represents this is the electric train/car/taxi.

Yes because Chicago has no amtrak trains, NYC no operating subways and San Francisco doesn't have ANY trolleys. Japan and China CERTAINLY don't have electric high-speed rails...

I'm unsure if you're being sarcastic or you're just stupid. I suspect sarcasm, but, then again, think of how stupid the average person is and realize that half of the population are, by definition, 'stupider' than that.

Maybe that's you, the Honey BooBoo of [Suspicious link removed]o incase you are stupid: my point is that electric trains did not become the dominant system at a time when their technology was vastly superior and their infrastructure widespread. This is circa 1900. Gasoline / diesel powered systems were inferior and the electric networks had the upper hand, yet they did not spread nationally. They were confined to a few metro areas, largely due to the actions of the company owners.

And electric cars and taxi's are still either non existent or fledgling (but you didn't mention this of course).

Except for the part where you couldn't travel across the country with an electrified train because well... there weren't power-lines spanning the country... now who's the groundling?

Well, that is exactly my point. Thank you for noticing.

You've ignored that there were operational electric cars / taxi's circa 1900 (& charging stations etc.) and are focusing on trains.

Electric trains had the existing infrastructure but you couldn't travel across the country, although it was extremely widespread. Putting in the connecting miles was not such a difficult job. IIRC one of the sticking points was connecting northern cali (although i may be mistaken). The business was profitable but connecting the 'black spots' didn't happen for a few reasons, one being the owners of the electric train companies ran their companies into the ground for profit, giving gasoline / diesel powered technology an easy market entrance despite the fact that they had been demonstrated to be extremely inferior.

But again, the trolls in this thread take away from the original point;

bitcoin is often compared to early days of the internet / email - technologies that were better, were initially dismissed, and then proved universally successful. I also hope bitcoin follows this path. But are there examples of a technology that was superior but 'failed' like electric train/car/taxi's (and yes I am aware that there are electric trains that operate around the world).

You are ignoring that battery technology at that time (and still) is a joke, every car would have had to operate as a trolly with connections to overhead lines to go any worthwhile distance, it would have been horribly dangerous and very cost prohibitive to have every lane of every road having overhead lines, lane changes and turns would have been a royal pain as well. THIS is why they failed. Electric cars may have been there, the battery technology was woefully lacking (and still is).

Im not ignoring battery technology at all. How were they a joke in 1898?

How were they a joke when Edison unveiled his Twentieth Century Suburban Residence or when an electric vehicle hit over 50mph's in 1901?

And no, they didn't require overhead powerlines as they had battery recharging stations.
 
THIS IS NOT why they failed.

Never let assumptions get in the way of facts.

Point is that electric models were more advanced & efficient than any other at the time and stood on the cusp of being the mainstream way to travel for a number of years.

You sir or ma'am are a moron. They may have achieved speeds over 50mph in 1901, that doesn't meant hey could go any appreciable distance. Batteries back then were massive, stored very little energy and weighed enormous amounts, they still do with far far more advanced battery chemistry and still limit lightweight cars made out of fiberglass and aluminum to a couple of hundred miles. Recharging stations for batteries from that period would have taken DAYS to recharge the batteries (especially to keep them at safe temperatures). I don't think you understand batteries very well, especially the nearly-primitive ones of that time.

The electric cars of the time (like the baker electric coupe) used a  nickel-iron battery that was painfully slow when it came to charge times and was only good for 200 miles or so... and there were several electric cars at the time, most of them used lead-acid batteries which were even bulkier and weaker (required more cells) and had worse mileage. They didn't catch on because they were JUNK just like modern electric cars. They also had poor acceleration (if in fact an electric car reach speeds of 50mph, it was likely a very slow acceleration and probably had several times as many cells as a commercially available vehicle). Just give it up.

[frankenmint]

I will always call Bullshit on "free energy" stuff because a:

they always break the 2nd law of thermodynamics

What about this video then:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiAhiu6UqXQ

Seems ok?

http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/brainstuff/the-lure-of-perpetual-motion/

Read this then get back to me