2013-09-02 Bitcoin’s dilemma: go mainstream, or stay radical?

[patricktim]

http://theconversation.com/bitcoins-dilemma-go-mainstream-or-stay-radical-17617

Bitcoin is at an awkward teenager stage. The adopters are unsure which direction the currency should take. Those with a rebellious streak shun the physical coin and want to develop new protocols that make Bitcoin more anonymous and more distinguished from mainstream finance. The well-raised opportunists, on the other hand, are starting businesses and seek recognition from the bigger, older financial system. The hope of these ambitious entrepreneurs is that regulators will step in and ensure that they can secure funding and legal status to operate as legitimate businesses. If the latter succeed, Bitcoin will mature into a new alternative system that will have a place alongside our existing financial infrastructure. If the former succeed, we could see more dramatic technological innovations that attempt to challenge our wider societal architecture and relations.

[frankenmint]

Thanks for posting.  

I think the Golden rule applies here = he who has the gold makes the rules.  The entrepreneurs will put as much money as they possibly can into promoting bitcoin and what it can do, that they will ultimately win and get bitcoin to go mainstream. We already have several different companies working hard to act as local fiat exchanges into and out of bitcoin.  We are seeing a proliferation of companies coming up that either facilitate the bitcoin protocol or benefit directly from it (take btc payments) 

Wordpress
Foodler
Namecheap


Those are some of the early adopters that were established businesses.  I believe that the individuals who claim they want btc to stay in the dark are mislead because when btc becomes mainstream MANY MANY more prospective individuals are exposed to it and the demand for it will go up (increase in price).

[marcus_of_augustus]

Interesting perspective ... a false dilemma, bad pop music analogy and maybe an attempt to smear (rebellious teenager libertarians vs mainstream 'well-raised' moneyed interests) or at least pigeon-hole, create divisions.

Bitcoin adoption has been anything but 'too slow', so some of the arguments based on that premise seem contrived ... also he has failed to recognised a core group of bitcoin holders/devs/miners who are playing for all the marbles. It is not so much a political position as taking a technological stand on the necessity for a new paradigm and a better way of doing things. Like the separation of money and state.

And I didn't see any references to the economic cost/benefits analysis of traceable versus anonymous monetary systems. Why do so many seem prepared to take on faith that traceable money is somehow a net benefit? (the road to hell is paved with good intentions).