[2018-03-21]Bitcoin Will Be World's 'Single Currency' Says Twitter CEO

[Gotottack]

And after all that has been said and done, this is their public statement? I want to give the benefit of the doubt as to why this Twitter CEO has to publicize the fact that he is connected with Twitter when he himself can do so as his own private individual? I mean, shall we expect something worse than this? The news have all been jammed up because of write ups that complicate the stand of the powerful and influential. The proliferation of unverified news has been rampant which, as they say, comes with the technology being in the hands of the people. This happening virtually affects the mindsets of Bitcoin investors resulting to its poor price performance.

[shaadsufi]

Right now with only 30 million coins and growing political support from g-8 and g20 countries like Germany and South Korea, bitcoin has a valuation of nearly 150 billion us dollars, in a decade many predict it will reach 1 trillion USD, maybe even more, it's financial treasure.

[timerland]

It's very possible that this scenario will unfold.

However, I personally think that there will never be one single currency per se globally. I do believe that bitcoin will become more and more adopted in the future, and I do think that bitcoin could well be the de facto currency for all international trades on the internet or whatnot. But it's extremely hard to see that all fiat currencies will be abolished in 10 years time.

Bottom line is that bitcoin will at least see an increased role in the world economy as a store of wealth especially for those in countries with faltering economies, even if it doesn't fully replace fiat.

[Gabb]

Bitcoin Will Be World's 'Single Currency' Says Twitter CEO

Jack Dorsey, chief executive of Twitter and payment company Square, has spoken of his strong belief in the future potential of bitcoin.

In an interview with The Times published Wednesday, Dorsey, himself a noted bitcoin investor, said he believes the cryptocurrency will take over the U.S. dollar's dominant place in world finance and become the primary global currency for payments.

Suggesting the shift could happen in 10 years or perhaps less, the entrepreneur said:

"The world ultimately will have a single currency, the internet will have a single currency. I personally believe that it will be bitcoin."

https://www.coindesk.com/twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-bitcoin-will-be-the-worlds-single-currency/

To be honest, I have serious doubts that bitcoin will at some point become the "worldwide single currency" that some supposed visionaries have insisted on announcing. I believe that in order for the ideal of decentralization to remain intact, there must be not only a dominant actor in the scenario, but serious competitors in cryptospace that promote diversity, competition and development, so I would expect that in the future there will be at least five or six cryptocurrencies with similar popularity and acceptance than bitcoin.

[gentlemand]

I believe that in order for the ideal of decentralization to remain intact, there must be not only a dominant actor in the scenario, but serious competitors in cryptospace that promote diversity, competition and development, so I would expect that in the future there will be at least five or six cryptocurrencies with similar popularity and acceptance than bitcoin.

Unless each one is radically different in some way then I don't think this will happen. Humans naturally gather around the biggest game in town. Not once have I ever put money into LTC or Doge as I believed they deserved some. I'm going to go straight to the source.

[dreamhouse]

This is a bit extreme, bitcoin is and will be the cybergold but to be used as single currency it will be difficult.

[1Referee]

Unless each one is radically different in some way then I don't think this will happen.

It's hard to come even close to what Bitcoin stands for in terms of decentralization. Everything that we see launch today is either a project ran by a bunch of geeks who haven't had a shower in a while, or some corporate bobos thinking they re-invented this whole industry. In all cases there is a public face behind the project that subject itselfs to all sorts of central single points of failure.

If you try to dump the source code of a certain project in the wild public and then vanish in the hope it will get the same treatment as Bitcoin back in the days, you'll come back a couple of years later to see that no one even bothered to pick it up. It's next to impossible to even form a remote competitor in that regard.

The crypto industry is more diverse than it has ever been, but the incentives are different now. Decentralization is no longer the priority, scalability is, which means that projects don't even bother to act as a decentralized incentive anymore. They just want the economical numbers on their side.

[gentlemand]

Unless each one is radically different in some way then I don't think this will happen.

It's hard to come even close to what Bitcoin stands for in terms of decentralization. Everything that we see launch today is either a project ran by a bunch of geeks who haven't had a shower in a while, or some corporate bobos thinking they re-invented this whole industry. In all cases there is a public face behind the project that subject itselfs to all sorts of central single points of failure.

If you try to dump the source code of a certain project in the wild public and then vanish in the hope it will get the same treatment as Bitcoin back in the days, you'll come back a couple of years later to see that no one even bothered to pick it up. It's next to impossible to even form a remote competitor in that regard.

The crypto industry is more diverse than it has ever been, but the incentives are different now. Decentralization is no longer the priority, scalability is, which means that projects don't even bother to act as a decentralized incentive anymore. They just want the economical numbers on their side.

It's going to take some time for enough people to figure it out but eventually they will and that is for most things 'blockchain' is a pointless pain up the arse.

The only thing that actually justifies the hassle is decentralisation and virtually nothing other than bitcoin and a handful of others actually is. What remains will be some clunky code best abandoned followed by a return to databases.

[squatter]

It's going to take some time for enough people to figure it out but eventually they will and that is for most things 'blockchain' is a pointless pain up the arse.

The only thing that actually justifies the hassle is decentralisation and virtually nothing other than bitcoin and a handful of others actually is. What remains will be some clunky code best abandoned followed by a return to databases.

I definitely remain unconvinced about the idea that blockchains are going to "disrupt" most industries. Outside the context of securing money, resisting censorship (including cross-border and sanctioned transfers), and private transactions (e.g. Monero), I don't see viable use cases that justify the inefficiency of decentralization. That's not to say they won't emerge -- I just don't see anything compelling. Smart contracts are an interesting area for study, but I haven't seen anything useful. For now, it's just a horribly inefficient mess of "Hello, World" level crap.

But also, I do think Patrick Byrne was onto something with his vision of security tokenization. We might be annoyed by all the scams and vaporware emerging from the ICO scene, but tokenized securities built on decentralized blockchains do break down barriers for investment, fundraising and securities trading. With the drop in hype we've seen, there's naturally a lull in ICO activity, but I think there will be a lot of renewed interest in that space over time.

[gentlemand]

I definitely remain unconvinced about the idea that blockchains are going to "disrupt" most industries. Outside the context of securing money, resisting censorship (including cross-border and sanctioned transfers), and private transactions (e.g. Monero), I don't see viable use cases that justify the inefficiency of decentralization. That's not to say they won't emerge -- I just don't see anything compelling. Smart contracts are an interesting area for study, but I haven't seen anything useful. For now, it's just a horribly inefficient mess of "Hello, World" level crap.

But also, I do think Patrick Byrne was onto something with his vision of security tokenization. We might be annoyed by all the scams and vaporware emerging from the ICO scene, but tokenized securities built on decentralized blockchains do break down barriers for investment, fundraising and securities trading. With the drop in hype we've seen, there's naturally a lull in ICO activity, but I think there will be a lot of renewed interest in that space over time.

I haven't really looked into securities but the principle does sound promising, vastly more so than the nonsensical shit floating around now.

My feeling is that blockchains will become ubiquitous in places that have barely been thought of yet and where they're being touted now will seem laughable looking back.

What's truly needed is one event/threat/disaster to really nail into people how vital decentralisation is. Until they get it thrown in their faces they're going to continue whining about how 'impractical' it is and be desperate to throw it away when we all know that once it's gone it ain't coming back.

[1BTC EQUALS 1CAR]

It's nice to hear big names on the internet industry who gives huge support on bitcoin or maybe it only happened because they are not Paypal. But I also agree to his predictions that the crypto takeover will happen in less than a decade.

[Snaic]

I would not like to have a single currency and a single currency, no matter how good and functional it was. I want to have freedom of choice and the ability to use different currencies, rather than dictate a single currency. Therefore, I hope that the crypto  currency  will continue to develop in different directions and many useful and promising coins and tokens will appear.

[Argoo]

I think that no decentralized crypto currency will become a single currency for the whole world. Such a crypto currency has too much volatility to qualify for this role. And another currency also does not have a great chance to become a single currency of the world. Many states simply do not agree with this, for various reasons.

[cr1776]

Unless each one is radically different in some way then I don't think this will happen.

It's hard to come even close to what Bitcoin stands for in terms of decentralization. Everything that we see launch today is either a project ran by a bunch of geeks who haven't had a shower in a while, or some corporate bobos thinking they re-invented this whole industry. In all cases there is a public face behind the project that subject itselfs to all sorts of central single points of failure.

If you try to dump the source code of a certain project in the wild public and then vanish in the hope it will get the same treatment as Bitcoin back in the days, you'll come back a couple of years later to see that no one even bothered to pick it up. It's next to impossible to even form a remote competitor in that regard.

The crypto industry is more diverse than it has ever been, but the incentives are different now. Decentralization is no longer the priority, scalability is, which means that projects don't even bother to act as a decentralized incentive anymore. They just want the economical numbers on their side.

It's going to take some time for enough people to figure it out but eventually they will and that is for most things 'blockchain' is a pointless pain up the arse.

The only thing that actually justifies the hassle is decentralisation and virtually nothing other than bitcoin and a handful of others actually is. What remains will be some clunky code best abandoned followed by a return to databases.

Good points, not to mention also that the value behind the bitcoin ecosystem is what helps to keep everything safe.  Without the value there to secure the chain, none of these other coins will last.  (Besides the fact that few offer anything additional of value.)

[Yurkov]

That would be perfect, i think that it could happen in future but we will need to wait some more months or years, bitcoin could be first in every step of economy in most of the countries in few next years.

[Argoo]

How can bitcoin become the main world currency for making payments with such high volatility? This is absolutely unrealistic. At the international level, I only heard of one trade deal last December between Russia and Turkey. I think that then one of these countries lost. It seems that it was Turkey as the buyer of the goods. This country, by the standards of bitcoin prices this year, overpaid Russia three times more. I think that after that they will refuse from transactions in the crypto currency.

[deisik]

Bitcoin Will Be World's 'Single Currency' Says Twitter CEO

Jack Dorsey, chief executive of Twitter and payment company Square, has spoken of his strong belief in the future potential of bitcoin.

In an interview with The Times published Wednesday, Dorsey, himself a noted bitcoin investor, said he believes the cryptocurrency will take over the U.S. dollar's dominant place in world finance and become the primary global currency for payments.

Suggesting the shift could happen in 10 years or perhaps less, the entrepreneur said:

"The world ultimately will have a single currency, the internet will have a single currency. I personally believe that it will be bitcoin."

I don't think it will be Bitcoin itself

As it is not very useful overall as a universal means of payment, I mean on the highest possible scale. And one of its major problems lies with the fact that its transactions are irreversible, so a fat finger may ruin a whole corporation in just one click. The problem can be mitigated a little by using Bitcoin notes, where no actual bitcoins get moved around pretty much in the same way as gold was and still is used for final settlements between countries (e.g. like the late USSR had been buying wheat for gold in Canada in 1970's). Further, why would any corporation like Apple or IBM rely on a bunch of rogue and crooked miners who are quite unpredictable in their behavior? If it ever comes to that, I'd rather think of a corporate coin or a bank coin if there is no more trust in the US dollar but not until then

[nightfury]

That's the typical scenario in the future if bitcoin and crypto will be fully adopted by people as an alternative payment for goods and services being  rendered globally. Moreover, the realization of a cashless society can make this topic of the OP as a common thing because everypeople are already using digital currencies.

[Carlton Banks]

But also, I do think Patrick Byrne was onto something with his vision of security tokenization. We might be annoyed by all the scams and vaporware emerging from the ICO scene, but tokenized securities built on decentralized blockchains do break down barriers for investment, fundraising and securities trading. With the drop in hype we've seen, there's naturally a lull in ICO activity, but I think there will be a lot of renewed interest in that space over time.

Yep. Any system that is:

• Strictly information based
• Token based
• Subject to fraud

is a good fit for blockchain. The facepalm media stories come from using blockchains to verify physical items in the real world, or something digital that's consumed in analogue form at the endpoint (i.e. music and films). If someone can just rearrange some barcode stickers on your infallible blockchain based supply chain tracking system, then you've achieved zero increase in the validity of your tracking data.


Re: World's "Single Currency"

Bitcoin already is a worldwide single currency, it's accepted almost everywhere. It's not the dominant currency anywhere, but it's a worldwide currency nonetheless.

[KyleKams]

can you please explain more? why did u think that it would be the world's single currency?