Early adoption stage

[Joe200]

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations , the first 2.5% of adopters are "innovators" and the next 13.5% are "early adopters".

According to this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=316297.0 , 2 million people are holding BTC.

The big uncertainty is how many people will hold BTC at "full adoption". The world population is 7 billion people. If, at "full adoption", 0.1% have BTC, that's 7 million people. 7 million * 16% = 1.1 million, which means we are already past the "early adopters" stage.

However, if at "full adoption", 0.2% will have BTC, that's 14 million people. 14 million * 16% = 2.2 million, meaning we are near the end of the "early adopters" stage.

All of these numbers are guesstimates, but I think they give you a general sense of where we are. I personally think we are near the end of "early adopters". Maybe the upcoming bubble will be the end.

I might have been too conservative about full adoption. According to http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/hardware/Smartphone-user-base-to-hit-1-75bn-in-2014-eMarketer/articleshow/29051185.cms , there are 1.75 billion smartphone users. In some sense, BTC is a comparable technology -- so let's say full adoption is actually 1.75 billion people.

If that's the case, the threshold for innovators (forget early adopters, we're talking innovators) is 44 million! With only 2 million users -- holy crap! -- are we still at the beginning of the innovators stage? Anyone?

[nakaone]

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations , the first 2.5% of adopters are "innovators" and the next 13.5% are "early adopters".

According to this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=316297.0 , 2 million people are holding BTC.

The big uncertainty is how many people will hold BTC at "full adoption". The world population is 7 billion people. If, at "full adoption", 0.1% have BTC, that's 7 million people. 7 million * 16% = 1.1 million, which means we are already past the "early adopters" stage.

However, if at "full adoption", 0.2% will have BTC, that's 14 million people. 14 million * 16% = 2.2 million, meaning we are near the end of the "early adopters" stage.

All of these numbers are guesstimates, but I think they give you a general sense of where we are. I personally think we are near the end of "early adopters". Maybe the upcoming bubble will be the end.

I might have been too conservative about full adoption. According to http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/hardware/Smartphone-user-base-to-hit-1-75bn-in-2014-eMarketer/articleshow/29051185.cms , there are 1.75 billion smartphone users. In some sense, BTC is a comparable technology -- so let's say full adoption is actually 1.75 billion people.

If that's the case, the threshold for innovators (forget early adopters, we're talking innovators) is 44 million! With only 2 million users -- holy crap! -- are we still at the beginning of the innovators stage? Anyone?

everyone using the software; seeing how the "big" businesses in the btc ecosystem are run; where bitcoin can be used; and has any hint of the potential of this technology and the market size of money markets, sees at which stage of adoption this project is

[Bonam]

everyone using the software; seeing how the "big" businesses in the btc ecosystem are run; where bitcoin can be used; and has any hint of the potential of this technology and the market size of money markets, sees at which stage of adoption this project is

In other words, yes, we're still early in the early adoption phase. Assuming that bitcoin really succeeds (which is by no means guaranteed), the bitcoin economy has room to grow thousands of times bigger and more developed than it is today.

[greenlion]

This whole ecosystem might in the end turn out more like Linux adoption than say smartphone adoption.

The ultimate ubiquitous use-case for Bitcoin might end up being the underlying infrastructure of mainstream financial transactions, where consumers interact in exactly the same way as before through existing firms that convert over.

Much the same as how Linux never really caught on for desktop use but completely changed the world on the backend.

[600watt]

This whole ecosystem might in the end turn out more like Linux adoption than say smartphone adoption.

The ultimate ubiquitous use-case for Bitcoin might end up being the underlying infrastructure of mainstream financial transactions, where consumers interact in exactly the same way as before through existing firms that convert over.

Much the same as how Linux never really caught on for desktop use but completely changed the world on the backend.

good point. difference is though that those were never traded on exchanges:

[nakaone]

This whole ecosystem might in the end turn out more like Linux adoption than say smartphone adoption.

The ultimate ubiquitous use-case for Bitcoin might end up being the underlying infrastructure of mainstream financial transactions, where consumers interact in exactly the same way as before through existing firms that convert over.

Much the same as how Linux never really caught on for desktop use but completely changed the world on the backend.

good point. difference is though that those were never traded on exchanges:

and that software is not scarce

but i thought about that case too - maybe to put in a bigger picture cryptocurrency/cryptofinance is in early stages.

[greenlion]

The scarcity or non-scarcity of software is not the point of the comparison at all.

The point is the nature of the network effects involved in adopting it. The fact that "Bitcoin" exists as a token that has market-based price discovery is incidental to the comparison.

The point of the Linux comparison is that there are viable use cases for mass adoption that do not involve masses of people directly interacting with Bitcoin in any noticable way.

Maybe a more obvious example of this scenario is voice-over-IP telephony. Basically 100% of telephone service is over IP on the backend now. But the public-facing interface is still a phone. Someone who still has regular copper pots service does not have to actually know anything about the nuances of how their phone calls are routed via IP in the background. Bitcoin could turn out the same way where the direct experience of users is through financial instruments and interfaces that resemble what they already do without having to directly interact with the Bitcoin network itself in any significant way.

[Ibian]

The scarcity or non-scarcity of software is not the point of the comparison at all.

The point is the nature of the network effects involved in adopting it. The fact that "Bitcoin" exists as a token that has market-based price discovery is incidental to the comparison.

The point of the Linux comparison is that there are viable use cases for mass adoption that do not involve masses of people directly interacting with Bitcoin in any noticable way.

Maybe a more obvious example of this scenario is voice-over-IP telephony. Basically 100% of telephone service is over IP on the backend now. But the public-facing interface is still a phone. Someone who still has regular copper pots service does not have to actually know anything about the nuances of how their phone calls are routed via IP in the background. Bitcoin could turn out the same way where the direct experience of users is through financial instruments and interfaces that resemble what they already do without having to directly interact with the Bitcoin network itself in any significant way.

Doesn't matter if muggles know they are using bitcoin or not, what matters is how much it is used. If you owned a millionth of all the copper in the world, you would be insanely rich. Not from people buying copper in its raw form, but from all the computers and phones and dishwashers people use. I get where you were going with the linux thing, but nobody makes money if I download a copy of Ubuntu.

[greenlion]

The scarcity or non-scarcity of software is not the point of the comparison at all.

The point is the nature of the network effects involved in adopting it. The fact that "Bitcoin" exists as a token that has market-based price discovery is incidental to the comparison.

The point of the Linux comparison is that there are viable use cases for mass adoption that do not involve masses of people directly interacting with Bitcoin in any noticable way.

Maybe a more obvious example of this scenario is voice-over-IP telephony. Basically 100% of telephone service is over IP on the backend now. But the public-facing interface is still a phone. Someone who still has regular copper pots service does not have to actually know anything about the nuances of how their phone calls are routed via IP in the background. Bitcoin could turn out the same way where the direct experience of users is through financial instruments and interfaces that resemble what they already do without having to directly interact with the Bitcoin network itself in any significant way.

Doesn't matter if muggles know they are using bitcoin or not, what matters is how much it is used. If you owned a millionth of all the copper in the world, you would be insanely rich. Not from people buying copper in its raw form, but from all the computers and phones and dishwashers people use. I get where you were going with the linux thing, but nobody makes money if I download a copy of Ubuntu.

This pervasive obsession I'm seeing with Linux adoption not directly increasing some kind of market cap is pedantic about a distinction that is irrelevant to the observation being made.

[Ibian]

The scarcity or non-scarcity of software is not the point of the comparison at all.

The point is the nature of the network effects involved in adopting it. The fact that "Bitcoin" exists as a token that has market-based price discovery is incidental to the comparison.

The point of the Linux comparison is that there are viable use cases for mass adoption that do not involve masses of people directly interacting with Bitcoin in any noticable way.

Maybe a more obvious example of this scenario is voice-over-IP telephony. Basically 100% of telephone service is over IP on the backend now. But the public-facing interface is still a phone. Someone who still has regular copper pots service does not have to actually know anything about the nuances of how their phone calls are routed via IP in the background. Bitcoin could turn out the same way where the direct experience of users is through financial instruments and interfaces that resemble what they already do without having to directly interact with the Bitcoin network itself in any significant way.

Doesn't matter if muggles know they are using bitcoin or not, what matters is how much it is used. If you owned a millionth of all the copper in the world, you would be insanely rich. Not from people buying copper in its raw form, but from all the computers and phones and dishwashers people use. I get where you were going with the linux thing, but nobody makes money if I download a copy of Ubuntu.

This pervasive obsession I'm seeing with Linux adoption not directly increasing some kind of market cap is pedantic about a distinction that is irrelevant to the observation being made.

It makes for a bad comparison s'all.