Is there any hope for bitcoin? Possible solutions?

[NotLambchop]

...
Right now, people is panic selling just because they don't didn't understand what they were buying

FTFY.

They have "invested" in a currency which is inflating @ 10%/yr, while losing more than half of its price during 2014.  Most people invest to make money, not lose it

Me too got involved in btc to get " easy"  money, I buyed @ 1000 and i'm taking a (relatively) huge loss as now.

But later i understood that btc should be not about making " easy"  fiat: it's a p2p distributed currency, not a commodity. Give time to the people to understand the implications of such technology...

As a currency, it's a solution to a problem which doesn't exist (or rather exists in the mind of a few paranoiac  libers).

It is a downgrade from current money,
with absurd confirm times and cludgy solutions to avoid them,
more complicated to use,
riskier for buyers vs. credit card and other payment processors,
rife with scam and fraud, without an issuing body to offer recourse/protection/body of law/enforcement of said law,
etc., etc.

Why should anyone be interested?  Sure, once it was a way to avoid taxation, launder money, and buy/sell dope.  Unfortunately, the loopholes it once availed are vanishing, making it far less attractive to those on the fringes of law.

Bitcoin is fascinating, it was a marvel in its day, I will forever be grateful to it for the education and the $$, but I'm afraid it's getting late.
Blockchain technology in different forms may take off, but that's a different topic.

[1714904498]

1714904498

[1714904498]

1714904498

[1714904498]

1714904498

[1714904498]

1714904498

[erre]

As a currency, it's a solution to a problem which doesn't exist (or rather exists in the mind of a few paranoiac  libers).

It is a downgrade from current money,
with absurd confirm times and cludgy solutions to avoid them,
more complicated to use,
riskier for buyers vs. credit card and other payment processors,
rife with scam and fraud, without an issuing body to offer recourse/protection/body of law/enforcement of said law,
etc., etc.

Why should anyone be interested?  Sure, once it was a way to avoid taxation, launder money, and buy/sell dope.  Unfortunately, the loopholes it once availed are vanishing, making it far less attractive to those on the fringes of law.

Bitcoin is fascinating, it was a marvel in its day, I will forever be grateful to it for the education and the $$, but I'm afraid it's getting late.
Blockchain technology in different forms may take off, but that's a different topic.

Nobody knows what bicoin could become in the future... development is still in progress. Sure it needs to be tweaked, but the idea is great.

[exocytosis]

No hope for Bitcoin. It's a failed currency, a failed payment system.

Credit cards does everything Bitcoin does -- only a lot faster, cheaper, safer and more user-friendly. The average Jane and Joe have no need for Bitcoin. That's why the price continues falling every day.

[erre]

Bitcoin is not a way to transfer currency.

[jsmit332]

This poses another question, if bitcoin fails what happens to the altcoins?

[vlc]

I know many of you that remember when it was nearly $1200 are not so bullish any more.... but really, if you look at the whole history of the price, we are in a bear-leg of a clear bull market.  At the end of April 2013 (when price was about $85) a very strong move began that peaked at the end of November 2013.  We are now testing the beginning of that move and have retraced about 80% from the peak.  It will be no surprise if it drops to about $200 from here. Then we'll see if it needs to go all the way to $85 before turning up again.  In the mean time, the technology is maturing well, the platform is universally seen as having great potential, those who thought they might have missed a great opportunity have another chance to get in on a technology trend not by luck ( like the first wave ) but with a strategy to ride the big wave that could be on its way now.

[bajlox]

Solution will occur soon.
Is price going up solution or demand of BTC

Solution is to wait.

[vigsun]

are there any forlornness for bitcoin?

[Roy Badami]

OP why don't you start thinking for yourself. What is Bitcoin worth to you?

In my opinion Bitcoin is like mobile phones. It will take some years to develop the infrastructure and get people to use it.

We are here

No. That's a Nokia 3310, and the mobile market was already enormous by the time that model was launched. Hundreds of millions of people owned mobile phones back then. Bitcoin is a whopping six years old now, and has only managed to attract a couple of hundred thousand people -- mostly nerds, libertarians, cultists, bulltards, scammers and criminals. The Average Joe immediately saw utility in mobile phones, and those same Joes have rejected Bitcoin, since Bitcoin has zero utility compared to things like fiat, gold and credit cards.
Bitcoin adoption is falling, a fact proven by the steadily declining price. It's just a simple matter of supply and demand. Nothing more.

I'm always surprised by people who think that six years is a long time in the timeline of a technology.  Motorola and Bell launched the first commercial radio telephone service in 1946.  Some interesting insight into the adoption of the early services can be found in the fact the first British radio telephone service was launched in Manchester by the General Post Office in 1959 and after four years it had just 86 users.

But I'll be generous, and not count these early technologies.  I won't even count from the first cellular system (launched in Japan in 1979).  I'll be really generous and start counting from 1991, the year of the first digital cellular networks - even though by this point mobile phones had been widely available in most Western countries for quite a number of years.  Fast forward six years from 1991 and that would take us to 1997, which is still three years before the pictured phone was launched.

Let's think back to 1997.  In 1997 mobile phones were just starting to get significant mainstream adoption in some geographic areas, but private use was still hampered in North America by the relatively high airtime charges for incoming calls (which meant most people tended to leave them switched off, and only use them for emergencies).  Phones were still used mainly for making and receiving voice calls, although texting was starting to gain popularity in areas where it was available.  Texting, though, was still largely limited to GSM networks - and in countries outside GSM-land texting was often limited to only communicating with people on the same network (where it was available at all).

GPRS wasn't widespread - data back then was generally CSD, which was basically dial-up Internet.  But even if you could afford the per-minute charges for Internet access, there's not much you could do with it except tether a laptop using a special serial cable (which was challenging enough to set up that it would have been limited to geeks and to professionals with IT departments to set it up for them).  There wasn't much else you could do with your network access - not only did mobile phones not have web browsers back then but we'd have to wait another year before we even had phones with WAP browsers (remember WAP?).

Possibly the first forerunner to the modern smartphone could be said to be the Nokia Communicator.  The first model, the positively huge Nokia 9000 (pictured left) had just launched the previous year in 1996.  This was again clearly the preserve of geeks, early adopters and IT professionals



It would be another ten years before the first iPhone would be launch, heralding the start of the modern smartphone era - a full 16 years after modern digital cellular services first launched, and a full 61 after the first ever commercial mobile phone service.  I know we're all impatient to see how Bitcoin will develop, but six years is not a long time.

roy

[Roy Badami]

The Average Joe immediately saw utility in mobile phones

BTW as an early adopter who lived through some of those early mobile technology years I can tell you that the average person did not see the utility in mobile phones back in 1992 when I bought my first (analogue) mobile phone.  They were perceived as expensive to buy, expensive to use, battery life was poor, and most people frankly couldn't see the point.  In fact, most people back then saw mobile phones as the preserve of high earning bankers - and of drug dealers.

[ravenjt]

The Average Joe immediately saw utility in mobile phones

BTW as an early adopter who lived through some of those early mobile technology years I can tell you that the average person did not see the utility in mobile phones back in 1992 when I bought my first (analogue) mobile phone.  They were perceived as expensive to buy, expensive to use, battery life was poor, and most people frankly couldn't see the point.  In fact, most people back then saw mobile phones as the preserve of high earning bankers - and of drug dealers.

That's not my recollection of 1992. Everyone saw the benefits of mobile phones, it's just that they couldn't afford them at that time. I certainly coveted my friend's mobile in 1992. Mobiles have spread around the world as their utility is so obvious.

[Thylacine]

... battery life was poor...

Until it peaked in the early 2000's at around a week or more standby for my old Nokia brick. Now it's like, you can't get a cold drink at the airport because all the vending machines are unplugged with eight people crammed into the powerpoints.

[Roy Badami]

The Average Joe immediately saw utility in mobile phones

BTW as an early adopter who lived through some of those early mobile technology years I can tell you that the average person did not see the utility in mobile phones back in 1992 when I bought my first (analogue) mobile phone.  They were perceived as expensive to buy, expensive to use, battery life was poor, and most people frankly couldn't see the point.  In fact, most people back then saw mobile phones as the preserve of high earning bankers - and of drug dealers.

That's not my recollection of 1992. Everyone saw the benefits of mobile phones, it's just that they couldn't afford them at that time. I certainly coveted my friend's mobile in 1992. Mobiles have spread around the world as their utility is so obvious.

People didn't perceive them as having sufficient utility to justify the expense.  And the reality is that by 1992 they were starting to become affordable - they just weren't perceived as such.   I think my first phone has actually nearly free on a contract that cost me something like £30 a month, which is pretty much in the same ballpark as what many people pay today.

It's not that phones have got a lot cheaper, but that people's perception of those costs, and of the utility, has changed enourmously.

roy

[smalltimer]

This poses another question, if bitcoin fails what happens to the altcoins?

99% of them will fail with it/suffer in price greatly, the less than 1% that can compete with bitcoin and provides the solution to why it failed is going to replace it.
Bitcoin failing doesn't mean crypto is over. It just means an altcoin with lower inflation takes its place.
(this is true if you think bitcoin fails because of high inflation. If you thihnk it failes because of other faults you just buy the altcoin that solves the other problem)

If bitcoin fails it will do so because of a reason and there will be more than one altcoin that provide the solution to the problem. Those clean/fair altcoins which can provide the technical solution to the problem are the ones taking over.

Evolution, baby

[Omikifuse]

the first step in the solution willbe patience and don't want things solved overyear

Other stuff will find their way sooner or later

[21coin]

first of all we should be patient and trust in bitcoin
its currency of future
it is growing and we should look into its growth not its price

[NotLambchop]

first of all we should be patient and trust in bitcoin
its currency of future
it is growing and we should look into its growth not its price

[Tstar]

yes
a stable growth is good for future of bitcoin
only price rise up is not enough

[jsmit332]

yes
a stable growth is good for future of bitcoin
only price rise up is not enough

I think we just need a mass number of people to take the plunge and use bitcoin, rather than just 1 at a time.

[riiiiising]

Urges OP to think for himself, then proceeds to parrot the same old, "bitcoin is like unrelated, successful technology x, therefore, bitcoin will also succeed wildly" logical fallacy.