I watched that clip from letterman where he interviewed Bill Gates and everyone laughed at his visions of the Internet. Well the difference with Bitcoin is that since it's not centralised and therefore can't be controlled by the goverment (neither directly or through companies), leading it to the masses will be much more difficult.
when bill gates done the letterman interview, the internet was very centralised. AOL owned the majority stake.. it was not until the internet became less centralised with other companies popping up as ISP's did the internet truly expand beyond belief.
In my country, in fact at my very own bank, news stories have been published that people have lost access to their bank accounts due to BTC withdrawals. This is a kind of barrier that might be rather difficult to push through and try to get the rest of society to embrace. Aren't we basically saying here that in order to win over the banks we'll have to make BTC so big that they can't ignore it (or rather, their businesses will die if this happens...like in an revolution against the system)? Considering how much we rely on banks today I'd say it's an extremely heavy resistance we're facing.
when people realise that they can hold wealth and operate without a bank account (bitcoins true purpose) then those smart people will adopt bitcoin. it wont be until a few years before general public are ready for bitcoin.. we are still in the innovation stage after all.. so relax.
And on the same note, it BTC goes up to $10,000 tomorow would you still hold? IF you'd sell I'd argue this only strengthens the theory that we're in for one hell of an upphill battle. I mean even if we, the people on this forum who generally seems to be extremely anti-banks, praise anonymity and so forth would cash out.
anyone looking at the bitcoin price more then once a day/week are not the anti-bank population. the ones that even care about a $10k bitcoin are the ones that are only in bitcoin for a get fiat rich scheme.. and to be honest. ill be glad to see them go.
I find it very unlikely to wake up one day, turn on the TV (or something like it) and hear the mainstream media praising Bitcoin.
Why? Because:
1. Mainstream media is centralised (=can be controlled by the government). Why would for example USA ever wish to push BTC (which they can't control) before the dollar? IMO we'd need a fully decentralised mass media for this to happen. Meaning if you sit down and talk with your family at the end of the day, and everyone are talking about the same big news, this news would have been delivered by decentralised (but still trustworthy) sources. This is of course already happening a bit, people hear about things on Twitter etc but then again those are privately owned companies driving this movement of alt news sources.
media not positive about bitcoin? are you sure???
http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2013/12/10/ron-paul-bitcoin-currency-dollar-fed.cnnmoney/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqN6n9_xVgwhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11138581/Bitcoin-will-become-the-new-gold.htmlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/11138905/Bill-Gates-Bitcoin-is-exciting-because-it-is-cheap.htmlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28816975plus hundreds more..
2. Mainstream media only has room for simple "truths" that are easy to digest without too much thinking. BTC is not simple but quite nuanced and gray. It's neither "good or evil". Compare this to say computers or FB which almost everyone would say are fantastic inventions.
when talking about computers no one gos into details to explain what gigaherts, ram, HDD, quad-core truly means
when talking about money no one talks about the cotton paper or the ISO numbers of the inks or the fabrication methods
And whenever something bad/illegal happens on say FB it can be tracked down, removed etc. This way the service itself (which took action) is not to blame but the actual user who did it. But with BTC it's a bit different because we can't single out users like that as easily.
trendon shavers - in court
mark kerpeles - in court
ross ulbricht - in court
charlie shrem, btcking - in court
the other heists like the bitcoinica, intersango.. well we all know its amir taaki.
now tell me how many bankers have been pt in court if bank note fraud is such easier to audit???
If an exchange is hacked then you'll read "Bitcoin Hacked!". I believe this phenomenon isn't only tied with ignorance but also the fact that the BTC service can in fact be misused with zero consequence. Meaning it's Bitcoin's fault...Bitcoin was hacked. See the simple logic going on here? No one's responsible.
no one is respobsible for gold thefts either.. for far too long people have been reliant on banks.. but how often have banks forclosed on people, how often have banks closed accounts. how often have credit cards been declined..
How could this issue be solved? To expand on this, Bitcoin can as we all know be used to do "bad" things. Yes so can fiat but remember it is the Internet we're talking about as well and tor networks are (at least currently) more tangible and easier to try to hunt down than say two people meeting up in a back alley somewhere. The Internet also allows people to do illegal things on a much bigger and global scale than ever before. It's hard to see how these facts could be ignored by the mass media. But again, perhaps if everything is completely decentralised it'd work. An alternative "twist" to this would be to say well this issue of trust, usabillity, responsibility (if a user is stupid/hack occurs) can be solved by letting services like say bitpay handle all mainstream transactions. But...then we're going back to cecentralisation aren't we? People say don't use Online wallets which is out of your control but IF BTC can go mainstream aren't most people going to use this exact method of storing their value? Which would go completely against the concepts of not needing a third party to overlook everything.
its already happening now, that normal DUMB users are using webwallets for small convenient daily spend amounts.. even some of the big smart players are too. but then keeping the long hoard stuff backed up offline. that is going to be the nature of bitcoin . just like the nature of all currencies..
to have a little bit of junk change in your pocket to spend today, but secure your main savings separately. so relax its happening
Summary:
I believe Bitcoin might be too smart and disruptive of a technology for it's own good. Or at least to be able to be digested by the mainstream.
I'm starting to think the future of BTC might still be "underground" but still successful, like in poker/gambling sites, adult content or other services where anonymity is naturally sought after. Disagree? Why?
bitcoin is not smart or too disruptive.. its just code. it has no voice.. what you have to realise is that we are still in the innovator stage where a high percentage of users are geeks trying to show off. thus the limited PR that gets sent out, is usually spun out with all the scientific lingo..
when normal people start adopting bitcoin and the early main adopter phase begins, you will see less talk about the technical aspects and more about the simple 'features and benefits' just like no one talks about how many bolts and welding spots it took to put a car together, they just tell customers about the leather seats and top speed.
