What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation

[seattlecyclone]

We're talking about a tool designed, for no other reason, than to break the law. Is it useful in cases where it's handy to break the law? Sure. Does it—by design—also allow for massive perpetration of fraud and scams? You bet.

That's just ridiculous. Bitcoin was developed to address the problem of central banks issuing infinite fiat money. There is zero evidence to suggest it was developed by criminals solely for criminal purposes.

That's all well and good, but the fact remains that more than a decade after its invention Bitcoin is less useful for most legitimate transactions than fiat currencies. Its design is well-suited to facilitating illegitimate transactions though.

[LateStarter]

Yep.  I thought the author summed it up pretty well:

If nothing’s wrong with your country’s financial or political system, then you don’t need crypto. If you use crypto anyway, it will be worse than your regular financial system, because it’s trading off many things you need (efficiency, speed, safety, the good kinds of regulation) for something you don’t need (avoiding the bad kinds of regulation)...

...Over the past ten years, crypto has advanced. In 2010, it was probably 100x worse than the regular financial system. Now it’s maybe only 10x worse.

Agreed.   Most people don't need crypto and it is worse than the money you are already using.  So there's not much of a use case there.

Most people ? However you view it, a very large number of people are poorly served by existing financial and political systems.


2021 Democracy_Index
Type of regime         Countries     World population (%)
Full democracies               21 (13%)        6%
Flawed democracies          53 (32%)       39%
Hybrid regimes                 34 (20%)       17%
Authoritarian regimes        59 (35%)       37%


"A global comparison by Global Finance (2021) saw that in the Middle East and Africa 50% of the population is financially excluded, with South and Central America nearing 38%, Eastern Europe at 33% and Asia Pacific at 24%."


https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/corruption-index

Cool stats.

Now relate it to bitcoin and crypto in general cause I suspect....  The chart is something like this (Yes I am making this up cause I doubt there are readily available statistics on this):


Type of regime         Countries     World population (%)      Crypto Avaliable Access (%)
Full democracies               21 (13%)            6%                                       95%
Flawed democracies          53 (32%)           39%                                      85%
Hybrid regimes                 34 (20%)           17%                                      55%
Authoritarian regimes        59 (35%)           37%                                      >1%

I doubt your average North Korean even knows what BTC is, let alone anyone who is not already in the privileged few in most of these regimes that are Authoritarian or worse.     Just cause you can say, "Well it a way to go around those regimes" doesn't mean that it can actually happen.

I very confidently predict that:
Access to mobile phones and internet will get more widespread.
Knowledge of Bitcoin will get more widespread.
Bitcoin/Lightning wallets and platforms will get easier, better and more available, and thus more appealing and useful.

Some people in these nations are using Bitcoin/Lightning now. Availability, knowledge and functionality are all increasing. The prospects look positive to me.

Yeah, NK probably has further to go than most, but would you bet against knowledge and availability rising there - via Starlink, etc. ?

[LateStarter]

We're talking about a tool designed, for no other reason, than to break the law. Is it useful in cases where it's handy to break the law? Sure. Does it—by design—also allow for massive perpetration of fraud and scams? You bet.

That's just ridiculous. Bitcoin was developed to address the problem of central banks issuing infinite fiat money. There is zero evidence to suggest it was developed by criminals solely for criminal purposes.

That's all well and good, but the fact remains that more than a decade after its invention Bitcoin is less useful for most legitimate transactions than fiat currencies. Its design is well-suited to facilitating illegitimate transactions though.

Yes, it has been more than a decade since a little group of cypher-punk nerds launched an entirely new and radically different money system that challenges 100's of years of history and $trillions of self-interested resistance to change. Bitcoin's doing pretty well all things considered, but there's a long way to go. Look at the progress in the past decade, and extend that forward another decade. Interesting times.

As noted previously, criminals take advantage of every technology that gives them an edge.
Also, note that criminals tend to be early-adopters. Armed With ChatGPT, Cybercriminals Build Malware And Plot Fake Girl Bots

[MustacheAndaHalf]

... the fact remains that more than a decade after its invention Bitcoin is less useful for most legitimate transactions than fiat currencies. ...

Yes, it has been more than a decade since a little group of cypher-punk nerds launched an entirely new and radically different money system that challenges 100's of years of history and $trillions of self-interested resistance to change. Bitcoin's doing pretty well all things considered, but there's a long way to go. Look at the progress in the past decade, and extend that forward another decade.
...

When did mainstream awareness of Bitcoin start?  My approach tracks each time its market cap rose 10x.  The data from this link [1] goes back to 2013, the year Greyscale Bitcoin Trust was created, when Bitcoin had a $1 billion market cap (which is the number of BTC that exist times their price in USD).  My take is that Bitcoin awareness (mostly hatred) has been around about 5 years.

Oct 2016 : reaches $10 billion
Nov 2017 : reaches $100 billion
2021-2022 : some spiking above $1 trillion

Bitcoin hasn't just made forward progress, though : there's been backsliding and competition.  Before China banned Bitcoin, more than half of Bitcoin was mined in China (thanks to cheaper electricity).  There is a chance China reverses this [2].  Even without the ban, Bitcoin transactions have to go up against AliPay and WeChat, which are already used by 42-54% of those with mobile phones in China [3].  A faster, ubiquities competitor isn't competition I see Bitcoin overtaking.  Between competition and the ban, Bitcoin has lost ground in China.

[1]
https://www.globaldata.com/data-insights/financial-services/bitcoins-market-capitalization-history/
[2]
https://www.crypto-news-flash.com/adoption-or-the-end-china-to-start-to-tax-bitcoin-and-crypto-transactions-report/
[3]
https://www.enterpriseappstoday.com/stats/alipay-statistics.html

[seattlecyclone]

We're talking about a tool designed, for no other reason, than to break the law. Is it useful in cases where it's handy to break the law? Sure. Does it—by design—also allow for massive perpetration of fraud and scams? You bet.

That's just ridiculous. Bitcoin was developed to address the problem of central banks issuing infinite fiat money. There is zero evidence to suggest it was developed by criminals solely for criminal purposes.

That's all well and good, but the fact remains that more than a decade after its invention Bitcoin is less useful for most legitimate transactions than fiat currencies. Its design is well-suited to facilitating illegitimate transactions though.

Yes, it has been more than a decade since a little group of cypher-punk nerds launched an entirely new and radically different money system that challenges 100's of years of history and $trillions of self-interested resistance to change. Bitcoin's doing pretty well all things considered, but there's a long way to go. Look at the progress in the past decade, and extend that forward another decade. Interesting times.

"A long way to go" is an understatement. I can't pay for my groceries or utilities or bus fare or preschool tuition or taxes or anything else in my life with Bitcoin. USD payments are expected for all of these things, and they work well. My donor advised fund will grudgingly accept Bitcoin donations over US$50k in value; anything less isn't worth their time to sort out. I remember back when Bitcoin was much newer I paid for a couple of Humble Bundles with it; seemed kind of novel to trade a virtual currency for virtual media. They've since phased that option out because Bitcoin just isn't as easy to deal with as regular money.

To convince the masses to switch you need to show how the new technology is markedly better: there needs to be a "killer application" allowing someone to do something with the new technology that would have been too difficult with the old. Paying for my groceries is quite easy with USD!

The main thing approaching a "killer app" that Bitcoin has going for it is the difficulty for governments to seize it when you perform a transaction they would rather you didn't make. For licit transactions the system is just set up to make it plenty easy to pay in fiat currency.

[Scandium]

Bitcoin's doing pretty well all things considered, but there's a long way to go. Look at the progress in the past decade, and extend that forward another decade. Interesting times.

What does "doing well" mean for Bitcoin? How is it doing well, or any better than it did in 2009? It's still as slow and expensive to use, with no anonymity or protection. Still deflationary. Still as energy wasteful. You still can't use if for 99% of daily needs, and when you can use it it's more hassle than fiat. For people in the developed world there's no (legit) scenario where BTC is better than the alternative. And actually; for illicit use cash is probably better anyway. So exactly what kind of progress has there been for BTC as a currency?
You can buy bitcoin at regulated exchanges now? But what does that do for it as a currency? More easily acquiring a near-useless currency isn't what I'd call progress.
Yes it has "advanced" as a speculative asset, in that the price has gone up. But that isn't what the point of bitcoin was supposed to be.

[LateStarter]

We're talking about a tool designed, for no other reason, than to break the law. Is it useful in cases where it's handy to break the law? Sure. Does it—by design—also allow for massive perpetration of fraud and scams? You bet.

That's just ridiculous. Bitcoin was developed to address the problem of central banks issuing infinite fiat money. There is zero evidence to suggest it was developed by criminals solely for criminal purposes.

That's all well and good, but the fact remains that more than a decade after its invention Bitcoin is less useful for most legitimate transactions than fiat currencies. Its design is well-suited to facilitating illegitimate transactions though.

Yes, it has been more than a decade since a little group of cypher-punk nerds launched an entirely new and radically different money system that challenges 100's of years of history and $trillions of self-interested resistance to change. Bitcoin's doing pretty well all things considered, but there's a long way to go. Look at the progress in the past decade, and extend that forward another decade. Interesting times.

"A long way to go" is an understatement. I can't pay for my groceries or utilities or bus fare or preschool tuition or taxes or anything else in my life with Bitcoin. USD payments are expected for all of these things, and they work well. My donor advised fund will grudgingly accept Bitcoin donations over US$50k in value; anything less isn't worth their time to sort out. I remember back when Bitcoin was much newer I paid for a couple of Humble Bundles with it; seemed kind of novel to trade a virtual currency for virtual media. They've since phased that option out because Bitcoin just isn't as easy to deal with as regular money.

To convince the masses to switch you need to show how the new technology is markedly better: there needs to be a "killer application" allowing someone to do something with the new technology that would have been too difficult with the old. Paying for my groceries is quite easy with USD!

The main thing approaching a "killer app" that Bitcoin has going for it is the difficulty for governments to seize it when you perform a transaction they would rather you didn't make. For licit transactions the system is just set up to make it plenty easy to pay in fiat currency.

This is just the same "it's no use to me, therefore it's no use to anyone" argument again.

My repeated response is: You're a wealthy westerner with easy access to the strongest currency and most reliable banking services in the world. You don't have a great need/urgency for change.

The world is much bigger than lucky you and your grocer.

[GuitarStv]

We're talking about a tool designed, for no other reason, than to break the law. Is it useful in cases where it's handy to break the law? Sure. Does it—by design—also allow for massive perpetration of fraud and scams? You bet.

That's just ridiculous. Bitcoin was developed to address the problem of central banks issuing infinite fiat money. There is zero evidence to suggest it was developed by criminals solely for criminal purposes.

That's all well and good, but the fact remains that more than a decade after its invention Bitcoin is less useful for most legitimate transactions than fiat currencies. Its design is well-suited to facilitating illegitimate transactions though.

Yes, it has been more than a decade since a little group of cypher-punk nerds launched an entirely new and radically different money system that challenges 100's of years of history and $trillions of self-interested resistance to change. Bitcoin's doing pretty well all things considered, but there's a long way to go. Look at the progress in the past decade, and extend that forward another decade. Interesting times.

"A long way to go" is an understatement. I can't pay for my groceries or utilities or bus fare or preschool tuition or taxes or anything else in my life with Bitcoin. USD payments are expected for all of these things, and they work well. My donor advised fund will grudgingly accept Bitcoin donations over US$50k in value; anything less isn't worth their time to sort out. I remember back when Bitcoin was much newer I paid for a couple of Humble Bundles with it; seemed kind of novel to trade a virtual currency for virtual media. They've since phased that option out because Bitcoin just isn't as easy to deal with as regular money.

To convince the masses to switch you need to show how the new technology is markedly better: there needs to be a "killer application" allowing someone to do something with the new technology that would have been too difficult with the old. Paying for my groceries is quite easy with USD!

The main thing approaching a "killer app" that Bitcoin has going for it is the difficulty for governments to seize it when you perform a transaction they would rather you didn't make. For licit transactions the system is just set up to make it plenty easy to pay in fiat currency.

This is just the same "it's no use to me, therefore it's no use to anyone" argument again.

My repeated response is: You're a wealthy westerner with easy access to the strongest currency and most reliable banking services in the world. You don't have a great need/urgency for change.

The world is much bigger than lucky you and your grocer.

In this great big world, I don't know if it's really all that much better to lose your crypto when the sketchy exchange you're using folds or is hacked vs an oppressive regime stealing your money.  It's still gone in both cases.

Crypto is an area completely rotten with scammers and thieves and the crypto community isn't doing anything appreciable to improve safety.  All while pretending that it's somehow going to be the saviour of every oppressed person in the world.

[seattlecyclone]

We're talking about a tool designed, for no other reason, than to break the law. Is it useful in cases where it's handy to break the law? Sure. Does it—by design—also allow for massive perpetration of fraud and scams? You bet.

That's just ridiculous. Bitcoin was developed to address the problem of central banks issuing infinite fiat money. There is zero evidence to suggest it was developed by criminals solely for criminal purposes.

That's all well and good, but the fact remains that more than a decade after its invention Bitcoin is less useful for most legitimate transactions than fiat currencies. Its design is well-suited to facilitating illegitimate transactions though.

Yes, it has been more than a decade since a little group of cypher-punk nerds launched an entirely new and radically different money system that challenges 100's of years of history and $trillions of self-interested resistance to change. Bitcoin's doing pretty well all things considered, but there's a long way to go. Look at the progress in the past decade, and extend that forward another decade. Interesting times.

"A long way to go" is an understatement. I can't pay for my groceries or utilities or bus fare or preschool tuition or taxes or anything else in my life with Bitcoin. USD payments are expected for all of these things, and they work well. My donor advised fund will grudgingly accept Bitcoin donations over US$50k in value; anything less isn't worth their time to sort out. I remember back when Bitcoin was much newer I paid for a couple of Humble Bundles with it; seemed kind of novel to trade a virtual currency for virtual media. They've since phased that option out because Bitcoin just isn't as easy to deal with as regular money.

To convince the masses to switch you need to show how the new technology is markedly better: there needs to be a "killer application" allowing someone to do something with the new technology that would have been too difficult with the old. Paying for my groceries is quite easy with USD!

The main thing approaching a "killer app" that Bitcoin has going for it is the difficulty for governments to seize it when you perform a transaction they would rather you didn't make. For licit transactions the system is just set up to make it plenty easy to pay in fiat currency.

This is just the same "it's no use to me, therefore it's no use to anyone" argument again.

My repeated response is: You're a wealthy westerner with easy access to the strongest currency and most reliable banking services in the world. You don't have a great need/urgency for change.

The world is much bigger than lucky you and your grocer.

Tell me...in which countries does more than 1% of the population routinely use Bitcoin to purchase food?

[LateStarter]

We're talking about a tool designed, for no other reason, than to break the law. Is it useful in cases where it's handy to break the law? Sure. Does it—by design—also allow for massive perpetration of fraud and scams? You bet.

That's just ridiculous. Bitcoin was developed to address the problem of central banks issuing infinite fiat money. There is zero evidence to suggest it was developed by criminals solely for criminal purposes.

That's all well and good, but the fact remains that more than a decade after its invention Bitcoin is less useful for most legitimate transactions than fiat currencies. Its design is well-suited to facilitating illegitimate transactions though.

Yes, it has been more than a decade since a little group of cypher-punk nerds launched an entirely new and radically different money system that challenges 100's of years of history and $trillions of self-interested resistance to change. Bitcoin's doing pretty well all things considered, but there's a long way to go. Look at the progress in the past decade, and extend that forward another decade. Interesting times.

"A long way to go" is an understatement. I can't pay for my groceries or utilities or bus fare or preschool tuition or taxes or anything else in my life with Bitcoin. USD payments are expected for all of these things, and they work well. My donor advised fund will grudgingly accept Bitcoin donations over US$50k in value; anything less isn't worth their time to sort out. I remember back when Bitcoin was much newer I paid for a couple of Humble Bundles with it; seemed kind of novel to trade a virtual currency for virtual media. They've since phased that option out because Bitcoin just isn't as easy to deal with as regular money.

To convince the masses to switch you need to show how the new technology is markedly better: there needs to be a "killer application" allowing someone to do something with the new technology that would have been too difficult with the old. Paying for my groceries is quite easy with USD!

The main thing approaching a "killer app" that Bitcoin has going for it is the difficulty for governments to seize it when you perform a transaction they would rather you didn't make. For licit transactions the system is just set up to make it plenty easy to pay in fiat currency.

This is just the same "it's no use to me, therefore it's no use to anyone" argument again.

My repeated response is: You're a wealthy westerner with easy access to the strongest currency and most reliable banking services in the world. You don't have a great need/urgency for change.

The world is much bigger than lucky you and your grocer.

In this great big world, I don't know if it's really all that much better to lose your crypto when the sketchy exchange you're using folds or is hacked vs an oppressive regime stealing your money.  It's still gone in both cases.

Crypto is an area completely rotten with scammers and thieves . . .

I mostly agree

. . . and the crypto community isn't doing anything appreciable to improve safety.

The Bitcoin 'community', inasmuch as such a thing exists, is largely promoting "Bitcoin, not crypto" in 2023. There is a very strong "not your keys, not your coin", anti-crypto, anti-crypto-casino-exchanges, anti-VC-quick-profit-ponzi-shitcoin vibe among Bitcoiners, and that message is being pushed out. Also, several prominent Bitcoiners were warning about issues with FTX and Celcius, etc. some time before they blew up.

Unfortunately, and predictably, many people ignore these messages because Bitcoiners are clearly not disinterested parties - they would say all that, wouldn't they.

What would you like to see the honest players doing to clean up the crypto world ? The crooks running the casino-exchanges, launching ponzi-shitcoins, etc. are crooks - they don't care.

All while pretending that it's somehow going to be the saviour of every oppressed person in the world.

If Bitcoin helps them, that's great - I think it will. If it doesn't, they'll presumably keep looking for a better solution.
It seems unlikely that poor and desperate people will waste much time/energy on anything that isn't of immediate and obvious benefit to them.

[LateStarter]

We're talking about a tool designed, for no other reason, than to break the law. Is it useful in cases where it's handy to break the law? Sure. Does it—by design—also allow for massive perpetration of fraud and scams? You bet.

That's just ridiculous. Bitcoin was developed to address the problem of central banks issuing infinite fiat money. There is zero evidence to suggest it was developed by criminals solely for criminal purposes.

That's all well and good, but the fact remains that more than a decade after its invention Bitcoin is less useful for most legitimate transactions than fiat currencies. Its design is well-suited to facilitating illegitimate transactions though.

Yes, it has been more than a decade since a little group of cypher-punk nerds launched an entirely new and radically different money system that challenges 100's of years of history and $trillions of self-interested resistance to change. Bitcoin's doing pretty well all things considered, but there's a long way to go. Look at the progress in the past decade, and extend that forward another decade. Interesting times.

"A long way to go" is an understatement. I can't pay for my groceries or utilities or bus fare or preschool tuition or taxes or anything else in my life with Bitcoin. USD payments are expected for all of these things, and they work well. My donor advised fund will grudgingly accept Bitcoin donations over US$50k in value; anything less isn't worth their time to sort out. I remember back when Bitcoin was much newer I paid for a couple of Humble Bundles with it; seemed kind of novel to trade a virtual currency for virtual media. They've since phased that option out because Bitcoin just isn't as easy to deal with as regular money.

To convince the masses to switch you need to show how the new technology is markedly better: there needs to be a "killer application" allowing someone to do something with the new technology that would have been too difficult with the old. Paying for my groceries is quite easy with USD!

The main thing approaching a "killer app" that Bitcoin has going for it is the difficulty for governments to seize it when you perform a transaction they would rather you didn't make. For licit transactions the system is just set up to make it plenty easy to pay in fiat currency.

This is just the same "it's no use to me, therefore it's no use to anyone" argument again.

My repeated response is: You're a wealthy westerner with easy access to the strongest currency and most reliable banking services in the world. You don't have a great need/urgency for change.

The world is much bigger than lucky you and your grocer.

Tell me...in which countries does more than 1% of the population routinely use Bitcoin to purchase food?

I don't know. Maybe none. Ask me again in 2 years.

I'm not claiming rampant adoption anywhere . .

[Villanelle]

We're talking about a tool designed, for no other reason, than to break the law. Is it useful in cases where it's handy to break the law? Sure. Does it—by design—also allow for massive perpetration of fraud and scams? You bet.

That's just ridiculous. Bitcoin was developed to address the problem of central banks issuing infinite fiat money. There is zero evidence to suggest it was developed by criminals solely for criminal purposes.

That's all well and good, but the fact remains that more than a decade after its invention Bitcoin is less useful for most legitimate transactions than fiat currencies. Its design is well-suited to facilitating illegitimate transactions though.

Yes, it has been more than a decade since a little group of cypher-punk nerds launched an entirely new and radically different money system that challenges 100's of years of history and $trillions of self-interested resistance to change. Bitcoin's doing pretty well all things considered, but there's a long way to go. Look at the progress in the past decade, and extend that forward another decade. Interesting times.

"A long way to go" is an understatement. I can't pay for my groceries or utilities or bus fare or preschool tuition or taxes or anything else in my life with Bitcoin. USD payments are expected for all of these things, and they work well. My donor advised fund will grudgingly accept Bitcoin donations over US$50k in value; anything less isn't worth their time to sort out. I remember back when Bitcoin was much newer I paid for a couple of Humble Bundles with it; seemed kind of novel to trade a virtual currency for virtual media. They've since phased that option out because Bitcoin just isn't as easy to deal with as regular money.

To convince the masses to switch you need to show how the new technology is markedly better: there needs to be a "killer application" allowing someone to do something with the new technology that would have been too difficult with the old. Paying for my groceries is quite easy with USD!

The main thing approaching a "killer app" that Bitcoin has going for it is the difficulty for governments to seize it when you perform a transaction they would rather you didn't make. For licit transactions the system is just set up to make it plenty easy to pay in fiat currency.

This is just the same "it's no use to me, therefore it's no use to anyone" argument again.

My repeated response is: You're a wealthy westerner with easy access to the strongest currency and most reliable banking services in the world. You don't have a great need/urgency for change.

The world is much bigger than lucky you and your grocer.

In this great big world, I don't know if it's really all that much better to lose your crypto when the sketchy exchange you're using folds or is hacked vs an oppressive regime stealing your money.  It's still gone in both cases.

Crypto is an area completely rotten with scammers and thieves . . .

I mostly agree

. . . and the crypto community isn't doing anything appreciable to improve safety.

The Bitcoin 'community', inasmuch as such a thing exists, is largely promoting "Bitcoin, not crypto" in 2023. There is a very strong "not your keys, not your coin", anti-crypto, anti-crypto-casino-exchanges, anti-VC-quick-profit-ponzi-shitcoin vibe among Bitcoiners, and that message is being pushed out. Also, several prominent Bitcoiners were warning about issues with FTX and Celcius, etc. some time before they blew up.

Unfortunately, and predictably, many people ignore these messages because Bitcoiners are clearly not disinterested parties - they would say all that, wouldn't they.

What would you like to see the honest players doing to clean up the crypto world ? The crooks running the casino-exchanges, launching ponzi-shitcoins, etc. are crooks - they don't care.

All while pretending that it's somehow going to be the saviour of every oppressed person in the world.

If Bitcoin helps them, that's great - I think it will. If it doesn't, they'll presumably keep looking for a better solution.
It seems unlikely that poor and desperate people will waste much time/energy on anything that isn't of immediate and obvious benefit to them.

 Because no poor or desperate person every bought lottery tickets or put money on a craps table or joined a MLM? 

[Scandium]

This is just the same "it's no use to me, therefore it's no use to anyone" argument again.

My repeated response is: You're a wealthy westerner with easy access to the strongest currency and most reliable banking services in the world. You don't have a great need/urgency for change.

The world is much bigger than lucky you and your grocer.

well... yes? When it comes to the personal finance decision of "should I get some BTC"; yes I only care about what works for me. I'm glad you at least admit that crypto is pointless for me, and everyone like me. So that would  mean also (I'd bet) every single person on this forum, 99% of reddit etc. Basically all 1.2 billion people living in the developed world. But how many of the crypto-evangelist are "westerners" vs people in the developing world?

On the larger claim of "BTC will help oppressed people"...? When I see the Winkelwoss twins, Jack Dorsey and every cryto-bro suddenly show deep, heartwarming concern for the plight of people of sub-Saharan Afrika, when that just so happens to  also align with their personal financial interest...? My eyes rolled so hard I'm still recovering, and I had to pay 14 Eth to my optometrist (oh wait I can't!).

Anyway, the idea that an unregulated, insecure, scam-ridden, technologically complex, slow (just 10 min to pay for that cab ride), expensive to use (what are gas fees up to now?), payment system is supposed to help people who can't afford shoes is obviously laughably stupid. Anyone who's not loaded up on BTC will see that the best solution is to use the systems we have. Hell, dropping dollar bills from orbit would probably be more efficient. I would think this would be obvious, but most people in the developed world aren't poor because "oppressive government take their money", it's because they have no money. In general, dictators take money from those who have it. So yes, I guess if you're an oligarch in an oppressive regime you do have a use for crypto. Congrats! We have a use case! (of course Putin's goons will just take a steel pipe to your knees until you give up your crypto wallet)

[JAYSLOL]

This is just the same "it's no use to me, therefore it's no use to anyone" argument again.

My repeated response is: You're a wealthy westerner with easy access to the strongest currency and most reliable banking services in the world. You don't have a great need/urgency for change.

The world is much bigger than lucky you and your grocer.

Anyway, the idea that an unregulated, insecure, scam-ridden, technologically complex, slow (just 10 min to pay for that cab ride), expensive to use (what are gas fees up to now?), payment system is supposed to help people who can't afford shoes is obviously laughably stupid.

All this 100%, and you forgot the kicker, it’s an open source technology that can be easily and cheaply replaced at any time with another coin/token if people so desire

[LateStarter]

We're talking about a tool designed, for no other reason, than to break the law. Is it useful in cases where it's handy to break the law? Sure. Does it—by design—also allow for massive perpetration of fraud and scams? You bet.

That's just ridiculous. Bitcoin was developed to address the problem of central banks issuing infinite fiat money. There is zero evidence to suggest it was developed by criminals solely for criminal purposes.

That's all well and good, but the fact remains that more than a decade after its invention Bitcoin is less useful for most legitimate transactions than fiat currencies. Its design is well-suited to facilitating illegitimate transactions though.

Yes, it has been more than a decade since a little group of cypher-punk nerds launched an entirely new and radically different money system that challenges 100's of years of history and $trillions of self-interested resistance to change. Bitcoin's doing pretty well all things considered, but there's a long way to go. Look at the progress in the past decade, and extend that forward another decade. Interesting times.

"A long way to go" is an understatement. I can't pay for my groceries or utilities or bus fare or preschool tuition or taxes or anything else in my life with Bitcoin. USD payments are expected for all of these things, and they work well. My donor advised fund will grudgingly accept Bitcoin donations over US$50k in value; anything less isn't worth their time to sort out. I remember back when Bitcoin was much newer I paid for a couple of Humble Bundles with it; seemed kind of novel to trade a virtual currency for virtual media. They've since phased that option out because Bitcoin just isn't as easy to deal with as regular money.

To convince the masses to switch you need to show how the new technology is markedly better: there needs to be a "killer application" allowing someone to do something with the new technology that would have been too difficult with the old. Paying for my groceries is quite easy with USD!

The main thing approaching a "killer app" that Bitcoin has going for it is the difficulty for governments to seize it when you perform a transaction they would rather you didn't make. For licit transactions the system is just set up to make it plenty easy to pay in fiat currency.

This is just the same "it's no use to me, therefore it's no use to anyone" argument again.

My repeated response is: You're a wealthy westerner with easy access to the strongest currency and most reliable banking services in the world. You don't have a great need/urgency for change.

The world is much bigger than lucky you and your grocer.

In this great big world, I don't know if it's really all that much better to lose your crypto when the sketchy exchange you're using folds or is hacked vs an oppressive regime stealing your money.  It's still gone in both cases.

Crypto is an area completely rotten with scammers and thieves . . .

I mostly agree

. . . and the crypto community isn't doing anything appreciable to improve safety.

The Bitcoin 'community', inasmuch as such a thing exists, is largely promoting "Bitcoin, not crypto" in 2023. There is a very strong "not your keys, not your coin", anti-crypto, anti-crypto-casino-exchanges, anti-VC-quick-profit-ponzi-shitcoin vibe among Bitcoiners, and that message is being pushed out. Also, several prominent Bitcoiners were warning about issues with FTX and Celcius, etc. some time before they blew up.

Unfortunately, and predictably, many people ignore these messages because Bitcoiners are clearly not disinterested parties - they would say all that, wouldn't they.

What would you like to see the honest players doing to clean up the crypto world ? The crooks running the casino-exchanges, launching ponzi-shitcoins, etc. are crooks - they don't care.

All while pretending that it's somehow going to be the saviour of every oppressed person in the world.

If Bitcoin helps them, that's great - I think it will. If it doesn't, they'll presumably keep looking for a better solution.
It seems unlikely that poor and desperate people will waste much time/energy on anything that isn't of immediate and obvious benefit to them.

 Because no poor or desperate person every bought lottery tickets or put money on a craps table or joined a MLM?

That's a fair point.

[LateStarter]

This is just the same "it's no use to me, therefore it's no use to anyone" argument again.

My repeated response is: You're a wealthy westerner with easy access to the strongest currency and most reliable banking services in the world. You don't have a great need/urgency for change.

The world is much bigger than lucky you and your grocer.

well... yes? When it comes to the personal finance decision of "should I get some BTC"; yes I only care about what works for me. I'm glad you at least admit that crypto is pointless for me, and everyone like me. So that would  mean also (I'd bet) every single person on this forum, 99% of reddit etc. Basically all 1.2 billion people living in the developed world. But how many of the crypto-evangelist are "westerners" vs people in the developing world?

I acknowledged, as things stand, Bitcoin has no great use for you as a currency.
It has possible use as an investment / store of value - depending on your outlook.

On the larger claim of "BTC will help oppressed people"...? When I see the Winkelwoss twins, Jack Dorsey and every cryto-bro suddenly show deep, heartwarming concern for the plight of people of sub-Saharan Afrika, when that just so happens to  also align with their personal financial interest...? My eyes rolled so hard I'm still recovering, and I had to pay 14 Eth to my optometrist (oh wait I can't!).

Anyway, the idea that an unregulated, insecure, scam-ridden, technologically complex, slow (just 10 min to pay for that cab ride), expensive to use (what are gas fees up to now?), payment system is supposed to help people who can't afford shoes is obviously laughably stupid. Anyone who's not loaded up on BTC will see that the best solution is to use the systems we have. Hell, dropping dollar bills from orbit would probably be more efficient. I would think this would be obvious, but most people in the developed world aren't poor because "oppressive government take their money", it's because they have no money. In general, dictators take money from those who have it. So yes, I guess if you're an oligarch in an oppressive regime you do have a use for crypto. Congrats! We have a use case! (of course Putin's goons will just take a steel pipe to your knees until you give up your crypto wallet)

If you don't trust the views of rich white guys, what about those of someone closer to the ground ?

What about this, published just a few hours ago: Bitcoin is Hope for Africa featuring Farida Nabourema

[Scandium]

This is just the same "it's no use to me, therefore it's no use to anyone" argument again.

My repeated response is: You're a wealthy westerner with easy access to the strongest currency and most reliable banking services in the world. You don't have a great need/urgency for change.

The world is much bigger than lucky you and your grocer.

well... yes? When it comes to the personal finance decision of "should I get some BTC"; yes I only care about what works for me. I'm glad you at least admit that crypto is pointless for me, and everyone like me. So that would  mean also (I'd bet) every single person on this forum, 99% of reddit etc. Basically all 1.2 billion people living in the developed world. But how many of the crypto-evangelist are "westerners" vs people in the developing world?

I acknowledged, as things stand, Bitcoin has no great use for you as a currency.
It has possible use as an investment / store of value - depending on your outlook.

On the larger claim of "BTC will help oppressed people"...? When I see the Winkelwoss twins, Jack Dorsey and every cryto-bro suddenly show deep, heartwarming concern for the plight of people of sub-Saharan Afrika, when that just so happens to  also align with their personal financial interest...? My eyes rolled so hard I'm still recovering, and I had to pay 14 Eth to my optometrist (oh wait I can't!).

Anyway, the idea that an unregulated, insecure, scam-ridden, technologically complex, slow (just 10 min to pay for that cab ride), expensive to use (what are gas fees up to now?), payment system is supposed to help people who can't afford shoes is obviously laughably stupid. Anyone who's not loaded up on BTC will see that the best solution is to use the systems we have. Hell, dropping dollar bills from orbit would probably be more efficient. I would think this would be obvious, but most people in the developed world aren't poor because "oppressive government take their money", it's because they have no money. In general, dictators take money from those who have it. So yes, I guess if you're an oligarch in an oppressive regime you do have a use for crypto. Congrats! We have a use case! (of course Putin's goons will just take a steel pipe to your knees until you give up your crypto wallet)

If you don't trust the views of rich white guys, what about those of someone closer to the ground ?

What about this, published just a few hours ago: Bitcoin is Hope for Africa featuring Farida Nabourema

Ok I didn't listen to the whole thing, just skipped through what I thought was the relevant section. But all I heard were cryptobro talking points; decentralized, immutable, belongs to everyone, "stable" (LOL!). Nothing about the practical issues of how a nigerian farmer can set up a wallet and pay $50 gas fees and wait 20 min, to sell his harvest to... someone (?) with a currency that swings 20% in a day and is not accepted by his government?

Can you give us a breakdown on how BTC will help people with no money, and how these practical problems are solved?

[LateStarter]

This is just the same "it's no use to me, therefore it's no use to anyone" argument again.

My repeated response is: You're a wealthy westerner with easy access to the strongest currency and most reliable banking services in the world. You don't have a great need/urgency for change.

The world is much bigger than lucky you and your grocer.

well... yes? When it comes to the personal finance decision of "should I get some BTC"; yes I only care about what works for me. I'm glad you at least admit that crypto is pointless for me, and everyone like me. So that would  mean also (I'd bet) every single person on this forum, 99% of reddit etc. Basically all 1.2 billion people living in the developed world. But how many of the crypto-evangelist are "westerners" vs people in the developing world?

I acknowledged, as things stand, Bitcoin has no great use for you as a currency.
It has possible use as an investment / store of value - depending on your outlook.

On the larger claim of "BTC will help oppressed people"...? When I see the Winkelwoss twins, Jack Dorsey and every cryto-bro suddenly show deep, heartwarming concern for the plight of people of sub-Saharan Afrika, when that just so happens to  also align with their personal financial interest...? My eyes rolled so hard I'm still recovering, and I had to pay 14 Eth to my optometrist (oh wait I can't!).

Anyway, the idea that an unregulated, insecure, scam-ridden, technologically complex, slow (just 10 min to pay for that cab ride), expensive to use (what are gas fees up to now?), payment system is supposed to help people who can't afford shoes is obviously laughably stupid. Anyone who's not loaded up on BTC will see that the best solution is to use the systems we have. Hell, dropping dollar bills from orbit would probably be more efficient. I would think this would be obvious, but most people in the developed world aren't poor because "oppressive government take their money", it's because they have no money. In general, dictators take money from those who have it. So yes, I guess if you're an oligarch in an oppressive regime you do have a use for crypto. Congrats! We have a use case! (of course Putin's goons will just take a steel pipe to your knees until you give up your crypto wallet)

If you don't trust the views of rich white guys, what about those of someone closer to the ground ?

What about this, published just a few hours ago: Bitcoin is Hope for Africa featuring Farida Nabourema

Ok I didn't listen to the whole thing, just skipped through what I thought was the relevant section. But all I heard were cryptobro talking points; decentralized, immutable, belongs to everyone, "stable" (LOL!). Nothing about the practical issues of how a nigerian farmer can set up a wallet and pay $50 gas fees and wait 20 min, to sell his harvest to... someone (?) with a currency that swings 20% in a day and is not accepted by his government?

What were you expecting ? Bitcoin is what Bitcoin is - and those are it's much-discussed features that she believes have value in her country and in much of Africa.

Scoff away, but she seems like a pretty smart lady to me, and my guess is she knows far more about what might help her country/continent than you do, or I do.

Can you give us a breakdown on how BTC will help people with no money, . . .

No, I can't. To my knowledge, nobody has suggested it could help people with NO money.

and how these practical problems are solved?

The "practical problems" of "$50" and "gas fees" and "20 mins" are all complete nonsense. No solution required.
Wallets and volatility are specifically addressed in the video.

[GuitarStv]

This is just the same "it's no use to me, therefore it's no use to anyone" argument again.

My repeated response is: You're a wealthy westerner with easy access to the strongest currency and most reliable banking services in the world. You don't have a great need/urgency for change.

The world is much bigger than lucky you and your grocer.

well... yes? When it comes to the personal finance decision of "should I get some BTC"; yes I only care about what works for me. I'm glad you at least admit that crypto is pointless for me, and everyone like me. So that would  mean also (I'd bet) every single person on this forum, 99% of reddit etc. Basically all 1.2 billion people living in the developed world. But how many of the crypto-evangelist are "westerners" vs people in the developing world?

I acknowledged, as things stand, Bitcoin has no great use for you as a currency.
It has possible use as an investment / store of value - depending on your outlook.

On the larger claim of "BTC will help oppressed people"...? When I see the Winkelwoss twins, Jack Dorsey and every cryto-bro suddenly show deep, heartwarming concern for the plight of people of sub-Saharan Afrika, when that just so happens to  also align with their personal financial interest...? My eyes rolled so hard I'm still recovering, and I had to pay 14 Eth to my optometrist (oh wait I can't!).

Anyway, the idea that an unregulated, insecure, scam-ridden, technologically complex, slow (just 10 min to pay for that cab ride), expensive to use (what are gas fees up to now?), payment system is supposed to help people who can't afford shoes is obviously laughably stupid. Anyone who's not loaded up on BTC will see that the best solution is to use the systems we have. Hell, dropping dollar bills from orbit would probably be more efficient. I would think this would be obvious, but most people in the developed world aren't poor because "oppressive government take their money", it's because they have no money. In general, dictators take money from those who have it. So yes, I guess if you're an oligarch in an oppressive regime you do have a use for crypto. Congrats! We have a use case! (of course Putin's goons will just take a steel pipe to your knees until you give up your crypto wallet)

If you don't trust the views of rich white guys, what about those of someone closer to the ground ?

What about this, published just a few hours ago: Bitcoin is Hope for Africa featuring Farida Nabourema

Ok I didn't listen to the whole thing, just skipped through what I thought was the relevant section. But all I heard were cryptobro talking points; decentralized, immutable, belongs to everyone, "stable" (LOL!). Nothing about the practical issues of how a nigerian farmer can set up a wallet and pay $50 gas fees and wait 20 min, to sell his harvest to... someone (?) with a currency that swings 20% in a day and is not accepted by his government?

What were you expecting ? Bitcoin is what Bitcoin is - and those are it's much-discussed features that she believes have value in her country and in much of Africa.

Scoff away, but she seems like a pretty smart lady to me, and my guess is she knows far more about what might help her country/continent than you do, or I do.

Can you give us a breakdown on how BTC will help people with no money, . . .

No, I can't. To my knowledge, nobody has suggested it could help people with NO money.

and how these practical problems are solved?

The "practical problems" of "$50" and "gas fees" and "20 mins" are all complete nonsense. No solution required.
Wallets and volatility are specifically addressed in the video.

I didn't hear any even a half decent attempt to address the concerns of wallets and volatility in the video.  Mostly the volatility response was that the same volatility and devaluation of African currencies that she's hoping will drive people to bitcoin mean that the volatility of bitcoin doesn't matter.  ???

I did hear some total bullshit though.

"[Bitcoin is] a currency that can be moved easily without creating any extra fees and constraints"

Then she goes on to indicate how there are no conversion fees changing from her currency (franc) to bitcoin because it's "free money, and independent currency, a currency that's not created specifically to control people".

She indicates that 70% of the people in her country do not have bank accounts, and thus would be perfect to convert over to using bitcoin.  But she completely glosses over the little point of exactly how to do this.  How are they going to convert their current cash holdings into bitcoin?  Can't transfer funds from their bank, obviously.  Later there's mention of magical technologies that will allow people without phone or computer access to easily and safely access bitcoin without risk.  I'd like to hear a lot more about that though, since it sounds like bullshit but no further discussion involved that point.  Instead she just says that bitcoin is like internet and electricity.  And we leave it there.

She also doesn't address how the people who move their fortunes over to bitcoin are supposed to pay their taxes.  Or buy groceries.  Or buy anything, since bitcoin isn't commonly accepted anywhere in the country.  I guess the theory is that everyone will instantly switch over nationally?

She also talks about how a huge problem for these African countries is that they can't pay their international debts.  They don't produce anything of value, so can't generate the money needed to pay their loans.  That's what's causing the devaluation of their currencies.  But she just ignores this completely in relation to bitcoin.  How does bitcoin fix these debts?  Well, it doesn't.  So the fundamental problem causing the poorness remains.

She talks about how people in Africa now are buying land and cattle to transfer wealth to their children and hopes that they'll change from doing this to something so much safer and better protected - bitcoin.  But she doesn't even address the theft and fraud so common with bitcoin wallets.

She's super excited about getting Africa into the environmental destruction required to mine bitcoin.  Doesn't seem to be aware the mining bitcoin will end and is not a long term thing.  She also (completely without evidence) says that bitcoin is much better for the environment than all other banking systems.

This goes on and on.



This is one of the most painfully stupid things I've ever sat through.  It's hard to imagine any reasonable person being swayed by this.  Was your post intended as a joke response?

[Telecaster]

Most people ? However you view it, a very large number of people are poorly served by existing financial and political systems.


2021 Democracy_Index
Type of regime         Countries     World population (%)
Full democracies           21 (13%)        6%
Flawed democracies      53 (32%)       39%
Hybrid regimes             34 (20%)       17%
Authoritarian regimes    59 (35%)       37%


"A global comparison by Global Finance (2021) saw that in the Middle East and Africa 50% of the population is financially excluded, with South and Central America nearing 38%, Eastern Europe at 33% and Asia Pacific at 24%."


https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/corruption-index

So large total addressable market for Bitcoin then.   I've used part of this anecdote before, so forgive the repeat but it is relevant here.  In the late 2000s Vodaphone observed their Kenyan customers were send and receiving lots of cell phone minutes, basically using it as a form of currency.   So Vodaphone cooked up a service called M-Pesa where their customers could send and receive actual money, and even get cash at Vodaphone stores and other locations.   It was a big hit and in just a few years M-Pesa had millions of customers and began to spread to other countries.  In 2022, M-Pesa had 52 million customers who made $19 billion in transactions.

Imitators followed and now mobile money is huge in Africa.  There are something like 500 million unique users who made nearly $700 billion in transactions last year, just in Africa.

https://www.statista.com/topics/6770/mobile-money-in-africa/#topicOverview

Clearly, this explosive growth demonstrates there a huge demand to send and receive money on mobile devices outside the traditional banking system.   But we're not seeing this S-type disruption happening with Bitcoin. 

[MustacheAndaHalf]

... you forgot the kicker, it’s an open source technology that can be easily and cheaply replaced at any time with another coin/token if people so desire

Not "if people desire", but if a majority of the blockchain nodes switch, which is by design.  If you create a few computers running your own blockchain, you are one of thousands of tiny coins that are mostly scams.  I hope people ignore that.

If you instead run alternate software and mine BTC, your version of the open source software needs to have the same results as the rest of the blockchain.  If you do something different, the rest of the blockchain will fail to verify your contribution.  You will be wasting electricity just to be ignored by the rest of the blockchain.

[blue_green_sparks]

Bitcoin swings more, but it sure does move with the stock markets. I don't understand the correlation other than the market gives bitcoiners economic forecast perhaps?

[Scandium]

This is just the same "it's no use to me, therefore it's no use to anyone" argument again.

My repeated response is: You're a wealthy westerner with easy access to the strongest currency and most reliable banking services in the world. You don't have a great need/urgency for change.

The world is much bigger than lucky you and your grocer.

well... yes? When it comes to the personal finance decision of "should I get some BTC"; yes I only care about what works for me. I'm glad you at least admit that crypto is pointless for me, and everyone like me. So that would  mean also (I'd bet) every single person on this forum, 99% of reddit etc. Basically all 1.2 billion people living in the developed world. But how many of the crypto-evangelist are "westerners" vs people in the developing world?

I acknowledged, as things stand, Bitcoin has no great use for you as a currency.
It has possible use as an investment / store of value - depending on your outlook.

On the larger claim of "BTC will help oppressed people"...? When I see the Winkelwoss twins, Jack Dorsey and every cryto-bro suddenly show deep, heartwarming concern for the plight of people of sub-Saharan Afrika, when that just so happens to  also align with their personal financial interest...? My eyes rolled so hard I'm still recovering, and I had to pay 14 Eth to my optometrist (oh wait I can't!).

Anyway, the idea that an unregulated, insecure, scam-ridden, technologically complex, slow (just 10 min to pay for that cab ride), expensive to use (what are gas fees up to now?), payment system is supposed to help people who can't afford shoes is obviously laughably stupid. Anyone who's not loaded up on BTC will see that the best solution is to use the systems we have. Hell, dropping dollar bills from orbit would probably be more efficient. I would think this would be obvious, but most people in the developed world aren't poor because "oppressive government take their money", it's because they have no money. In general, dictators take money from those who have it. So yes, I guess if you're an oligarch in an oppressive regime you do have a use for crypto. Congrats! We have a use case! (of course Putin's goons will just take a steel pipe to your knees until you give up your crypto wallet)

If you don't trust the views of rich white guys, what about those of someone closer to the ground ?

What about this, published just a few hours ago: Bitcoin is Hope for Africa featuring Farida Nabourema

Ok I didn't listen to the whole thing, just skipped through what I thought was the relevant section. But all I heard were cryptobro talking points; decentralized, immutable, belongs to everyone, "stable" (LOL!). Nothing about the practical issues of how a nigerian farmer can set up a wallet and pay $50 gas fees and wait 20 min, to sell his harvest to... someone (?) with a currency that swings 20% in a day and is not accepted by his government?

What were you expecting ? Bitcoin is what Bitcoin is - and those are it's much-discussed features that she believes have value in her country and in much of Africa.

Scoff away, but she seems like a pretty smart lady to me, and my guess is she knows far more about what might help her country/continent than you do, or I do.

Can you give us a breakdown on how BTC will help people with no money, . . .

No, I can't. To my knowledge, nobody has suggested it could help people with NO money.

and how these practical problems are solved?

The "practical problems" of "$50" and "gas fees" and "20 mins" are all complete nonsense. No solution required.
Wallets and volatility are specifically addressed in the video.

I didn't hear any even a half decent attempt to address the concerns of wallets and volatility in the video.  Mostly the volatility response was that the same volatility and devaluation of African currencies that she's hoping will drive people to bitcoin mean that the volatility of bitcoin doesn't matter.  ???

I did hear some total bullshit though.

"[Bitcoin is] a currency that can be moved easily without creating any extra fees and constraints"

Then she goes on to indicate how there are no conversion fees changing from her currency (franc) to bitcoin because it's "free money, and independent currency, a currency that's not created specifically to control people".

She indicates that 70% of the people in her country do not have bank accounts, and thus would be perfect to convert over to using bitcoin.  But she completely glosses over the little point of exactly how to do this.  How are they going to convert their current cash holdings into bitcoin?  Can't transfer funds from their bank, obviously.  Later there's mention of magical technologies that will allow people without phone or computer access to easily and safely access bitcoin without risk.  I'd like to hear a lot more about that though, since it sounds like bullshit but no further discussion involved that point.  Instead she just says that bitcoin is like internet and electricity.  And we leave it there.

She also doesn't address how the people who move their fortunes over to bitcoin are supposed to pay their taxes.  Or buy groceries.  Or buy anything, since bitcoin isn't commonly accepted anywhere in the country.  I guess the theory is that everyone will instantly switch over nationally?

She also talks about how a huge problem for these African countries is that they can't pay their international debts.  They don't produce anything of value, so can't generate the money needed to pay their loans.  That's what's causing the devaluation of their currencies.  But she just ignores this completely in relation to bitcoin.  How does bitcoin fix these debts?  Well, it doesn't.  So the fundamental problem causing the poorness remains.

She talks about how people in Africa now are buying land and cattle to transfer wealth to their children and hopes that they'll change from doing this to something so much safer and better protected - bitcoin.  But she doesn't even address the theft and fraud so common with bitcoin wallets.

She's super excited about getting Africa into the environmental destruction required to mine bitcoin.  Doesn't seem to be aware the mining bitcoin will end and is not a long term thing.  She also (completely without evidence) says that bitcoin is much better for the environment than all other banking systems.

This goes on and on.



This is one of the most painfully stupid things I've ever sat through.  It's hard to imagine any reasonable person being swayed by this.  Was your post intended as a joke response?

WOw! I didn't think anyone would watch that whole thing, good on you! Yes I also just heard a lot of buzzwords and little substance, surprise! Were coming up on 10 years now (?) of lofty promises, libertarian BS, "soon", etc of how this will revolutionize ... something..? somehow..? This week it crypto is great for: poor people/refugees/investors/oligarchs/oppressed populations > take your pick. We promise it's better than any alternative, we'll let you know how exactly anyday now..
A quick google indicate the interviewer is a prolific crypto-shill.

[JAYSLOL]

... you forgot the kicker, it’s an open source technology that can be easily and cheaply replaced at any time with another coin/token if people so desire

Not "if people desire", but if a majority of the blockchain nodes switch, which is by design.  If you create a few computers running your own blockchain, you are one of thousands of tiny coins that are mostly scams.  I hope people ignore that.

If you instead run alternate software and mine BTC, your version of the open source software needs to have the same results as the rest of the blockchain.  If you do something different, the rest of the blockchain will fail to verify your contribution.  You will be wasting electricity just to be ignored by the rest of the blockchain.

I’m not talking about trying to hack the blockchain with my own Bitcoin, I’m saying anyone can make their own version of crypto.  So why would people 100% stick to the one that has arguably the worst ability to be an actual currency and  some of the highest energy usage?   Even though an identical coin (or better) can be created at any time by almost anyone that does the same function and doesn’t have to be a scam, even though of course that’s mostly what people use crypto for. 

We’ve already been through all this and it looks like we are just going to go in circles with crypto promoters.  Crypto people say “by bitcoin, it’s the best it’s going to take over the world”, then as even a tiny fraction of adoption happens we can easily see it isn’t remotely suited for widespread adoption as a currency, bring that up, and Crypto people go “whoa, you don’t have to worry about that, that’s just bitcoin, Crypto is bigger than just bitcoin”, and then we get 5+ years of the biggest bull run of scams the world has ever seen in shitcoins and pump and dumps and NFTs and shady exchanges and hacks, and Crypto people go “well, what do you expect, you should have just stuck with the trusted Bitcoin this whole time, it’s great and it’s going to take over the world”.  Uh, no.  It literally can’t as a currency for reasons discussed over and over, so I’m not going to bet on that.  “But crypto is bigger than bitcoin”…. and round and round we go. 

[ChpBstrd]

We’ve already been through all this and it looks like we are just going to go in circles with crypto promoters.  Crypto people say “by bitcoin, it’s the best it’s going to take over the world”, then as even a tiny fraction of adoption happens we can easily see it isn’t remotely suited for widespread adoption as a currency, bring that up, and Crypto people go “whoa, you don’t have to worry about that, that’s just bitcoin, Crypto is bigger than just bitcoin”, and then we get 5+ years of the biggest bull run of scams the world has ever seen in shitcoins and pump and dumps and NFTs and shady exchanges and hacks, and Crypto people go “well, what do you expect, you should have just stuck with the trusted Bitcoin this whole time, it’s great and it’s going to take over the world”.  Uh, no.  It literally can’t as a currency for reasons discussed over and over, so I’m not going to bet on that.  “But crypto is bigger than bitcoin”…. and round and round we go.

An excellent point, and well-stated.

Perhaps a follow-up question is why Bitcoin is still the most popular coin, despite being inferior? Certainly the inferior product sometimes wins due to marketing (i.e. Betamax vs VHS) but why would this be the case with something supposedly decentralized, where there's no one organization to do the marketing?*

If crypto were an open market of ideas for solving financial problems, wouldn't the more competent options for solving the problems rise to the surface as they were developed? If crypto were a technology, wouldn't it develop, get better, and see waves of new products replacing the old products in popularity?

It seems to be neither a solution-driven market nor a technology.

*There is a media ecosystem of shills, but they could easily switch to shilling a technically superior cryptocoin if they wanted to. So why don't they? Aren't they worried about holding onto yesterday's tech?

[JAYSLOL]

We’ve already been through all this and it looks like we are just going to go in circles with crypto promoters.  Crypto people say “by bitcoin, it’s the best it’s going to take over the world”, then as even a tiny fraction of adoption happens we can easily see it isn’t remotely suited for widespread adoption as a currency, bring that up, and Crypto people go “whoa, you don’t have to worry about that, that’s just bitcoin, Crypto is bigger than just bitcoin”, and then we get 5+ years of the biggest bull run of scams the world has ever seen in shitcoins and pump and dumps and NFTs and shady exchanges and hacks, and Crypto people go “well, what do you expect, you should have just stuck with the trusted Bitcoin this whole time, it’s great and it’s going to take over the world”.  Uh, no.  It literally can’t as a currency for reasons discussed over and over, so I’m not going to bet on that.  “But crypto is bigger than bitcoin”…. and round and round we go.

An excellent point, and well-stated.

Perhaps a follow-up question is why Bitcoin is still the most popular coin, despite being inferior? Certainly the inferior product sometimes wins due to marketing (i.e. Betamax vs VHS) but why would this be the case with something supposedly decentralized, where there's no one organization to do the marketing?*

If crypto were an open market of ideas for solving financial problems, wouldn't the more competent options for solving the problems rise to the surface as they were developed? If crypto were a technology, wouldn't it develop, get better, and see waves of new products replacing the old products in popularity?

It seems to be neither a solution-driven market nor a technology.

*There is a media ecosystem of shills, but they could easily switch to shilling a technically superior cryptocoin if they wanted to. So why don't they? Aren't they worried about holding onto yesterday's tech?

Because Betamax and vhs weren’t sold as investments to people with the promise to get rich, they needed advertising dollars to back promotion, because nobody in their right mind would run around preaching about how much they love VHS and that it’s going to change the world if they weren’t paid to.  Bitcoin on the other hand, while decentralized, is treated as an investment, so no organization or advertising dollars are required for people to run around preaching the crypto gospel. 
Why don’t people switch to a superior coin?  As long as public backlash to crypto is aimed at the shitcoin scams, NFT scams, hacks and exchange collapses rather than at Bitcoins inadequacy as what it’s promoted to being, people will stick with Bitcoin, and when that flips and and people face the truth of Bitcoin’s inadequacy, then crypto promoters and people that follow them will flip back to whatever Shiny New Alt Coins and Web 3.0 Super Hyped Blockchain Whatevers promise to fix all that and still be an investment to the moon, and when that all turns out to be even more of a scam than Bitcoin, well, you know the cycle

[GuitarStv]

The value of crypto is entirely driven by the number of people you can sell that crypto to.  Bitcoin is the most popular crypto because it was the first.  Being the first, it had the most people who initially became involved in it and had the largest market of greater fools to sell to.  That momentum is still the single greatest driving force behind it's acceptance.

[YttriumNitrate]

Perhaps a follow-up question is why Bitcoin is still the most popular coin, despite being inferior?

I would argue that it's not inferior for its main use today of being a mechanism for betting, or being "a store of value" in tech bro speak.

[Telecaster]

I used to make that same argument, but as I thought about it I concluded the first mover advantage is a legitimate explanation.  The more people who use a particular currency,  then more people will want or need to use it.    Any replacement would have to have some clear advantage. 

But that is also an argument against Bitcoin and crypto in general.  For most people the traditional banking system works just fine.  Bitcoin is actually harder.   There is no need to switch.

 I watched a portion of the video @LateStarter posted.  The interviewee was a political activist from Togo living in exile.  She uses Bitcoin as a way to send money to other political activists.   That sounds like a good use case--but the TAM is pretty small.  She waved away the volatility issue by saying some currencies are even more volatile.  But Togo's currency, the West African Franc, isn't one of those.   It is pretty stable, comparable to the dollar or Euro.   If political activists were saving their Bitcoin for something, they lost a lot of purchasing power.  Even for them, Bitcoin isn't an ideal solution.

[EverythingisNew]

Cathy Wood says Bitcoin could hit $1.5 million by 2030

[seattlecyclone]

Tell me...in which countries does more than 1% of the population routinely use Bitcoin to purchase food?

I don't know. Maybe none. Ask me again in 2 years.

I'm not claiming rampant adoption anywhere . .

Lol. Bitcoin has been around for 14 years. What bloody difference is another two going to make? Back when the technology was actually new I was absolutely willing to entertain the idea that it might find a common use case in (legal) commerce. It has had plenty of opportunity. While Bitcoin has found no shortage of speculators it's still searching for actual users.

[JAYSLOL]

Cathy Wood says Bitcoin could hit $1.5 million by 2030

I don’t know who that is, but the name Cathy Wood sounds like the kind of made up name WhatsApp and Telegram scammers spam the YouTube comments section with lol. 

<insert non-controversial word-salad comment from a spam account about investing>
First reply - Yes the key to financial success is to have a good guide
Second reply - Yes, I use Ms Cathy Wood, I gained $180,000 in four months with my initial $15,000 investment with her. 
Third reply - Wow, I have heard much good things about Ms Cathy Wood from many people

and on and on it goes lol.  I can’t believe people fall for that crap, and I also can’t believe YouTube hasn’t bothered to block them, but I guess since at least half of paid ads across social media are various degrees of scams and they don’t seem to care, then it makes sense they really don’t care what’s in the comments.

[JAYSLOL]

The value of crypto is entirely driven by the number of people you can sell that crypto to.  Bitcoin is the most popular crypto because it was the first.  Being the first, it had the most people who initially became involved in it and had the largest market of greater fools to sell to.  That momentum is still the single greatest driving force behind it's acceptance.

Sooo… a decentralized Ponzi scheme. 

[EverythingisNew]

Cathy Wood says Bitcoin could hit $1.5 million by 2030

I don’t know who that is, but the name Cathy Wood sounds like the kind of made up name WhatsApp and Telegram scammers spam the YouTube comments section with lol. 

<insert non-controversial word-salad comment from a spam account about investing>
First reply - Yes the key to financial success is to have a good guide
Second reply - Yes, I use Ms Cathy Wood, I gained $180,000 in four months with my initial $15,000 investment with her. 
Third reply - Wow, I have heard much good things about Ms Cathy Wood from many people

and on and on it goes lol.  I can’t believe people fall for that crap, and I also can’t believe YouTube hasn’t bothered to block them, but I guess since at least half of paid ads across social media are various degrees of scams and they don’t seem to care, then it makes sense they really don’t care what’s in the comments.

Oops I spelled her name wrong: Cathie Wood. She is all over the news because she is a female investor. Her fund is Ark Invest (ARKK). I always find her advice and stock picks to be idiotic.

[Telecaster]

Cathy Wood says Bitcoin could hit $1.5 million by 2030

Let's look at the five year performance of her flagship ETF, ARKK vs. the Nasdaq index

Nasdaq:  78.9%
AARK:   -0.2%

I'm not sure Cathie Woods is a good source of investment advice. 
____________

Edit:  I thought you were being serious!    I'll just leave this up there. 

[GuitarStv]

The value of crypto is entirely driven by the number of people you can sell that crypto to.  Bitcoin is the most popular crypto because it was the first.  Being the first, it had the most people who initially became involved in it and had the largest market of greater fools to sell to.  That momentum is still the single greatest driving force behind it's acceptance.

Sooo… a decentralized Ponzi scheme.

You're not supposed to remark on the nakedness of the emperor.

[ChpBstrd]

I used to make that same argument, but as I thought about it I concluded the first mover advantage is a legitimate explanation.  The more people who use a particular currency,  then more people will want or need to use it.    Any replacement would have to have some clear advantage. 

First mover advantage seems to work best with brand names, which is perhaps the primary thing Bitcoin is. That's why we still tend to think "Tide" for laundry detergent and "Ziplock" for resealable plastic bags.

For a technology, however, the new tends to displace the old. Yahoo! was the first mover in the search engine space, but they were quickly replaced by Google. MySpace was early to the social media game, but they were quickly replaced by Facebook, which is now being replaced by TikTok. So Bitcoin more resembles a brand than a technology.

Bitcoin is turning 14 this year, has yet to be adopted by basically anyone for trade, and there are thousands of competing cryptocurrencies out there. Yet we're still talking about the Bitcoin brand.

There are unbranded products, but Bitcoin might be the world's first brand without a product.

[LateStarter]

Tell me...in which countries does more than 1% of the population routinely use Bitcoin to purchase food?

I don't know. Maybe none. Ask me again in 2 years.

I'm not claiming rampant adoption anywhere . .

Lol. Bitcoin has been around for 14 years. What bloody difference is another two going to make? Back when the technology was actually new I was absolutely willing to entertain the idea that it might find a common use case in (legal) commerce. It has had plenty of opportunity. While Bitcoin has found no shortage of speculators it's still searching for actual users.

Routine use of Bitcoin to purchase food requires Lightning. Lightning hasn't been around for 14 years, it's still pretty new but it's developing fast. I think there's a pretty good chance that progress will be quite visible in 2 years - in developing nations.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Tell me...in which countries does more than 1% of the population routinely use Bitcoin to purchase food?

I don't know. Maybe none. Ask me again in 2 years.

I'm not claiming rampant adoption anywhere . .

Lol. Bitcoin has been around for 14 years. What bloody difference is another two going to make? Back when the technology was actually new I was absolutely willing to entertain the idea that it might find a common use case in (legal) commerce. It has had plenty of opportunity. While Bitcoin has found no shortage of speculators it's still searching for actual users.

Did you know about Bitcoin 14 years ago?  No, it was a hobby / computer program on one person's computers. If you go back that far you need to acknowledge how far it came from then.  I would interject my view from an earlier post, that mainstream awareness is only about 5 years old.

When did mainstream awareness of Bitcoin start?  My approach tracks each time its market cap rose 10x.  The data from this link [1] goes back to 2013, the year Greyscale Bitcoin Trust was created, when Bitcoin had a $1 billion market cap (which is the number of BTC that exist times their price in USD).  My take is that Bitcoin awareness (mostly hatred) has been around about 5 years.

Oct 2016 : reaches $10 billion
Nov 2017 : reaches $100 billion
2021-2022 : some spiking above $1 trillion

[1]
https://www.globaldata.com/data-insights/financial-services/bitcoins-market-capitalization-history/

[MustacheAndaHalf]

... you forgot the kicker, it’s an open source technology that can be easily and cheaply replaced at any time with another coin/token if people so desire

Not "if people desire", but if a majority of the blockchain nodes switch, which is by design.  If you create a few computers running your own blockchain, you are one of thousands of tiny coins that are mostly scams.  I hope people ignore that.

If you instead run alternate software and mine BTC, your version of the open source software needs to have the same results as the rest of the blockchain.  If you do something different, the rest of the blockchain will fail to verify your contribution.  You will be wasting electricity just to be ignored by the rest of the blockchain.

I’m not talking about trying to hack the blockchain with my own Bitcoin, I’m saying anyone can make their own version of crypto.  So why would people 100% stick to the one that has arguably the worst ability to be an actual currency and  some of the highest energy usage?   Even though an identical coin (or better) can be created at any time by almost anyone that does the same function and doesn’t have to be a scam, even though of course that’s mostly what people use crypto for. 

We’ve already been through all this and it looks like we are just going to go in circles with crypto promoters.  Crypto people say “by bitcoin, it’s the best it’s going to take over the world”, then as even a tiny fraction of adoption happens we can easily see it isn’t remotely suited for widespread adoption as a currency, bring that up, and Crypto people go “whoa, you don’t have to worry about that, that’s just bitcoin, Crypto is bigger than just bitcoin”, and then we get 5+ years of the biggest bull run of scams the world has ever seen in shitcoins and pump and dumps and NFTs and shady exchanges and hacks, and Crypto people go “well, what do you expect, you should have just stuck with the trusted Bitcoin this whole time, it’s great and it’s going to take over the world”.  Uh, no.  It literally can’t as a currency for reasons discussed over and over, so I’m not going to bet on that.  “But crypto is bigger than bitcoin”…. and round and round we go.

To your first paragraph, on creating new coins to compete with Bitcoin, that has been done literally thousands of times [1].  This is not something new.

Your second paragraph is filled with things I never said.  You can read what I said, not "Crypto people say".  Where did I say "by bitcoin" or "it’s going to take over the world"?  Can you quote any of the things you discuss in your second paragraph, or are you just inventing things to argue with yourself?

[1]
https://coinmarketcap.com/?page=89

[LateStarter]

I didn't hear any even a half decent attempt to address the concerns of wallets and volatility in the video.  Mostly the volatility response was that the same volatility and devaluation of African currencies that she's hoping will drive people to bitcoin mean that the volatility of bitcoin doesn't matter.  ???

I did hear some total bullshit though.

"[Bitcoin is] a currency that can be moved easily without creating any extra fees and constraints"

Then she goes on to indicate how there are no conversion fees changing from her currency (franc) to bitcoin [No she didn't - she said no such thing] because it's "free money, and independent currency, a currency that's not created specifically to control people".

She indicates that 70% of the people in her country do not have bank accounts, and thus would be perfect to convert over to using bitcoin.  But she completely glosses over the little point of exactly how to do this.  How are they going to convert their current cash holdings into bitcoin?  Can't transfer funds from their bank, obviously.  Later there's mention of magical technologies that will allow people without phone or computer access to easily and safely access bitcoin without risk. [No there's not - there's no mention of any such thing]  I'd like to hear a lot more about that though, since it sounds like bullshit but no further discussion involved that point.  Instead she just says that bitcoin is like internet and electricity.  And we leave it there.

She also doesn't address how the people who move their fortunes over to bitcoin are supposed to pay their taxes.  Or buy groceries.  Or buy anything, since bitcoin isn't commonly accepted anywhere in the country.  I guess the theory is that everyone will instantly switch over nationally? [No, there was no suggestion of immediate total adoption - people will still have fiat]

She also talks about how a huge problem for these African countries is that they can't pay their international debts.  They don't produce anything of value, so can't generate the money needed to pay their loans.  That's what's causing the devaluation of their currencies.  But she just ignores this completely in relation to bitcoin.  How does bitcoin fix these debts?  Well, it doesn't.  So the fundamental problem causing the poorness remains. [No. Nobody claimed Bitcoin was a panacea for ALL ills. What is ?]

She talks about how people in Africa now are buying land and cattle to transfer wealth to their children and hopes that they'll change from doing this to something so much safer and better protected - bitcoin.  But she doesn't even address the theft and fraud so common with bitcoin wallets.

She's super excited about getting Africa into the environmental destruction [No, not so] required to mine bitcoin [with sustainable solar and hydro, and bringing electricity to those that have never had it].  Doesn't seem to be aware the mining bitcoin will end and is not a long term thing [No. Bitcoin rewards will end but 'mining' will continue].  She also (completely without evidence) says that bitcoin is much better for the environment than all other banking systems.

This goes on and on.

This is one of the most painfully stupid things I've ever sat through.  It's hard to imagine any reasonable person being swayed by this.  Was your post intended as a joke response?

With respect, the above post does not demonstrate intellectual curiosity and is in no way an attempt to argue in good faith. It's very easy to construct strawmen or plain make stuff up but that's not intelligent discussion. It's little more than school playground name-calling.

It is commonly asked in this topic "if Bitcoin's so great, why is it taking so long ?". I would suggest it's at least partly because the subject has become so emotive, and rational discussion is very difficult.
In the wider world, the major media outlets are generally very negative about it - a search for "Bitcoin [major news outlet of your choice]" on Google News calls up a long list of tales about scams and losses and environmental outrage. That's all that most people see, and that's all they know about it, and Bitcoin=crypto=dogCoins=FTX=monkeyjpegs=cryptoBros=haveFunStayingPoor, etc. - it all looks the same, so the default attitude is to be very suspicious and/or hate on it. I guess that's just how it is - no point in sweating over it.
Closer to home, I'm genuinely surprised at how difficult it has been to have respectful and rational discussion about it here - with the open-minded, norm-challenging and generally pretty smart MMM gang.

Credit where it's due, the anti-Bitcoin campaign has, so far, been very effective.

On the plus side, Bitcoin doesn't care. It keeps churning away, quietly expanding and advancing, applications keep developing and improving, . . .

[JAYSLOL]

... you forgot the kicker, it’s an open source technology that can be easily and cheaply replaced at any time with another coin/token if people so desire

Not "if people desire", but if a majority of the blockchain nodes switch, which is by design.  If you create a few computers running your own blockchain, you are one of thousands of tiny coins that are mostly scams.  I hope people ignore that.

If you instead run alternate software and mine BTC, your version of the open source software needs to have the same results as the rest of the blockchain.  If you do something different, the rest of the blockchain will fail to verify your contribution.  You will be wasting electricity just to be ignored by the rest of the blockchain.

I’m not talking about trying to hack the blockchain with my own Bitcoin, I’m saying anyone can make their own version of crypto.  So why would people 100% stick to the one that has arguably the worst ability to be an actual currency and  some of the highest energy usage?   Even though an identical coin (or better) can be created at any time by almost anyone that does the same function and doesn’t have to be a scam, even though of course that’s mostly what people use crypto for. 

We’ve already been through all this and it looks like we are just going to go in circles with crypto promoters.  Crypto people say “by bitcoin, it’s the best it’s going to take over the world”, then as even a tiny fraction of adoption happens we can easily see it isn’t remotely suited for widespread adoption as a currency, bring that up, and Crypto people go “whoa, you don’t have to worry about that, that’s just bitcoin, Crypto is bigger than just bitcoin”, and then we get 5+ years of the biggest bull run of scams the world has ever seen in shitcoins and pump and dumps and NFTs and shady exchanges and hacks, and Crypto people go “well, what do you expect, you should have just stuck with the trusted Bitcoin this whole time, it’s great and it’s going to take over the world”.  Uh, no.  It literally can’t as a currency for reasons discussed over and over, so I’m not going to bet on that.  “But crypto is bigger than bitcoin”…. and round and round we go.

To your first paragraph, on creating new coins to compete with Bitcoin, that has been done literally thousands of times [1].  This is not something new.

Your second paragraph is filled with things I never said.  You can read what I said, not "Crypto people say".  Where did I say "by bitcoin" or "it’s going to take over the world"?  Can you quote any of the things you discuss in your second paragraph, or are you just inventing things to argue with yourself?

[1]
https://coinmarketcap.com/?page=89

Yes I know all about the many thousands of alt coins available, that’s why I brought it up.
Yes I’m not literally quoting you in particular.  Never said I was.  My problem is I hear people moving the goal posts of the rationalization for crypto.  So, if you want to clarify your opinions so I’m not misquoting or lumping you in with what I hear from a lot of crypto folks, I’d love to hear you (and also others) share beliefs on the following
- Is Bitcoin the cryptocurrency you are betting your own money on?  Why or why not?
- If Bitcoin is not what you bet your own money on, what crypto is?  And why?
- Is the value of crypto in the utility of blockchain technology or in the value of the coins themselves? 
- Is Crypto predominantly a technology or a get rich scheme? 
- If Crypto is a technology and NOT a get rich scheme, why invest in a particular coin?  Because of future market adoption and therefore demand?  Or? 
- If Crypto is a technology and NOT a get rich scheme, why would people not switch to a superior coin or blockchain system over an established but inferior one when available? 
- If Crypto is a technology and NOT a get rich scheme, why is there more emphasis on Bitcoin and other “investment” cryptocurrencies over the utility that stablecoins or other non-investment focused cryptocurrencies or blockchain technology could offer?

[Scandium]

With respect, the above post does not demonstrate intellectual curiosity and is in no way an attempt to argue in good faith. It's very easy to construct strawmen or plain make stuff up but that's not intelligent discussion. It's little more than school playground name-calling.

It is commonly asked in this topic "if Bitcoin's so great, why is it taking so long ?". I would suggest it's at least partly because the subject has become so emotive, and rational discussion is very difficult.
In the wider world, the major media outlets are generally very negative about it - a search for "Bitcoin [major news outlet of your choice]" on Google News calls up a long list of tales about scams and losses and environmental outrage. That's all that most people see, and that's all they know about it, and Bitcoin=crypto=dogCoins=FTX=monkeyjpegs=cryptoBros=haveFunStayingPoor, etc. - it all looks the same, so the default attitude is to be very suspicious and/or hate on it. I guess that's just how it is - no point in sweating over it.
Closer to home, I'm genuinely surprised at how difficult it has been to have respectful and rational discussion about it here - with the open-minded, norm-challenging and generally pretty smart MMM gang.

Credit where it's due, the anti-Bitcoin campaign has, so far, been very effective.

On the plus side, Bitcoin doesn't care. It keeps churning away, quietly expanding and advancing, applications keep developing and improving, . . .

Ok then. Can you address the problems with using BTC as a currency? Slow/low bandwidth, concentration, insufficient technological access in developing nations, not widely adopted (chicken/egg). And why it's any better than almost every other effort to improve poor people's lives? You know; give people with no money, access to a highly volatile scam-currency that's a total PIA to use, and has extremely limited use anyway. VS I don't know; give them money ($$)? food?

The reason for the snarky, and in your opinion, "not serious" discussion of crypto is because we've heard all this bullshit before, over and over and over and over and over and over and again. Perfectly legitimate points are raised; deflections and endless "you're FUDing!", "not serious!" come back, with zero actual repose to the most basic practical and logistical issues that are brought up. So no, most of use ("haters"..) don't really feel like engaging. It's just more fun to make fun of these delusional justifications for a seemingly endless (so far..) ponzi scheme with absolutely zero practical application (and thank god for that, as a world where BTC is the main currency sounds like a nightmare!)

[Scandium]

- If Crypto is a technology and NOT a get rich scheme, why is there more emphasis on Bitcoin and other “investment” cryptocurrencies over the utility that stablecoins or other non-investment focused cryptocurrencies or blockchain technology could offer?

To be fair, there is tons (millions$$) of hype around various stablecoins as well! Most of which have failed hard, for various reasons. (Unless of course the goal is to funnel "investor" money to the pyramid-top persons starting the scheme, paying insta-celebs to hype it, faking assets, etc. In that case some of them have been successful.)
Just take a peek through coffeezilla's coverage of several of them. Hilarious stuff!
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=coffeezilla+stablecoin

Celsius: $9 billion owed/lost
Luna:  $60 billion lost
Tether/bitfinex: $10 billion lost (?unclear)
Titan; promised 206% APY! Pumped by Mark Cuban, lost all his investments (Ok, I can support this one *golfclap) https://youtu.be/9DjeS4hTltI

[GuitarStv]

I didn't hear any even a half decent attempt to address the concerns of wallets and volatility in the video.  Mostly the volatility response was that the same volatility and devaluation of African currencies that she's hoping will drive people to bitcoin mean that the volatility of bitcoin doesn't matter.  ???

I did hear some total bullshit though.

Yep.  Bullshit - or 'demonstrably false' if cussing upsets delicate sensibilities.  Like this excerpt from the podcast:

"Interestingly, when you look at all the various forms of money that we use today whether it is cash or whether it is the Visa cards for example, Bitcoin consumes the least amount of energy of all of them.  In fact, the production of cash and the transportation of cash and the distribution of cash requires 30 times more energy than bitcoin does."

Which aligns rather poorly with reality:

BTC has nearly 3x environmental cost [than cash] per 1$ of value

https://sites.tufts.edu/digitalplanet/how-green-is-the-greenback-an-analysis-of-the-environmental-costs-of-cash-in-the-united-states/

Cash is currently higher in energy consumption overall , but that's only because bitcoin transactions are so comparatively rare.  The argument that bitcoin is lower energy cost than cash is therefore demonstrably bullshit false.

"[Bitcoin is] a currency that can be moved easily without creating any extra fees and constraints"

Then she goes on to indicate how there are no conversion fees changing from her currency (franc) to bitcoin [No she didn't - she said no such thing] because it's "free money, and independent currency, a currency that's not created specifically to control people".

Yes she does.  Direct quote:
"[Bitcoin is] um a currency that can uh be moved easily without creating any extra fees and constraints to the people because when you look at the countries that face the highest constraints on moving money is the African uh is it the people living in diaspora sending money back home because sometimes the remittance fees go as high as 20 percent consume 30 in both the fees and the uh um um the conversion rate.  So at that point I was like uh ah the person or the people who invested Bitcoin of [sic] having free money, having independent currency, a currency that is not created specifically by some people to control others."

She very explicitly talks about the horrors of currency conversion rates when transferring money from African currencies to other denominations to send through banks, and in the same breath talks about how there are no fees associated with Bitcoin.  The only conclusion one can reasonably draw from this is that she believes the fees for currency conversion do not exist for Bitcoin.  Or that she's intentionally trying to make the traditional banking system seem worse than it is in an effort to push bitcoin.

She indicates that 70% of the people in her country do not have bank accounts, and thus would be perfect to convert over to using bitcoin.  But she completely glosses over the little point of exactly how to do this.  How are they going to convert their current cash holdings into bitcoin?  Can't transfer funds from their bank, obviously.  Later there's mention of magical technologies that will allow people without phone or computer access to easily and safely access bitcoin without risk. [No there's not - there's no mention of any such thing]  I'd like to hear a lot more about that though, since it sounds like bullshit but no further discussion involved that point.  Instead she just says that bitcoin is like internet and electricity.  And we leave it there.

"I actually forgot to mention one of the uh greatest products that was introduced at the conference is uh manchankura which is uh uh created by an uh amazing Bitcoin and uh developer we call him KG um it actually allows people to buy bitcoin as a USS USSD uh just like regular scratch cards where you can just type USSD codes and then boom you have the bitcoin in your wallet so in amazing solutions are being made and you're like wow this is so cool this is going to make it so much easier for everyone"

Yes, there is regular mention and misrepresentation* of technology that will safely and easily allow African people to access bitcoin.  That's the whole underpinning of how the person being interviewed describes the shift to bitcoin happening across the continent.

*It's the misrepresentation that makes the technology 'magical'.  Interesting that she fails to mention the 1% fee for anyone using this service.  Or the various hosting fees for moving bitcoin from a wallet to create a transaction.  Almost like there is a clear pro-bitcoin agenda being pushed.

She also doesn't address how the people who move their fortunes over to bitcoin are supposed to pay their taxes.  Or buy groceries.  Or buy anything, since bitcoin isn't commonly accepted anywhere in the country.  I guess the theory is that everyone will instantly switch over nationally? [No, there was no suggestion of immediate total adoption - people will still have fiat]

But then bitcoin would solve no problem at all.  All of the pie in the sky bitcoin related 'freedom' that is being discussed for African people being held hostage by their fiat currency fails to materialize if the people are still being held hostage by their fiat currency.

She also talks about how a huge problem for these African countries is that they can't pay their international debts.  They don't produce anything of value, so can't generate the money needed to pay their loans.  That's what's causing the devaluation of their currencies.  But she just ignores this completely in relation to bitcoin.  How does bitcoin fix these debts?  Well, it doesn't.  So the fundamental problem causing the poorness remains. [No. Nobody claimed Bitcoin was a panacea for ALL ills. What is ?]

I'm going to ignore your straw man here - I didn't claim that the person being interviewed made the statement you're railing against.

The ills that the person being interviewed was describing though, the ones that she was giving as an example of the need to push everyone towards bitcoin . . . those all stem from this fundamental problem.  And bitcoin won't solve it.  This renders a the majority of her pro-bitcoin argument moot.

She's super excited about getting Africa into the environmental destruction [No, not so] required to mine bitcoin [with sustainable solar and hydro, and bringing electricity to those that have never had it].

No mention of solar is made in this discussion.  I encourage you to go back and listen carefully.  Hydro electricity in Kenya is mentioned, as is 'bringing electricity to those who have never had it' . . . but zero mention of details or realistic plans to do this comes up, which seems to be a theme here, and part of the reason that it was so very disappointing to listen to.

Will bitcoin mining be done sustainably in Africa?  Maybe.  But no mention of how, why, the costs involved, the projects proposed to make this happen come up.  Will bitcoin mining result in electricity for poor people who couldn't afford it before?  Maybe?  But again, no discussion of any details/reasoning takes place.  Just the statement and expectance that we will all accept it like lemmings.  Not very convincing.

Doesn't seem to be aware the mining bitcoin will end and is not a long term thing [No. Bitcoin rewards will end but 'mining' will continue].  She also (completely without evidence) says that bitcoin is much better for the environment than all other banking systems.

This is certainly an unproven theory that bitcoin advocates believe.

With respect, the above post does not demonstrate intellectual curiosity and is in no way an attempt to argue in good faith.

I watched your video in good faith under the assumption that it was going to be relevant, factual, and informative.  Posting an hour and a half conversation between two people who appear to have little understanding of the topic being discussed and certainly no facts/data to support their theories is not an attempt to argue in good faith.

It's very easy to construct strawmen or plain make stuff up but that's not intelligent discussion. It's little more than school playground name-calling.

Agreed.  Stop using straw men.  If you're going to post a video, maybe quickly check through the video first to see if it's sourced and referenced with claims made being reasonably supported rather than made up with no evidence.  That video was intellectually very disappointing with little factual information available to debate.

[seattlecyclone]

Tell me...in which countries does more than 1% of the population routinely use Bitcoin to purchase food?

I don't know. Maybe none. Ask me again in 2 years.

I'm not claiming rampant adoption anywhere . .

Lol. Bitcoin has been around for 14 years. What bloody difference is another two going to make? Back when the technology was actually new I was absolutely willing to entertain the idea that it might find a common use case in (legal) commerce. It has had plenty of opportunity. While Bitcoin has found no shortage of speculators it's still searching for actual users.

Did you know about Bitcoin 14 years ago?  No, it was a hobby / computer program on one person's computers. If you go back that far you need to acknowledge how far it came from then.  I would interject my view from an earlier post, that mainstream awareness is only about 5 years old.

My first Bitcoin transaction was in 2011. I read Satoshi Nakamoto's original paper and it seemed like an intriguing idea, so I decided to experiment a bit with it. At the time the Bitcoin Core wallet had a "mine Bitcoins" option you could click to have your CPU crank away at some hashes. If you got really lucky you could win 50 BTC. Even at the time that was kind of a fool's errand. I instead joined up with a mining pool with my relatively beefy CPU and earned some 0.02 BTC per day. After a few weeks of suffering degraded computer performance in exchange for <$1 (at the time) per day, I considered the experiment over and shut down the mining. I remember being able to put transactions on the chain in a relatively timely manner for no transaction fee because the capacity wasn't maxed out yet.

So...I'm not exactly a newcomer to this space. I acknowledge that there's been a bunch of infrastructure built up around the trading/speculating side of things since that time. Traction for use as an actual currency has been slow enough that I'm not at all bullish on the matter.

[Telecaster]

First mover advantage seems to work best with brand names, which is perhaps the primary thing Bitcoin is. That's why we still tend to think "Tide" for laundry detergent and "Ziplock" for resealable plastic bags.

For a technology, however, the new tends to displace the old. Yahoo! was the first mover in the search engine space, but they were quickly replaced by Google. MySpace was early to the social media game, but they were quickly replaced by Facebook, which is now being replaced by TikTok. So Bitcoin more resembles a brand than a technology.

Bitcoin is turning 14 this year, has yet to be adopted by basically anyone for trade, and there are thousands of competing cryptocurrencies out there. Yet we're still talking about the Bitcoin brand.

There are unbranded products, but Bitcoin might be the world's first brand without a product.

I was trying to steel man the argument.  I was thinking of it more like VHS vs. Beta.   We all know the story.  Beta was the superior technology, but there were more and cheaper VHS players.   More VHS players meant more VHS movies.   More movies meant VHS was the better options for new consumers, and so on.   People chose to use VHS because people were already using VHS.  You could probably make that argument about CPM vs. DOS, as well.   Bitcoin is the biggest crypto by far, the most liquidity, most users, etc.    So if you want an economic system centered around crypto, that's the one to choose.   It is possible a new, better crypto could be created, but it won't be enough, just like Beta.   

That said, something else has even a bigger first mover advantage:  The USD (at least where I live).   Everyone already accepts it, and the financial infrastructure works just fine for what I need it to do. Bitcoin isn't a better currency than the USD, it is worse.     Bitcoin provides no advantage for most people (including the unbanked) and so its use will always be limited to niche cases. 

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Yes I’m not literally quoting you in particular.  Never said I was.  My problem is I hear people moving the goal posts of the rationalization for crypto.  So, if you want to clarify your opinions so I’m not misquoting or lumping you in with what I hear from a lot of crypto folks, I’d love to hear you (and also others) share beliefs on the following
- Is Bitcoin the cryptocurrency you are betting your own money on?  Why or why not?
- If Bitcoin is not what you bet your own money on, what crypto is?  And why?

You replied to my post, and then said things that had nothing to do with my post.  It would be clearer if you didn't do that in questions you address to everyone.

The recent discussion has devolved back to people who hate crypto repeatedly calling it a fraud or ponzi scheme, so I don't see the point of providing my nuanced view.  Instead I need to oversimplify and be brief to avoid being quoted out of context.  I am currently "adding a low%" (thread title) of ETH, but not "adding a low%" of BTC.

[Telecaster]

I'd like to hear the nuanced view, if you don't mind.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Tell me...in which countries does more than 1% of the population routinely use Bitcoin to purchase food?

I don't know. Maybe none. Ask me again in 2 years.

I'm not claiming rampant adoption anywhere . .

Lol. Bitcoin has been around for 14 years. What bloody difference is another two going to make? Back when the technology was actually new I was absolutely willing to entertain the idea that it might find a common use case in (legal) commerce. It has had plenty of opportunity. While Bitcoin has found no shortage of speculators it's still searching for actual users.

Did you know about Bitcoin 14 years ago?  No, it was a hobby / computer program on one person's computers. If you go back that far you need to acknowledge how far it came from then.  I would interject my view from an earlier post, that mainstream awareness is only about 5 years old.

My first Bitcoin transaction was in 2011. I read Satoshi Nakamoto's original paper and it seemed like an intriguing idea, so I decided to experiment a bit with it. At the time the Bitcoin Core wallet had a "mine Bitcoins" option you could click to have your CPU crank away at some hashes. If you got really lucky you could win 50 BTC. Even at the time that was kind of a fool's errand. I instead joined up with a mining pool with my relatively beefy CPU and earned some 0.02 BTC per day. After a few weeks of suffering degraded computer performance in exchange for <$1 (at the time) per day, I considered the experiment over and shut down the mining. I remember being able to put transactions on the chain in a relatively timely manner for no transaction fee because the capacity wasn't maxed out yet.

So...I'm not exactly a newcomer to this space. I acknowledge that there's been a bunch of infrastructure built up around the trading/speculating side of things since that time. Traction for use as an actual currency has been slow enough that I'm not at all bullish on the matter.

I asked "Did you know about Bitcoin 14 years ago?", not if you are "a newcomer" (your word).  My point is that when Bitcoin was unknown and unused 14 years ago, it was not realistic to expect things from it.  The price history of BTC on Yahoo Finance and even CoinDesk only goes back to Nov 2014, suggesting it still wasn't used much even then (Personally, I tried buying legal goods and services back at $250 per BTC, and found that very difficult).

I believe when Bitcoin rose above $10 billion or maybe $100 billion market cap, the mainstream media finally noticed.  Both of those milestones were about 5 years ago, which is why I argue Bitcoin should be measured relative to the last 5 years.  And if you agree with that, then 2 years doesn't seem that long (unless you're watching C-span).