Bitcoin was designed around the business model of gold discovery. When is the last time someone paid for a Starbucks coffee with gold?
Um, when you already go around in comparisions then you should know what happened when the goldrushs took place in america. The gold digger used their gold to bring them to the saloon to buy alcohol and girls.
And when you want to offer an alternative to fiat bank money, like satoshi wanted, then it would be ridiculous to think of it as a currency only for the banks or the rich. The poor people would have to use something inferiour. That is plain stupid and elitist thinking. Bitcoin is for everyone, not only for some rich guys who want to push their black money over state borders.
You are funny - I like you!
Thank you. I like you too.
First - By design, micro-transactions are not possible on the actual Bitcoin network (think Starbucks coffees) due to networks limits. Maybe with ChangeTip offline networks, or any other you could.
Changetip isn't anything like bitcoin. It's centralized and in no way something you can use as an alternative to bank money. It is easily controllable and misses the advantages bitcoin has.
Yeah, network limits. I think you might take the 1mb blocksize limit as a given natural constant. It's not like you know.
Second - Satoshi did not meant to replace Fiat. Read again the first sentence of his
White Paper. He intended to provide a Peer-to-peer way to transfer money over the Internet (read insecure network). Why would you feel the need to transfer money over the internet if you are not physically away from each other... Being in front of each other, fiat can work. Being a continent away, internet is best, bitcoin is best....
Well, when you would hate the banking system and you think of an alternative, coming up with an encrypted currency on the internet... how would you describe it differently than the citation you wrote? Do you really think a whitepaper is the place where you put in your political views, your critics on the banking system, your wish to free the people from that system? Surely not.
Third - having relatives abroad is not a novelty, being elitist, or stupid... Millions of people worldwide have relatives abroad that they want to send money to... Is this black money over state borders? I don't think so.
Yes, but this should be the end of bitcoin? That's all it can provide in your eyes? Even when, why should someone send money that way when the fees will rise so high that you might even use other services? Because the state should not see it? And why use a bitcoin network where you never know if your fee, you put into, is good enough to make the transaction go through? You will have to worry if you paid too few and the then unreliable network will not forward your coins. Since there would be others that have the same problem and maybe they paid more so that you are, even when you thought you paid enough, will lose. Well, again, better use another service then.
In short, bitcoin will die that way. Maybe some rich guys, and that is elitist thinking when some of the 1mb block fans dream of a high amount payment system named bitcoin, that only works with high fees that are higher than the average third world country person can pay? That wouldn't be a currency for the people anymore, it would be a currency for the rich people in the world. And that is elitist thinking when you don't care about such points. Bitcoin should be an alternative for everyone.
Bitcoin is for international, or cross country transactions, or internet store purchases. Not for person-to-person purchases.
Well, that indeed is a relatively new view on the topic. I see you are only two years less involved with bitcoin than iam but the first years everyone wanted adoption and bitcoin being used for all kind of transactions. And you still should know that it was that way. Now some guys think it's needed to artificially cripple bitcoin so that it loses a couple of it's rare advantages.
As if the miners will stop mining when we don't raise the fees that have to be paid. In fact we could drop 99% of the hashrate and the network still would be secure. That we have 100 times more mining than needed only shows how well paid mining is. No need for a fee market at all.