I think that the reason they say it's in infancy is because there's very low penetration of various markets and social groups. Probably 1 per 100 people will be able to explain what bitcoin is and how to hold it. Some studies estimate that over 1% of people around the world own bitcoin, but that's pretty low compared to the number of people around the world who own gold, which is close to 10%.
I agree that it's more in its teenage years because I doubt it will surpass the penetration of gold unless gold becomes diluted somehow by new cheap mining.
Topic: Bitcoin is -not- "still in its infancy" - page 2. (Read 360 times)
It's the usage and acceptance of Bitcoin we are trying to refer to as still maturing. Not the technology itself. And we need to make that distinction clearer for the critics. What are peoples' thoughts on how best to delineate between the level of adoption and the level of technological development?
For example, comparing something that is rare, where in this world the rarer an object is, the more it has a high selling value. In society, especially in my environment, this kind of comparison is quite reasonable and can be adapted to the realm of understanding of the people who are still lacking in technology. As for other terms when dealing with children after adolescence, the comparison is different from what I explained to the public at the age of +50.So, the ideal move would be to describe Bitcoin in terms they hear often but have a valuable selling point.
"Not fully mature" (you nailed it) is I think the right word for it. Not infant, because that's like a start of a roadmap or a beta phase which is not in the case of Bitcoin.
What I see is they are looking at the price of Bitcoin to determine where it is. It's not suppose to be like that but rather the amount of users that are utilizing its service. But to know that needs a deeper research which most people won't do. Lazy human nature.
I admit I see the progress as slow but its because of the sudden broad of competition in the altcoin industry. It's not a healthy competition anymore.
What I see is they are looking at the price of Bitcoin to determine where it is. It's not suppose to be like that but rather the amount of users that are utilizing its service. But to know that needs a deeper research which most people won't do. Lazy human nature.
I admit I see the progress as slow but its because of the sudden broad of competition in the altcoin industry. It's not a healthy competition anymore.
I think the adoption of Bitcoin should be viewed from two perspectives:
--> 1) Bitcoin - an instrument for storing value -- measures: institutional investments in BTC (pension funds, hedge & mutual funds, etc.), ETFs accepted and traded on the market, trading volume, number of states that declared BTC a legal tender, survey on people (do they hold BTC, for short-term or long-term, etc.)
--> 2) Bitcoin - a currency used for day-to-day transactions -- measures: number of daily transactions both on the main chain and the lightning network, surveys on people (have they used BTC in the past day, week, month, year)
--> 1) Bitcoin - an instrument for storing value -- measures: institutional investments in BTC (pension funds, hedge & mutual funds, etc.), ETFs accepted and traded on the market, trading volume, number of states that declared BTC a legal tender, survey on people (do they hold BTC, for short-term or long-term, etc.)
--> 2) Bitcoin - a currency used for day-to-day transactions -- measures: number of daily transactions both on the main chain and the lightning network, surveys on people (have they used BTC in the past day, week, month, year)
I'd say we're probably far from infancy and bitcoin has been adopted by a lot more people in a fast amount of time than most other technologies (mobile phones for example took quite a while for companies to adopt too for worker communications afaik). PayPal slept on bitcoin so much that they've been overshadowed by other companies accepting crypto and trying to become payment processors (or in some cases actual banks) or payment processors accepting crypto.
The ecosystem's maturing and some companies gave up on the turbulence too (like steam) but crypto is already very usable - with bitcoin as the main on off ramp along with some stables.
The ecosystem's maturing and some companies gave up on the turbulence too (like steam) but crypto is already very usable - with bitcoin as the main on off ramp along with some stables.
still maturing = immature
where as evolving/growing = expanding, gaining energy size, experience
where as evolving/growing = expanding, gaining energy size, experience
How about a gentle correction or reply when seen to "Bitcoin is still in it's early stages"
A comment to an online article, an email to the writer, stuff like that.
Don't go in looking for a fight, just a polite comment and statement and move on.
Since we are here, on this forum we are more dedicated BTC people then most. Correcting others because 'we are superior' is going to generate some hostility. Correcting people 'because this may be a better way of saying it' will probably get better responses.
-Dave
A comment to an online article, an email to the writer, stuff like that.
Don't go in looking for a fight, just a polite comment and statement and move on.
Since we are here, on this forum we are more dedicated BTC people then most. Correcting others because 'we are superior' is going to generate some hostility. Correcting people 'because this may be a better way of saying it' will probably get better responses.
-Dave
I'm definitely not looking to correct the critics on this one. Their reaction is perfectly reasonable. My point was that we're the ones not making things clear enough. The onus falls upon us to explain ourselves coherently. It's our phrasing I'm seeking to refine, in order to avoid confusion for those "on the outside".
The premise is to ask supporters of Bitcoin to be aware of the difference between the technology and the level of adoption. To avoid conflating them. I'd suggest a phrase such as "Bitcoin acceptance is still maturing" would provide greater clarity than the infancy-type phrases people often use. That way, it's clear to anyone that we are referring to the usage of Bitcoin.
//EDIT:
still maturing = immature
where as evolving/growing = expanding, gaining energy size, experience
where as evolving/growing = expanding, gaining energy size, experience
Fair point.
Any further improvements people would suggest upon "Bitcoin acceptance is still evolving" in order to give greater clarity?
How about a gentle correction or reply when seen to "Bitcoin is still in it's early stages"
A comment to an online article, an email to the writer, stuff like that.
Don't go in looking for a fight, just a polite comment and statement and move on.
Since we are here, on this forum we are more dedicated BTC people then most. Correcting others because 'we are superior' is going to generate some hostility. Correcting people 'because this may be a better way of saying it' will probably get better responses.
-Dave
A comment to an online article, an email to the writer, stuff like that.
Don't go in looking for a fight, just a polite comment and statement and move on.
Since we are here, on this forum we are more dedicated BTC people then most. Correcting others because 'we are superior' is going to generate some hostility. Correcting people 'because this may be a better way of saying it' will probably get better responses.
-Dave
Yet people still frequently say it is "early days" or that Bitcoin is "still in its infancy". It's not. A generally accepted definition for 'infant' is:
"a schoolchild between the ages of about four and eight"
"a schoolchild between the ages of about four and eight"
I think that most time people say "Bitcoin is still in its infancy" they are talking about the potential bitcoin still has to grow in adoption and price.
In the end, this line of thinking is most about price and the upward potential.
I agree that this vision is not so so true anymore. Time has passed, and bitcoin is not something restricted to a few people anymore.
From 2017 when I met bitcoin things changed a lot. I read about bitcoin everyday in most newspapers. Most people has a small understanding about what bitcoin is.
There is still a upward potential, a lot of room to grow in adoption and usability, but bitcoin has already achieved a lot.
Bitcoin is more closely akin to a teenager. Both in years and level of development. It's not fully mature, but it's certainly no baby. And I think we risk selling Bitcoin short by comparing it to something so vulnerable. Bitcoin has survived in the wild for years against determined attackers. It has time and again proven itself resilient and indomitable.
It's the usage and acceptance of Bitcoin we are trying to refer to as still maturing. Not the technology itself.
I don't try to define a name-calling for Bitcoin but yours looks good, teenager.It's the usage and acceptance of Bitcoin we are trying to refer to as still maturing. Not the technology itself.
- The bullish case for Bitcoin
- In that article, Vijay wrote about Lindy effect that will become bigger with time. That is exactly what we are witnessing and what you raised here.
- I agreed with you that after 13 years, Bitcoin is no longer in its infancy. From its age (13 yr old) to Lindy effect, it is far from infant time
Bitcoin is more closely akin to a teenager. Both in years and level of development. It's not fully mature, but it's certainly no baby.
While you're pretty much correct, you have to a bit tolerant with the terms used.
In the same way as with the $69k ATH some people have just started reading about Bitcoin and it's CPU mining (!), we can expect people come and consider Bitcoin still in it infancy.
I will translate some joke I've heard:
- *sigh*
- Oh, Martin, why are you crying?
- *sigh*
- What on Earth has happened?
- Aristotle has died!! *sigh*
- Oh, Martin, but Aristotle has died more than 2000 years ago!
- *sigh* yes, it doesn't matter, I've found out only today! *sigh*
matter of fact maths first
bitcoin working life (mining for reward (work income)) is until ~2142.. (fee income is the pension/commission/bonus ontop/after)
that is a working life of ~132 years.. (after that is more passive labour, for pension)
comparing that to human working life of 65 years (is about 2x factor)
so bitcoin is 13 years, which in human life /2 is 6.5 years..
soo if we go with human infancy of:
A generally accepted definition for 'infant' is:
"a schoolchild between the ages of about four and eight"
6.5 fits right in
..
that said.
the word infant does give off the subliminal image of a hapless baby needing a support system and not independent yet, clumsy and vulnerable as doomad said. so maybe calling it by a different analogy could help
"evolving"
bitcoin working life (mining for reward (work income)) is until ~2142.. (fee income is the pension/commission/bonus ontop/after)
that is a working life of ~132 years.. (after that is more passive labour, for pension)
comparing that to human working life of 65 years (is about 2x factor)
so bitcoin is 13 years, which in human life /2 is 6.5 years..
soo if we go with human infancy of:
A generally accepted definition for 'infant' is:
"a schoolchild between the ages of about four and eight"
6.5 fits right in
..
that said.
the word infant does give off the subliminal image of a hapless baby needing a support system and not independent yet, clumsy and vulnerable as doomad said. so maybe calling it by a different analogy could help
"evolving"
I think we need to be a little more mindful about the arguments we're presenting when discussing Bitcoin with critics. Have a read of this blog/article: It's not still the early days. They make a compelling case.
Yet people still frequently say it is "early days" or that Bitcoin is "still in its infancy". It's not. A generally accepted definition for 'infant' is:
"a schoolchild between the ages of about four and eight"
Bitcoin is more closely akin to a teenager. Both in years and level of development. It's not fully mature, but it's certainly no baby. And I think we risk selling Bitcoin short by comparing it to something so vulnerable. Bitcoin has survived in the wild for years against determined attackers. It has time and again proven itself resilient and indomitable.
It's the usage and acceptance of Bitcoin we are trying to refer to as still maturing. Not the technology itself. And we need to make that distinction clearer for the critics. What are peoples' thoughts on how best to delineate between the level of adoption and the level of technological development?
Yet people still frequently say it is "early days" or that Bitcoin is "still in its infancy". It's not. A generally accepted definition for 'infant' is:
"a schoolchild between the ages of about four and eight"
Bitcoin is more closely akin to a teenager. Both in years and level of development. It's not fully mature, but it's certainly no baby. And I think we risk selling Bitcoin short by comparing it to something so vulnerable. Bitcoin has survived in the wild for years against determined attackers. It has time and again proven itself resilient and indomitable.
It's the usage and acceptance of Bitcoin we are trying to refer to as still maturing. Not the technology itself. And we need to make that distinction clearer for the critics. What are peoples' thoughts on how best to delineate between the level of adoption and the level of technological development?
Jump to: