Could you retract the nonsense claim? That isn't the way to have a civil debate. I never said "instantly a zero-sum game". You are putting words in my mouth which I never wrote or argued for.
Please go re-read my prior posts. I explained that I do not expect the threat to come suddenly. I expect it to come so slowly that you will not resist, because you will not even perceive it as a threat. And by the time you do, it will be too late.
Your point essentially is that P2P currencies won't overtake all commerce, or that not all P2P currencies will have this flaw that Bitcoin has. Well I hope so too! That is why I am here to say we need to make sure that happens.
So what is our disagreement? You think it will just happen naturally that cartels won't push Bitcoin? Do you not see what is happening now? First mover advantage is going heavily to Bitcoin (and Litecoin), both of which have this same design flaw.
I happen to believe that in 20 years or less, all transactions will be settled by P2P currency payment systems.
I don't agree that it will be easy to launch another P2P currency after one becomes dominant and heavily used by the general population and institutional investors. It is easy now, because there is a great unfilled demand. Once the demand has been filled, you can't replace.
Do you know how difficult it has been for us to replace Microsoft Windows and Microsoft's monopoly cartel? It took us 2 decades.
We would have never gotten there if not for the disruptive technology of the internet, server, and mobile Android phone (Linux).
But in currencies, you don't get another chance. P2P is it. After that, there won't be another paradigm shift opportunity in currencies for a loooonnng time probably.
The masses won't switch after their wallets are set in Bitcoin. They hate technology hassles. They just want it to work and give them their junk.
Firstly, I don't retract my opinion - if you are offended, tough.
I am not offended as long as you are not trying to win a political argument with the use of colorful words. Let's see what logic you have put forth.
Your whole approach seems top down, and while it makes it easy to create a strategy, reality is different.
That is a reasonable point
in the abstract. You should know that I love abstract. I regularly inhabit there
But here we have to come back into reality and try to discern abstract hypothesis from practice.
As my plumber friend says, "there is a big difference between theory and practice".
You also are conveniently forgetting every technology which has failed even though it had 'cartel' support.
Failed? Depends how you define fail. Decades of suffering from Windows, with Bill Gates now using the proceeds to sterilize Africans is failure for them?
For instance, nobody replaced Windows. It was the market that changed, with lots of little innovations from individuals and small groups like those that got bitcoin off the ground and Microsoft couldn't keep up. The same thing will happen to Google, and Apple, and bitcoin (eventually!)
True, but someone had to articulate it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_S._RaymondI assume you are younger than me (48), so hope you won't be offended if I say, "Get Off My Lawn":
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3335 (
World Without Web)
The prior link explains that someone made the internet happen for you. Somebody was worried then, as I am now, or you would not have the internet now.
So please don't dismiss individual human action.
What have you contributed?
I for one created the first social network which inspired friendster, which inspired myspace, which inspired facebook.
Which is driving a lot of the effects that give rise to Bitcoin.
So I did my part once already.
As for this worry of not being able to get rid of currencies, you have obviously forgotten the Euro experiment in Europe where 17 currencies were deleted and a new one introduced in a weekend. With full political support, anything is possible! That is also true in reverse!
Sorry but you fail to understand economics, because you over generalize. Europe will not dis-unify. Watch and learn.
http://www.mpettis.com/2013/03/21/when-do-we-call-it-a-solvency-crisis/#comment-21988You need to view this has different gears turning at different speeds.
The youth and skilled are migrating. The old and unskilled are staying put in the Euro.
So the Euro is decay itself, but the decay stay unified for as long as it has this political control, which appears to be more like 2033ish and by then the cartel will have another angle up their sleeve.
The cartel is moving their control up the ladder of leverage to the end of the nation-state.This is precisely why I expected to find the vulnerability planted in Bitcoin, and I found it exactly where I expected to find it. The cartel is trying to find global controlling paradigms, and let us gain our efficiencies from the end of the nation-state structure.
I don't view the end of cartelized instances as failure on their part, rather they are always sacrificing an instance to gain another instance, when it is time to adjust to the movement of the masses.
The cartel (power elite) are like cattle herders. They watch where the cows want to go eat, and make sure they place their capture devices there. After all they are just businessmen trying to maximize profit by any unethical means. But they also claim it is ethical because they claim we are unable to organize ourselves against failure.
So if you leave a monopolization threat in the design of Bitcoin, you are doing exactly what they claim-- designing for failure.
Finally, you have a very off putting dismissive attitude to the public's ability to make a choice. The public change things all the time, in fact the whole concept of the free market depends on it!
You have to offer the choice to them. That is what I am talking about here, to motivate someone to offer the choice needed.
Choice doesn't create itself.
Nonsense.
If people feel that the advantages of using bitcoin is being compromised by some big forces, they might do something about it, or maybe they won't, however, without actually offering a solution, your post is a bit meaningless.
Okay now you have a valid point:
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3514 (
Those who can’t build, talk)
I first want to test my logic, to make sure I am correct. That is why I am here discussing. And also getting feedback on what the market wants and does not want.
I am doing a market survey in this thread.
On the other hand, if you had started the thread with 'there are some problems brewing for bitcoin, and here is my solution..' you might have got a fairer hearing
Fair enough.
Point is very valid.
I came storming into the forum with "Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme".
The fact is that good enough is actually all you need, and at the moment, bitcoin is almost good enough - it just needs to be more public friendly to hit the mainstream! That is something I am working on and when I'm ready, I will be posting my solution!
Without fixing the "no debasement", the mining ecosystem will not be healthy enough and you leave the threat wide open to cartelization of mining.
I see you have a vested interest for Bitcoin to remain the only or best or favorite P2P currency. Okay fine. You decide where to invest your time. That doesn't mean you are correct about the threat I see.
You are asserting that the threat is not sure enough to worry about. I STRONGLY DISAGREE.