Bitcoin tries to solve a real problem. Unfortunately, Bitcoin, as a solution, is worse than the problem it tried to solve.
Let's be methodical:
"Methodical" ? How about *rational ?
I can methodically prove *anything, provided you allow me to make completely ridiculous, unsupported assertions in my methods.
Please explain why bitcoin is "worse than the problem it tried to solve".
*What problem ?
How did Bitcoin "try" to solve it ?
Why is it "Worse" ?
Please provide supporting evidence for your statements, and not just personal opinions.
You know, I recall hearing much the same twaddle coming from Microsoft in the early days of Linux - "But it doesnt do anything that *we cant do !".. Maybe, Maybe not, but it does it *for FREE.
A decade or so down the track, Linux now powers every Android Handset out there, innumerable embedded devices, the Majority of servers, Practically ALL super computers, and guess what, the average Joe in the street *Still doesn't know what it is. They're happy enough using their virus-ridden fragile and easily broken Windows.
But the people who *matter and provide services (Google, Ebay, Facebook, WikiPedia, Twitter, in fact practically *every large service provider) use Linux to power their services, and probably couldnt exist without it. Can you imagine Gmail having to pay a per-user Client License Fee to MS ?
Bitcoin shares much in principle with Linux. Its open source, it has no "owner", it requires no middleman or central authority, it has no (significant) useage fees, anyone can use it to receive payments with a few minutes of work and no approvals required. It enables Micropayments (the long sought after Holy Grail for low-cost web-payments). I could go on, but Im not trying to Spruik Bitcoin here, Im just providing counter examples to your baseless assertions.
1. Banking is a flawed system? Yeah, but Bitcoin? If your car has problems, don't trade it in for a pair of roller skates, fix it.
More meaningless analogies. Please explain your statement that Bitcoin compares to Roller Skates.
Are you suggesting that *everyone wants to cart 1000Kg of steel machinery about with them, powered by a noisy, polluting engine capable of producing several hundred horsepower, even although it spends 90% of its time idling in traffic, is prone to frequent breakdown and requires constant input of money and resources to keep operational, just to move a single persons lazy 80kg ass a few kilometers (in 80% of journeys) ? Oh, thats not what you meant ?
Then dont use weak car analogies.
2. There are people waiting days and weeks to transfer money. These people (the poor, unbanked, and uneducated) have expressed little interest in Bitcoin.
Oh Really ? And you surveyed *how many of them to provide this "proven fact" ?
Perhaps a more likely (still unproven) statement is they "dont know about it, or how to use it.. YET". Until it appears in their local store, with a User Interface such that they can put their $100 note in, and type "Email to Aunt Flora in Wales - Subject, Happy birthday from Joe In America", they probably wont either.
But there is nothing to stop someone from building Bitcoin based money transfer machines that work exactly like this with no requirement to interface with *any of the existing banking system and no requirement for the developer to build his own hacker-proof trusted transmission network. Its just developing the end-user applications that sit on top of the underlying technology that make it useable for the uneducated.
Example. The Internet DNS system. Without it, who is going to be able to remember all those IP addresses ? Add a simple lookup layer over the top of it, and suddenly Joe can
www.whatever.com to his hearts content.
3. BTC exchange rate represents the market sentiment re. BTC worth.
It surely does. But *at the moment, "The Market" is largely speculators, tech geeks, a few early adopters and a bunch of people who wouldnt recognise an SHA256 Hash if it hit them in the face, and thus fall for headlines that shout "Bitcoin Hacked, Millions Stolen !" when its completely untrue, so are "sentimentally" knee-jerk reacting to false, half-understood information.
Once "The Market" grows from its present embryonic size and the people who are seriously invested in it employ advisers who actually understand how the core technology works and can ensure the investors dont respond to illiterate incorrect noise from panic merchants, then the amateurs who are just in it hoping to make a quick buck will become a minority, and "market sentiment" will stabilise and not be as reactive to half-truths and misinformation.
So, it seems to me to have been fairly easy to counter your "methodical" unproven assertions with some simple rationality.
Got anything more *substantial objection-wise ?
Dont bother replying with more of the same waffle, Im not going to counter every unproven assertion that you make, I just wanted to demonstrate how easy it is to do so.