That's a silly thing to say.
"Why do we need Bitcoin if we already have the Dollar?"
"Why do we need email if we already have fax?"
"Why do we need automobiles if we already have horses?"
Everyone has a different views and opinions about this issue...But this is not an argument what you said.I just wanted to say that bitcoin is created for us to make transactions without intermediaries,therefore we don't (I personally) know how will it keep its technical nuances.
No.
You didn't say "Let's keep Bitcoin simple" which is a fine argument with which I fully concur.
The statement I critized was "why do you need it when we already have ethereum?" which is a phrase that tries to shut down any meaningful discussion without bringing anything new to the table while also oversimplifying the matter.
Exactly.
And Bitcoin smart contracts could be very different things from Ethereum smart contracts. Or Neo smart contracts. Or Stellar smart contracts. Or Waves smart contracts. Or whatever other approach there is out there because apparently smart contract platforms are a dime a dozen these days. Which doesn't mean that alternative approaches aren't worth exploring. Which is the point I'm trying to make.
With wire transfers, credit cards, PayPal and whatever else people out there are using because they don't see the point in cryptocurrencies or find them impractical.
If people had stuck with this line of thinking they would have been happy with Bitcoin's scripting capabilities and not explored the likes of Ethereum in the first place.
I might have misunderstood your initial comment. What I'm trying to say is this: Don't write new technologies off just because its merit isn't visible at a first glance. Similarity does not imply sameness.