When a company decides to create its own scrip based on the bitcoin protocol, there needs to be a serious shareholder's discussion on why the company has decided to suddenly issue liabilities at a pre-decided rate to the rest of world.
When a government decides to do this, then the question that will be raised in the assembly would be as to what makes computational power so unique as a source for backing, especially if the government doesn't have that much computational power at hand.
The OP's point is why will anyone with resources give up the possibility of earning the early adopter money.
My counter question is why would they want to favour people with a specific kind of computational setup instead of backing it with a promise as all currencies are today? - A possible answer could be sending a strong signal that they are committed to a tight monetary policy. But they can do that by backing it up with gold or pegging to USD, Euro or CHF today. These pegs are much more understood in the world today than a distributed wacko currency scheme (majority public perception when this will come to light)
And the value of the peg is the same as the value of any promise today. Or even the value of the promise that the currency would be accepted for taxes.
Topic: (Un)Quick post from Japan. No politics please..... (Read 4760 times)
A Bytecoin that could be used exactly the same as a Bitcoin, except that if you wanted to gamble in Macao or trade in orange juice futures or pay taxes in Kenya or whatever you had to use Bytecoins and Bytecoins alone, would instantly cause people to start favoring them as there would be an backer of last resort.
You are forgetting an extremely important aspect of Bitcoin. The fact that it is NOT backed by anyone is one of its greatest advantages. Bitcoin is not the responsibility nor liability of any group or nation. Thus, the failure or targetting of no group or nation could bring Bitcoin down.
THAT in itself is absolutely revolutionary.
An important aspect indeed. However, being unaccountable also presents challenges. Without a captain to steer this ship, it's quite possible Bitcoin could drift aimlessly. Naturally because the model does not put accountability on anyone specifically, the users of Bitcoin are rather fragmented at the moment.
That's not to say an individual or a group of individuals cannot step up and take initiative (MtGox for example) but it is all the more imperative that people stay proactive and not simply sit content. Bitcoin by design puts the onus on the user to shape its future. That is rather revolutionary. It will be interesting to see if it will be successful.
A Bytecoin that could be used exactly the same as a Bitcoin, except that if you wanted to gamble in Macao or trade in orange juice futures or pay taxes in Kenya or whatever you had to use Bytecoins and Bytecoins alone, would instantly cause people to start favoring them as there would be an backer of last resort.
You are forgetting an extremely important aspect of Bitcoin. The fact that it is NOT backed by anyone is one of its greatest advantages. Bitcoin is not the responsibility nor liability of any group or nation. Thus, the failure or targetting of no group or nation could bring Bitcoin down.
THAT in itself is absolutely revolutionary.
If Apple or Zimbabwe or Hooters creates their own similar currencies, they lose this main advantage, and upon losing it... how would they expect to overtake the adoption of Bitcoin?
We already know that Facebook has now created its own currency. They have 1000000x more name recognition than Bitcoin, they have billions of dollars, and many smart people. And you know how many Facebook credits I intend to purchase? Zero.
I didn't say it can't be obsoleted by something better.
Just to be clear, I wasn't speaking to you or anyone else directly, which is why I didn't quote anyone. It has been an argument I've seen many times and one I'm not particularly fond of. That's the reason for my post.
I dislike the first to market argument. The economy of Bitcoin is but a blip on the economic radar. It's akin to having a mom-and-pop store be first on the block. That's fine and dandy until a Walmart or Walgreens is constructed next door. Facebook wasn't the first social media website on the market. iTunes wasn't the first seller of online music. Sites like MySpace (or its earlier incarnations) and Napster were innovative and game changing, but in the end they were rendered obsolete. It's not only arrogant but also foolish to believe that the genesis of an idea will equate to long-term success. Ideas are modified (stolen) all the time. I'm sure we can all think of many examples of this, if not see above.
I didn't say it can't be obsoleted by something better. It's just that the OP argument sounded like "because stuff is open and therefor there will be lots of Bitcoins". Facebook was better than MySpace in certain way. Maybe it just looked better or something, but people don't simply switch to something new and if there is a new Bitcoin it doesn't mean that Bitcoins will have suddenly zero value.Quote
Call it what you want, a wide moat, high barriers to entry, whatever, these are what you need to give yourself a competitive chance. I think the OP in a roundabout way is trying to point out that Bitcoin may not possess enough of these barriers.
A. This barriers come to existence. I agree, they might be not high enough for an alternative butB. Why are alternatives such a huge problem? I mean as long as there aren't tons of them it really isn't that much of a problem. See Namecoin.
Quote
Do I own Bitcoin? Yes. Have I sold goods for Bitcoin? Yes. It's a rather fantastic and ingenious concept. That doesn't mean I can't be objective about Bitcoin
I think that possessing and utilizing Bitcoins means that one has to be objective about them. Else there could be a big loss.And there are also a lot of "Bitcoin is doomed" guys. Most of them just want cheap Bitcoins, else they wouldn't waste their time writing nonsense. One really shouldn't overestimate problems or their potential influence on Bitcoin. While I agree there are lots of hurdles and Bitcoin could be better in many places it's currently(!) does well. Of course there could always be more Bitcoin related projects, services, businesses, but these are things we can work on and it really isn't that bad right now. The stable price is a good things for businesses and I'm sure I am not the only potential customer. Even if Bitcoins will be transferred into Dollars or Euros eventually creating a Bitcoin accepting businesses most likely result in a more customer and the risk isn't that high.
I dislike the first to market argument. The economy of Bitcoin is but a blip on the economic radar. It's akin to having a mom-and-pop store be first on the block. That's fine and dandy until a Walmart or Walgreens is constructed next door. Facebook wasn't the first social media website on the market. iTunes wasn't the first seller of online music. Sites like MySpace (or its earlier incarnations) and Napster were innovative and game changing, but in the end they were rendered obsolete. It's not only arrogant but also foolish to believe that the genesis of an idea will equate to long-term success. Ideas are modified (stolen) all the time. I'm sure we can all think of many examples of this, if not see above.
Call it what you want, a wide moat, high barriers to entry, whatever, these are what you need to give yourself a competitive chance. I think the OP in a roundabout way is trying to point out that Bitcoin may not possess enough of these barriers.
Scarcity is also a rather weak argument. If you want something that is scarce, intrinsically valued and useful to just about everyone in the world, buy oil.
Do I own Bitcoin? Yes. Have I sold goods for Bitcoin? Yes. It's a rather fantastic and ingenious concept. That doesn't mean I can't be objective about Bitcoin and see that it does have potential flaws. Other than speculation, Bitcoin's biggest market, unfortunately, is illegal trade. The legalization of marijuana alone could hit Bitcoin very hard. It probably wouldn't destroy it but I would guess that it would take a significant chunk of the economy away. I guess my point is that I see a lot of "this time it's different" arguments. That's always a very dangerous assertion to make. I'm hopeful that Bitcoin will be a success but I'm also cognizant that it's chances are rather low (being that we're still in the infancy stage). Never become emotionally invested in your investments.
Call it what you want, a wide moat, high barriers to entry, whatever, these are what you need to give yourself a competitive chance. I think the OP in a roundabout way is trying to point out that Bitcoin may not possess enough of these barriers.
Scarcity is also a rather weak argument. If you want something that is scarce, intrinsically valued and useful to just about everyone in the world, buy oil.
Do I own Bitcoin? Yes. Have I sold goods for Bitcoin? Yes. It's a rather fantastic and ingenious concept. That doesn't mean I can't be objective about Bitcoin and see that it does have potential flaws. Other than speculation, Bitcoin's biggest market, unfortunately, is illegal trade. The legalization of marijuana alone could hit Bitcoin very hard. It probably wouldn't destroy it but I would guess that it would take a significant chunk of the economy away. I guess my point is that I see a lot of "this time it's different" arguments. That's always a very dangerous assertion to make. I'm hopeful that Bitcoin will be a success but I'm also cognizant that it's chances are rather low (being that we're still in the infancy stage). Never become emotionally invested in your investments.
Most of the things you described actually happened to hard (as in hardware) currencies. Yes, Bitcoin need a bigger market to become more stable. The thing you can do as developer is making things easier, probably providing some services, etc. Yes, it's still risky and most people know this, but because it's risky you can make a lot of money with it. A bit like stocks, but I wouldn't really compare them with stocks. So we need to make some cunning entrepreneurs aware of Bitcoin.
As for simply creating another currency doing the same. Why would anyone use it? Yet another search engine like Google, yet another microblog, like Twitter, yet another social network like Facebook wouldn't be successful unless they provide something very special.
Bitcoin is heavily distributed and so what do you mean when you say "someone with more power shows up"?
Also the statement that a new BitCoin would make the original one worthless isn't true. Namecoins didn't make Bitcoin worthless, like the Euro didn't make the Dollar worthless. Why should it?
As for simply creating another currency doing the same. Why would anyone use it? Yet another search engine like Google, yet another microblog, like Twitter, yet another social network like Facebook wouldn't be successful unless they provide something very special.
Bitcoin is heavily distributed and so what do you mean when you say "someone with more power shows up"?
Also the statement that a new BitCoin would make the original one worthless isn't true. Namecoins didn't make Bitcoin worthless, like the Euro didn't make the Dollar worthless. Why should it?
Bitcoins will most likley have value for a long time since there will allways be a need to transfer money across the world anonymously and with almost no fees.
As long as there are drugs to buy with bitcoins. Someone will want them.
As long as there can be use for bitcoins, someone will believe in them.
As long as there are drugs to buy with bitcoins. Someone will want them.
As long as there can be use for bitcoins, someone will believe in them.
@Creighto
I guess I feel that if the concept is as good as it seems, and it seems really good, someone, somewhere will work out the benefits of introducing the worlds first true cryptocurrency and actually having a shot at doing it. The person with first access to that would hold 20% of the worlds money supply for all internet transactions. We have all seen the calculations on the fantasy forums. 21 millions units as 30% of the world money supply means a Bitcoin is a trillion bucks etc etc
But that maths isn't far away if everyone DOES start to use it. If its truely successful, someone will consider it who actually has a chance of doing something like that. Adopting the system but with a new algorithm. It would be like the new Swiss Franc but better because it would have built in deflation, and the people who started it would own a third of them.
I guess I feel that if the concept is as good as it seems, and it seems really good, someone, somewhere will work out the benefits of introducing the worlds first true cryptocurrency and actually having a shot at doing it. The person with first access to that would hold 20% of the worlds money supply for all internet transactions. We have all seen the calculations on the fantasy forums. 21 millions units as 30% of the world money supply means a Bitcoin is a trillion bucks etc etc
But that maths isn't far away if everyone DOES start to use it. If its truely successful, someone will consider it who actually has a chance of doing something like that. Adopting the system but with a new algorithm. It would be like the new Swiss Franc but better because it would have built in deflation, and the people who started it would own a third of them.
Only if they can get others to join them. That is the big if. Bitcoin was lucky in this way, as there was never any certainty that people would join. Now they are, and even the users sometimes complain about the 'fairness' of it all. If any institution were to actually start another blockchain, why would the public favor one set of early adopters over another?
I think artists and labels accepting the equivalent of Apple scrip for payment instead of national currencies is farfetched. I think it's even less likely that a large company like Apple can afford the risks associated with making a currency like bitcoin, due to possibility of regulatory action that could be taken against them. It it bitcoin's decentralized nature that is its main strength, and a company issueing it would be a central authority and point of failure.
@Creighto
I guess I feel that if the concept is as good as it seems, and it seems really good, someone, somewhere will work out the benefits of introducing the worlds first true cryptocurrency and actually having a shot at doing it. The person with first access to that would hold 20% of the worlds money supply for all internet transactions. We have all seen the calculations on the fantasy forums. 21 millions units as 30% of the world money supply means a Bitcoin is a trillion bucks etc etc
But that maths isn't far away if everyone DOES start to use it. If its truely successful, someone will consider it who actually has a chance of doing something like that. Adopting the system but with a new algorithm. It would be like the new Swiss Franc but better because it would have built in deflation, and the people who started it would own a third of them.
I guess I feel that if the concept is as good as it seems, and it seems really good, someone, somewhere will work out the benefits of introducing the worlds first true cryptocurrency and actually having a shot at doing it. The person with first access to that would hold 20% of the worlds money supply for all internet transactions. We have all seen the calculations on the fantasy forums. 21 millions units as 30% of the world money supply means a Bitcoin is a trillion bucks etc etc
But that maths isn't far away if everyone DOES start to use it. If its truely successful, someone will consider it who actually has a chance of doing something like that. Adopting the system but with a new algorithm. It would be like the new Swiss Franc but better because it would have built in deflation, and the people who started it would own a third of them.
@Creighto
Aren't we talking about a new technology that will allow them to get the economic advantage? That has just been invented?
Aren't we talking about a new technology that will allow them to get the economic advantage? That has just been invented?
No. Bitcoin has an economic advantage over fiat currencies by reason of it's cash like attributes while in use online. Decentralization and anoninimity are central to those cash-like attributes. I can't see an advantage for a centralized blockchain, since the primary reason that the proof-of-work system exists is so that no single institution (or group of institutions working in conjunction) must be trusted for the value of the currency to remain intact. Wal-coins might be able to make a credible claim towards anoniminty on technical grounds, but would you take that risk? Would the Federal Reserve suffer Wal-coins to exist if it were true? The fact that Wal-coins were centrally supported tells those with a vested interest in the status quo exactly which CEO's office to visit, and which board members need a good IRS audit. E-gold tried the centralization route, and got hammered for it. And as a matter of quality online money, a gold backed currency is superior on many economic and historical points. Bitcoin's decentralization says that there is no headquarters to raid, and anoniminty says that end users are hard to find. Any credible competitor to Bitcoin needs to have both these attributes, and be able to prove it on technical grounds, to even stand an even chance. If this could be done and also have a credible claim to being backed by gold, silver or even U235, Bitcoin would fade away and I'd be one of the first to sell my bitcoins for the new chain. But how could that work? Even if someone could crack that in the near future, it would also have to be a method that Bitcoin couldn't just adopt itself.
@Creighto
Aren't we talking about a new technology that will allow them to get the economic advantage? That has just been invented?
Aren't we talking about a new technology that will allow them to get the economic advantage? That has just been invented?
So are you are saying that either the technology itself is not good enough for mass consumption (ie Bitcoin remains a curiosity) and therefore Bitcoin has value because its not good enough to have credible contenders? Or that the technology is sound but anyone wishing to seriously adopt it will bootstrap Bitcoin and forgo all the benefits they could accrue by merely making their own algorithm?
I'm saying that, under the premise that the tech is sound and that there are no major flaws left (a large assumption, I admit) that Bitcoin's large first to market advantage will prevent similar competitors from catching up. An institutional blockchain isn't really comparable to Bitcoin, because (by definition) there is a central institution supporting the value, and any threats to that institution also threaten the trade value of the currency. That's comparable to Wal-Mart starting a blockchain to use their actual stock price as currency. That's a possibility, but it doesn't protect Wal-coins from the issues of centralization, and people from Kenya are unlikely to ever have interest in owning Wal-coins.
Bitcoin's first to market advantage protects it from other unbacked and distributed competitors. But I don't thing there is much threat from institutional blockchains either. After all, if there was an economic incentive for these institutions to issue their own currencies in direct compatition with the national governments that regulate their charter, they would have already done so.
There is also the possibility that if a major market leading corporation were to set up a chain and start to gain ground on Bitcoin, that corporation's direct compatition is then inclined to do something similar. Certainly the larger competitors could follow the exact same model, and start their own block chains; but some of the smaller competitors are going to look at the field of choices and chose to simply base their market offering off of the open market choice already in existance, namely Bitcoin. This effect will all but garrantee that the smaller institutional blockchains are marginalized as many small players in many different industries do the same thing.
@stillfire
That's an excellent post.
I guess coming from the finance area we feel it's fun to follow the business. So you try and spot problems or predicate how things could go to improve on it. Which you have done also.
Looking back over my thoughts, my scenario comes true in in a free market, that is what would happen (I believe). Or a variation of it.
Your thoughts are just as likely, and address aspects more political in nature. Certainly most our economic decisions are no longer made with anything but politics in mind.
So many big questions.
I guess we just have to see what happens.
That's an excellent post.
I guess coming from the finance area we feel it's fun to follow the business. So you try and spot problems or predicate how things could go to improve on it. Which you have done also.
Looking back over my thoughts, my scenario comes true in in a free market, that is what would happen (I believe). Or a variation of it.
Your thoughts are just as likely, and address aspects more political in nature. Certainly most our economic decisions are no longer made with anything but politics in mind.
So many big questions.
I guess we just have to see what happens.
@ shane
I'm not an expert at any of this, but....
You seem to contend that some bigger player can come along, create a clone, and their marketing / influence will make their version more popular.
That *might* be possible at the moment, but as Bitcoin keeps getting more popular...
The many *small* shop type places that accept Bitcoin will add up. And the sum total of small businesses can exceed by a huge amount any one single company.
So maybe, at the moment, a large company could step in and take over... but as time marches on that becomes less and less likely.
Also, maybe in future a new virtual currency does appear. But all these many small businesses will not immediately drop bitcoin in perfect synchronicity. Bitcoin might then slowly decrease in value as a new virtual currency takes over. But as long as it's not an instant drop I don't see how that is a problem.
I'm not an expert at any of this, but....
You seem to contend that some bigger player can come along, create a clone, and their marketing / influence will make their version more popular.
That *might* be possible at the moment, but as Bitcoin keeps getting more popular...
The many *small* shop type places that accept Bitcoin will add up. And the sum total of small businesses can exceed by a huge amount any one single company.
So maybe, at the moment, a large company could step in and take over... but as time marches on that becomes less and less likely.
Also, maybe in future a new virtual currency does appear. But all these many small businesses will not immediately drop bitcoin in perfect synchronicity. Bitcoin might then slowly decrease in value as a new virtual currency takes over. But as long as it's not an instant drop I don't see how that is a problem.
So are you are saying that either the technology itself is not good enough for mass consumption (ie Bitcoin remains a curiosity) and therefore Bitcoin has value because its not good enough to have credible contenders? Or that the technology is sound but anyone wishing to seriously adopt it will bootstrap Bitcoin and forgo all the benefits they could accrue by merely making their own algorithm?
We might very well see competing cryptocurrencies (to the extent that it is legal to provide comparable services) with commercial backing. Note though that many digital currencies run by companies today are very severely restricted and can't be used as regular money, so with current realities as a guide it is not true that the 'new competition' will be exactly the same as Bitcoin.
Any currency which has a backer of last resort will be heavily controlled and regulated since there is just one entity to send the hounds of the prosecutorial offices upon. I think this by itself is enough to leave a sizeable market for Bitcoin beyond its first to market advantage. There will be people who just don't like Apple or Kenya, or are inconvenienced by the arcane laws and regulations which will doubtlessly control the currency. They might fear that the commercial entity goes bankrupt and takes the currency into the grave with them.
Bitcoin can't go bankrupt precisely because it's a public project. There might be other public projects competing with Bitcoin - there already are - but they won't be the Apple backed kind you describe. Competing public projects must only compete on terms of technical excellence.
So even if the 'muppets', as you call them, will use whatever currency they are told to use, there will still be a market for a free public currency, if small. Leave it up to the market to decide if they prefer the muppet coins or the Bitcoins.
@amincd
Oh, it wouldn't work because they wouldn't accept AppleCoins? Guaranteed by Apple. Yeah man, They' d say "Wee don't accept no skeeeenkin' AppleCoins man. It's U.S dollars, Aussie dollars or Bitcoins only!"
I would be totally into a band that said something like that. They would be making a political statement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_EsYmPwYWI&feature=fvwrel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju5W_FT2D5I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zVECruSI3k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk0086ewpjg&feature=related
But the airwaves are ruled by shit bands. Therefore those bands wouldn't say that.
They'd say 'Meh, Applecoins. Yeah o.k. Lets get Biebers new CD with it."
Oh, it wouldn't work because they wouldn't accept AppleCoins? Guaranteed by Apple. Yeah man, They' d say "Wee don't accept no skeeeenkin' AppleCoins man. It's U.S dollars, Aussie dollars or Bitcoins only!"
I would be totally into a band that said something like that. They would be making a political statement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_EsYmPwYWI&feature=fvwrel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju5W_FT2D5I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zVECruSI3k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk0086ewpjg&feature=related
But the airwaves are ruled by shit bands. Therefore those bands wouldn't say that.
They'd say 'Meh, Applecoins. Yeah o.k. Lets get Biebers new CD with it."
@Creighto
Good call. I agree with everything you say there.
But whatever the final analysis here, I (and I hope you) are discussing the technology whole rather than the specific algorithm called Bitcoin.If it is sound (and personally I believe it rules for many ideological and practical reasons) then it should be adopted.
Where we disagree is that if Bitcoin (the system) is proven sound, you believe that the first to market advantage Bitcoin has will ensure it succeeds over competing algorithms.
I however feel the first to market advantage will be nothing once a credible contender hits the airwaves. If Bitcoin is tested to destruction and passes with flying colors and finally proves itself as a viable currency, the technology itself will be adopted. And Bitcoins first to market status will prove to be its death.
A credible adopter of the technology will not use Bitcoin. Why would they? Give up first access to capital? Nup.
I contend that if the technology proves sound and is adopted, the public will not make a conscious decision to use Bitcoin or not. They will just be told "From now on, Korea Air accepts KCoins" or "Apple has just unveiled a NEW GREAT TECHNOLOGY called Applecoin (ra ra raaaa) " and the muppets will eat it up.
I don't think the public has any concept of privacy, govt interference or just how screwed they are. The U.S just extended the 'Patriot' Act (hah) for four more years, the cops in the U.S can now kick in your door if they smell weed (or say they did) http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com/2011/05/17/constitutional-rights-a-casualty-of-endless-war/
etc etc and Obama will be re-elected in a landslide while adding wars to Bushes total. The public just don't make decisions that are good for them.
So if Bitcoins technology is good enough to be adopted commercially you think they will bootstrap Bitcoin? And pass up those billions and billions of dollars? Doh.
Dramatic advantage? Nah man. All you need is a guarantee from Kirin Beer that each KirinCoin will be able to be redeemed for a 6-pack from here on out and Bitcoin is toast.
The only people with a financially vested interest in making Bitcoin succeed are those who have a bunch of them. If someone with real political or economic power wishes to adopt the technology (and don't forget, I am hoping we are talking about the technology itself here) they will want their own algorithm.
So are you are saying that either the technology itself is not good enough for mass consumption (ie Bitcoin remains a curiosity) and therefore Bitcoin has value because its not good enough to have credible contenders? Or that the technology is sound but anyone wishing to seriously adopt it will bootstrap Bitcoin and forgo all the benefits they could accrue by merely making their own algorithm?
Good call. I agree with everything you say there.
But whatever the final analysis here, I (and I hope you) are discussing the technology whole rather than the specific algorithm called Bitcoin.If it is sound (and personally I believe it rules for many ideological and practical reasons) then it should be adopted.
Where we disagree is that if Bitcoin (the system) is proven sound, you believe that the first to market advantage Bitcoin has will ensure it succeeds over competing algorithms.
I however feel the first to market advantage will be nothing once a credible contender hits the airwaves. If Bitcoin is tested to destruction and passes with flying colors and finally proves itself as a viable currency, the technology itself will be adopted. And Bitcoins first to market status will prove to be its death.
A credible adopter of the technology will not use Bitcoin. Why would they? Give up first access to capital? Nup.
I contend that if the technology proves sound and is adopted, the public will not make a conscious decision to use Bitcoin or not. They will just be told "From now on, Korea Air accepts KCoins" or "Apple has just unveiled a NEW GREAT TECHNOLOGY called Applecoin (ra ra raaaa) " and the muppets will eat it up.
I don't think the public has any concept of privacy, govt interference or just how screwed they are. The U.S just extended the 'Patriot' Act (hah) for four more years, the cops in the U.S can now kick in your door if they smell weed (or say they did) http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com/2011/05/17/constitutional-rights-a-casualty-of-endless-war/
etc etc and Obama will be re-elected in a landslide while adding wars to Bushes total. The public just don't make decisions that are good for them.
So if Bitcoins technology is good enough to be adopted commercially you think they will bootstrap Bitcoin? And pass up those billions and billions of dollars? Doh.
Dramatic advantage? Nah man. All you need is a guarantee from Kirin Beer that each KirinCoin will be able to be redeemed for a 6-pack from here on out and Bitcoin is toast.
The only people with a financially vested interest in making Bitcoin succeed are those who have a bunch of them. If someone with real political or economic power wishes to adopt the technology (and don't forget, I am hoping we are talking about the technology itself here) they will want their own algorithm.
So are you are saying that either the technology itself is not good enough for mass consumption (ie Bitcoin remains a curiosity) and therefore Bitcoin has value because its not good enough to have credible contenders? Or that the technology is sound but anyone wishing to seriously adopt it will bootstrap Bitcoin and forgo all the benefits they could accrue by merely making their own algorithm?
Jump to: