Look, the thing is that although you make some useful points, and you are consistently polite in doing so, you are becoming increasingly strident. The fact that you very selectively choose what to argue - and a lot of people have made some very good points against some of your mistaken assumptions recently - means that it's not really worth engaging with you. Literally no point, because you appear to ignore anything that doesn't fit with what you already believe and move on.
Obviously I argue while I believe I am right. If a reply is convincing, I let the poster have the last word. Isn't that enough?
But there are MANY reasons why I am skeptical of bitcoin's success, and many of the replies that I get are not only unconvincing, thet are just countering facts with statements of faith:
Me: "Goevernments can effectively ban bitcoin, see China for example."
Them: "Bitcoin is like the internet, it will find a way around any obstacle."
This ship appears to be sailing in the USA on the side of no ban. This is a real concern, but trend is good IMO. Me: "Bitcoins may be scarce, but there are plenty of cyptocoins with equivalent or better protocols"
Them: "Cryptocoins will die and bitcoin will not."
Bitcoin adds more users per day than the entire user-base of all the alt-coins combined. The network effect just widens the gap further. (source: BITCOIN 2014 - Wences Casares (Xapo). I did not verify these numbers, is this true?. Me: "Bitcoin is now more prone to theft and fraud than credit cards, see the numbers."
Them: "Bitcoin will be much safer when it matures."
Bitcoin is becoming safer, check out Circle for one example of an insured BTC wallet. Multisig is a nice solution to some of the problems. The investment money pouring in now is working on that problem with much promise (not just faith). Me: "Mining is already concentrated in a few companies, they may form a cartel and become like the bankers."
Them: "It is a free market so that will not happen."
Seems like a legit concern. The small amount of collusion required to attain 51% seems dangerous. This Bitcoin 101 - The Nightmare of a 51% Attack goes over some other scenarios where a malicious player could break the protocol Me: "The Satoshi 2009 blockchain already assigns XX% of all the money to a few thousand people."
Them: "Wealth distribution will improve with time."
While not ideal, I don't see this as any major impediment.And so on and on. Obviously I am not convinced by such answers, but how can I argue with statements of faith?
1. Agree to disagree and move on
2. Admit that you may not be infallible and that perhaps it's not "faith" but rather reasoned thinking. This is extremely hard for many on this forum to give respect to conflicting ideas.
3. Get convinced that you were in fact incorrect. You need to start with number 2.
You obviously have so much ego and animosity that I am pretty sure it's affecting the accuracy of the conclusions.
