I've actually observed that the Bitcoin as an alternative to fiat future theory is pretty popular. I think the same way, and when I talk about it there always seem to be people who agree with me.
The only ones who truly believe Bitcoin will replace everything are the hardcore libertarians who believe that fiat is a scam and that global banking will fail. I don't find anything wrong with their belief, of course, but the predominantly libertarian Bitcoin community of the past has since been diluted by the entry of speculators, enthusiasts, etc., so they're probably in the minority nowadays.
The belief probably seems more popular than it actually is in this forum because post-padders that do nothing but talk up Bitcoin like to parade it a lot on one-line posts. They may actually truly believe it, but most of the time it just sounds like hivemind talk echoing from the past. That's just from my observation though.
Topic: Why not just a parallel Bitcoin economy? - page 2. (Read 238 times)
Yes, you got a point. People tend to see Bitcoin as the one who will replace fiat or it will be a global currency that will replace dollars, I beg to differ. It's either Bitcoin will die or it will be use as a currency for a certain thing. It won't replace fiat but it will be use in something that is convenient.
Hey, so I've been thinking, with all this talk about mass adoption flying around and nocoiners calling bitcoiners a cult, maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle. There is definitely something religious about believing that Bitcoin will be the world currency at some point, but I also don't think that it will die off if the majority decides not to bother with it.
Thinking back to the first time I got in contact with Bitcoin, I didn't really think of it as being the "future of money". I kinda drank the kool-aid with the last massive pump. Not that I thought that would be the beginning of Bitcoin taking over, but maybe as a foreshadow of what was to come.
We tend to see things black and white and this is no exception. I have the feeling that even amongst bitcoin maximalists, there is a sentiment of "the whole world or nothing at all", that either at some point, Bitcoin will be the one money to rule them all or it will wither and die eventually. Being who they are in their somewhat religious state, they obviously didn't really bother too much with option two.
But these two paths, boom or bust, are not the only ones available, aren't they. We already have a Bitcoin economy, although I would argue that it is disproportionately small in comparison to Bitcoins current marketcap. Why not just expand on it? Why can't there be a future in which bitcoin exists as an alternative to fiat money?
Why does it seem like everybody is so adamantly pushing for one of two extremes? Isn't it more likely that the truth will lay somewhere in the middle?
Thinking back to the first time I got in contact with Bitcoin, I didn't really think of it as being the "future of money". I kinda drank the kool-aid with the last massive pump. Not that I thought that would be the beginning of Bitcoin taking over, but maybe as a foreshadow of what was to come.
We tend to see things black and white and this is no exception. I have the feeling that even amongst bitcoin maximalists, there is a sentiment of "the whole world or nothing at all", that either at some point, Bitcoin will be the one money to rule them all or it will wither and die eventually. Being who they are in their somewhat religious state, they obviously didn't really bother too much with option two.
But these two paths, boom or bust, are not the only ones available, aren't they. We already have a Bitcoin economy, although I would argue that it is disproportionately small in comparison to Bitcoins current marketcap. Why not just expand on it? Why can't there be a future in which bitcoin exists as an alternative to fiat money?
Why does it seem like everybody is so adamantly pushing for one of two extremes? Isn't it more likely that the truth will lay somewhere in the middle?
Jump to: