I have never said the technology underpinning Bitcoin is bad or in fact that Bitcoin is bad.
Lets call a spade a spade. In this more recent exchange, you suggested you are a 'proponent' of bitcoin. That's not in any way true. There's nothing at all wrong with not being - but let's acknowledge the fact as we find it to be.
I have simply critiqued it objectively in the context of the social, political and cultural aspects of technology adoption.
Another point of clarification. At best, you are no more 'objective' than anyone else with your claim of 'simply critiquing'. You came on here with an accusation regarding my approach to this discussion - you couldn't back it up (because it wasn't true). That said, everyone does have some level of inherent bias, you included.
The potential benefits are being examined and implemented in the likes of CBDC, and Libra.
CBDCs and Corporate digital money like Libra are nothing like bitcoin or decentralised crypto. I welcome their arrival as they will highlight that very fact as we go forward.
Just as you suggest not to critique a technology that is still evolving,
That's a misquote. I didn't say not to critique the technology. What I did say was that as someone critiques it, they do so with the acceptance and knowledge that whatever faults are found today may not be true as we go forward.
then surely you are open to the fact that the evolution and adoption of the technology may render Bitcoin useless?
I'm open to bitcoin not succeeding for a multitude of reasons - that's why I'm on record as saying that bitcoin could still fail.
the Bitcoin whitepaper preceded to propose a utopian currency free from the perceived manipulation and control of central banks in the advent of the financial crisis. The financial crisis caused by the unrepentant growth of capitalism through free markets and deregulation. I have been involved in bitcoin, more or less from the start, and I personally find it ironic that the legitimisation of BTC has not been through the intended use but as another mechanism for capitalists to make money. The legitimisation of BTC is being gained by the very institutions it was set up to take control away from.
This has been a point of discussion within the crypto community over many years already. My personal view is that I don't see how it can't be many things to many different groups. However, if the use case currently centres on store of value - and that can be of benefit in these capitalist markets that it seems you abhor, yet also be useful to individuals for the protection of their wealth on this basis, who cares?
You are telling me not to judge a technology because it is evolving
Again, that's not what I said. What I said was that when you critique it, that you understand and acknowledge that your current assessment is not your final assessment - and the things that you find fault with bitcoin today may not be an issue going forward. Practically everyone on the other side of the debate in this discussion fails to do that.
what is your 'vision' of where BTC will end up in 5, 10, 50 years?
My understanding is changing all the time as this progresses. Like bitcoin itself, it's formative. However, as I see it today, bitcoin will continue to establish itself as a store of value. We will continue to see cycles of price on an iterative basis as price discovery of a finite, nascent asset continues and as adoption (which comes in different guises) continues.
During this time, I expect that we will have some serious clashes in terms of regulation around the world. That aspect remains a major threat to those that speculate on bitcoin. However, I don't see it as an existential threat to bitcoin itself. A full court press could only retard the rate of progress of the decentralised digital currency. It would be a major setback but it won't stop it. Furthermore, by taking this approach, the powers that be will lose any such influence they might have had over the crypto.
I believe that the Lindy effect is relevant here - and that every day above ground makes bitcoin stronger and harder for governments to tackle. For me, the genie is out of the bottle and they won't be putting it back in.
The most important factor for me though is further progress in terms of usability. Multi-sig needs to be developed such that its easy for people to utilise - making it easier for people to hold the cryptocurrency without sweating about the personal responsibility that comes with that storage. Other aspects need to be changed - and there's work underway. End users shouldn't have to see a lot of the geeky stuff that currently comes with using bitcoin. Bitcoin addresses are a case in point. It should be possible to move btc via blockchain based domain (email) addresses. It already is - but this has to be pushed out there.
As bitcoin continues to mature as a digital asset, I believe that its inherent volatility will continue to dissipate. That's going to play out over quite a number of years. As it does so, it improves its usability as a transactional currency. On that, there are still question marks - as we continue to await further development with layer 2 solutions like lightning network. However, it's more than reasonable to expect that bitcoin has an opportunity to re-emerge as a more credible day to day currency. Even if that never happens, the reality is that it can be used right now on a transactional basis. I accept that there are limitations but it will always hold that over gold.
That's my view as to where this is heading. However, it comes with the disclaimer that despite what has been suggested here, my views are subject to change. I try and keep myself as well informed as I possibly can as things change quickly in this space.
I bet your own feathers were all of a flutter after that poetic flourish.
I think that's exactly the sort of stuff that he was talking about.
Read the report. A lot of effort into proving bitcoin is an "alternative asset". I for one needed no convincing that it is "alternative", unfortunately there was no attempt to prove it was an asset.
In your opinion Dukey - as I've been over this with you plenty of times and I don't know if there's any way of proving such a thing to you specifically (whereas there would be with plenty of others).
Of course this latter speculation would rightly be rubbished on the basis of fundamentals like revenues and profit. With the former there are no such fundamentals and so Fidelity can get away with such outrageous speculations.
See above - it's exactly the same point that you're stuck on.
We are nowhere near justifying $200bn market cap, never mind an extra $500bn, based on use as a medium of exchange and we never will be IMHO.
The very same - see above. You're not getting past go because you fail to understand the fundamental proposition that bitcoin brings with it.
Interestingly Fidelity covers this point indirectly by observing that the narrative over bitcoin's role in life is constantly changing.
To my point further above - this is not a settled technology so that makes complete sense.
It also points to a rather novel metric for predicting its trajectory - the number of tweets it is attracting.
I'm sure that they're not hanging their hat on that metric alone. However, I can see how in combination with a whole host of other metrics, there's some logic to it. It speaks to network effect.
Lastly, we didn't get your answer on the
Indian conundrum in post #524 above. What would it be Dukey - shove it up yer jacksy or use bitcoin?