Quote:
Originally Posted by Rant
That is EXACTLY how he should analyze bitcoin given his position and what he is supposed to be doing.
bitcoin might be the internet in 1990. I hope that big investment firms weren't advising people to invest heavily in the internet in 1990.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Financier
No, he's analyzing it like an economist. And equating bitcoin now to the Internet in the 90s is ridiculous.
Thank you for participating in this thread. We need more intelligent and coherent bears in here!
If he is analyzing Bitcoin as an economist then he failed IMO. But, we'll see!
--
The comparison to the internet may be too broad. Here's what I mean:
It is a very new technology that looks like a REALLY big deal to a lot of intelligent people who understand it well.
To the layman it doesn't have obvious uses and it is too hard to use to be worthwhile anyway.
Current experts in peripheral fields miss-analyze it. It is a paradigm breaker so it doesn't fit their worldview.
Bitcoin is a global decentralized network of 'programmable money'.
Personally I think that the programmability of Bitcoin, and the currently-peripheral features like digital signatures, proof of ownership, multi-party transactions, etc. will be a bigger deal than its uses as a straight replacement for traditional currencies. Because it is potentially so different than traditional money it is impossible to grasp or predict its future.
For example - imagine if your Social Security number was replaced by a Bitcoin address. Currently your Social Security number is both your identifier and your proof of ownership. That is absurdly insecure! Same problem with credit cards.
Another example - We 'digitally signed' the papers to refinance our house. That amounted to clicking a button with absolutely no security at all.