[jacquesm]

> Why are people obsessed with cryptocurrencies?

Because they are interesting in a theoretical way and because real world implementations are even more interesting, they show us what the future might look like.

> It's bad enough that those with sufficient computing speed/power can already rip off the stock market; why does the world need another way for people to rip each other off?

That's not the intent.

> Since we've determined over history that some people will take advantage of weaknesses for their own gain, we should assume that as a given until proven otherwise.

Agreed.

> No matter what system you create to transfer goods, resources, services or value representing those, it will be exploited.

That remains to be seen. There is an outside chance that it is possible to create something solid, my guess is that it will have to be something extremely simple.

> So- why even spend time on it?

Just like it took a while to map the globe, mapping this 'space' takes time - and effort - and funds. I'm fine with it, it isn't my time, my effort or my funds and I end up learning just as much as those that put forward their resources. Think of it as free education on someone else's dime. That's a pretty cynical view but to date I have not seen any system that appears to be solid enough to warrant backing.

> If everyone who cares to maintains their own accounting data does so, regardless of what technologies we are using, we really could just trade in goods, services, and coin and completely get rid of all virtual currency.

That would severely limit the amount and kinds of trade possible. On the other hand, a really strong cryptocurrency has risks all its own and it is worthwhile to consider the downsides with the upsides.

[DrJokepu]

> That remains to be seen.

Isn't this a somewhat meaningless statement? Is it possible to prove that "no matter what system you create to transfer goods, resources, services or value representing those, it will be exploited"? Is it possible to prove the contrary (that there is or could be such a system)?

It will never be seen because we will never know for sure one way or the other. Best we can do is to make educated guesses based on past experiences.

[jacquesm]

Let's take banking as an analogy: is it perfect? No, it definitely isn't. But it is 'good enough' to power worldwide commerce.

So until these systems reach reliability parity with 'ordinary' banking we'll see reduced trust. But once a system gets launched that has staying power and that appears to have made the right decisions in the founding phase you can expect more and more commerce to ride on them.

When more commerce is involved the 'bounty' on finding a flaw increases and so any system that carries a substantial amount of commerce and that keeps on standing can be presumed audited to that level.

So it really remains to be seen, which group comes up with a system solid enough to carry a substantial fraction of the worlds commerce. Bitcoin is interesting because even after a couple of years it is still standing, which all by itself is impressive.

Will we ever know for sure? I suspect we will not because this is akin to proving a negative, just like you can never be 100% sure that you've found the last bug in a system. But at some point the premium will be so high that failure to exploit the system should give good confidence that all avenues for exploitation have been exhausted and that even if the system still contains flaws those flaws may not be exploitable. It's an asymptotic curve.

[tootie]

I don't understand how this is even comparable to "banking". It seems like more a replacement for wire transfers. I don't see how it changes the face of investment or the flow of capital.