|
|
|
|
|
|
by natrius
3119 days ago
|
|
|
To understand what's happening, you have to observe how things have evolved. Bitcoin was advertised as digital cash. Tons of nerds envisioned a future of the whole world buying coffee with Bitcoin. As it became clear that the current network could never fulfill that vision, the whole community evolved its belief system to support the value of the currency, and they did so without any leader to coordinate their actions. They were just led by incentivized memes—the more convincing the justification for high valuations, the better the ideas spread. Now, people don't pitch Bitcoin's value as a digital cash. They tell people it's digital gold and the transaction fees don't matter. The beliefs of the community will continue to evolve as needed to support the value of their claims on our society's productive capacity. |
|
|
There is an interesting historical tidbit: Initially Satoshi didn't have a fixed block size limit. That limit was only added after a DDoS attack where absurdly large blocks flooded the network. But that was a temporary fix, and satoshi had said that limit could easily be changed, maybe using some algorithm that increased size based on demand or that gradually increases with time. He had said large blocks is not a concern because network bandwidth increases exponentially. Unfortunately, the early developers did not proactively address the scaling problem, such as by allowing for increasing block sizes, so we are stuck where we are at today. [1]
Point being, bitcoin could have been a micro-transaction-capable digital cash, and it (or another crypto-currency) still could fix this scaling problem. Not everyone in the community has "evolved their beliefs" about bitcoin (or cryptocurrency in general). I personally feel that bitcoin was and still is experimental, but has simply been a victim of its own success, but that the scaling problems are not insurmountable.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1391350.0