[mccoyspace]

When it comes to Bitcoin, I think of Linux as an analogy. When it first emerged, many people questioned it's basic premise: "why is there a new operating system? Everyone uses Windows, or Mac". People didn't know or understand the idea of open source: "Doesn't that just mean people will find bugs and ways to hack it?" "Without a company behind it, how do I know I can trust it in the long term?" At first it's usability sucked. It took forever to get it up and running. It was confusing and hard to learn. It had a small, rabid fan base who kept obsessing about desktop adoption rates and wondering when it would take over. That is all kind of the same vibe as Bitcoin. But just as Linux showed, you don't need a monolithic, centralized entity to back it, it can start slowly and improve over time. "linux on the desktop" basically failed (cue all the linux desktop heads on HH....!) but it completely took over the whole back end of the Internet. Every server runs it. And it then morphed and took over almost all mobile/tablet/smartTV/etc/etc devices. I think something similar could easily happen with Bitcoin. It has securely held Billions of USD equivalents in value for years. The software continues to evolve. Its core technology has morphed into many other formats. And like Linux on the Desktop, maybe the early idea of digital cash will change into another idea, like a settlement layer. who knows? But I remain pretty optimistic about it.

[LV-426]

> When it comes to Bitcoin, I think of Linux as an analogy.

I've read Bitcoin is like email, Bitcoin is like TCP/IP, Bitcoin is like the entire Internet. Now I've read Bitcoin is like Linux.

At one time few people had heard of (random thing from thin air) New Kids On The Block.

Some didn't understand the new fangled (boy band) concept, some thought existing bands/music were good enough, some thought they'll take over the world, and some just thought they could get rich off it all before it collapsed.

Bitcoin is something that happened to catch on (entirely, by design, due to profit motive), which is why it's superficially similar to other things that happened to catch on. (Even things that catch on because they're actually useful, and not just a potential route to get rich quick without any effort.)

Once upon a time Denmark, like Bitcoin, didn't exist.

Danes (like Bitcoiners) were a strange bunch, famed and feared for their involvement in crime to make money. Slowly their influence started to spread, however, despite - but in some ways because of - their criminal behaviour.

Many legends were created... Ragnar Lothbrok, Ivar the Boneless, Magical Tux and Free Ross.

Then along came Christianity[1] (Coinbase/Winklevii) which provided more legitimacy with other, less beardy, groups. The true believers didn't like this, of course, but most people recognised the social and economic benefits of selling out everything they were supposedly all about.

The similarities end there, sadly, because today Bitcoin consumes even more power than Denmark. A fact which is completely batshit insane, but since Bitcoin hype and hysteria is even more insane, and increasing with every $1000 price pump, nobody cares.

Serious question (which will go largely unanswered in favour of turning this text white) for people who seriously think Bitcoin ranks in importance/significance with email/Internet/Linux/Denmark:

Now in its tenth year[2], what has Bitcoin actually achieved, other than a sickening energy waste and crazy price fluctuations and speculation?

[1] Which is also Bitcoin: https://twitter.com/larslfe/status/909192006362005506

[2] See creation dates for bitcoin.com/net/org.

[eitland]

That's one of the more convincing arguments I've seen.

I still hold though that Bitcoin was an early prototype and its value will sooner or later approach zero.

I do however think that blockchains and cryptocurrencies are a good idea and here to stay.

To build on your example:

Linux is here to stay but a number of the old companies, distros and packages are either gone or on life support and newer companies, distros and packages are making our wishes reality.

[anonytrary]

I can't help but agree with this. People can only mine so many coins. Users will prefer blockchains which have lower fees and transaction times, so miners will give priority to those coins. At some point the selling point of Bitcoin will become less and less true. I have rewatched several promotional videos for Bitcoin pre-2015, and most of their claims are false as of late 2017.

[golergka]

Survivor bias. It is also true about many, many things that turned out to be flops in the end.

[Ologn]

> When it first emerged, many people questioned it's (sic) basic premise

As they did Charles Ponzi's international reply coupons.

> That is all kind of the same vibe as Bitcoin

You mean the creator(s) who went to great lengths to hide their identities (that's reassuring), or do you mean the various ripoff artists, fraudsters, imprisoned scammers etc.?

> It has securely held Billions of USD equivalents in value for years.

So did tech stocks in 1999...so did subprime mortgages in 2007...

[profalseidol]

Analogy is good. It does not however tell us that it will be the case, especially if you look at the development community around Bitcoin. While Ethereum, serious innovative stuff is happening but is not being aggresively marketed for good reasons.

[VMG]

Ethereum has been hyping proof-of-stake since version one and delivers Cryptokittens instead.

[wastedhours]

Cryptokitties is an important step. It's helping to normalise the discussion around crypto, showcasing a different example of value exchange based on it, and making people comfortable with that style of transaction.

It's like Snapchat's dog-face filter is the normalising step for AR, you need the small, novel things to move the needle.