| >It does have legitimate use cases transferring value digitally being the primary case I am not convinced that what is being transferred here is value. It's transferring data, but I am not convinced that it is valuable. If it was out only option, then I guess I'd see the value in that, but in the current landscape, I'm not convinced that it is an efficient and sensible way of doing what it is trying to do. >also providing means to accept digital payments with little to no fees. Fees are variable. In real world volume (which it can't touch or sustain yet), the network cannot sustain the volume and the fees are exorbitant. I know, you'll say "it will get better, infancy" etc. but I'm not convinced. I don't see the value of decentralisation here so the overhead looks massive to me. And in the end, if bitcoin takes off as a successful alternative for high volume low fee transactions, the centralised industry can compete and they have the upper hand: Centralised version has orders of magnitude less overhead so they can make the fees cheaper than BTC always if it came to that. So that advantage is moot. >Also you invest in whatever your countries currency is via time, so buying BTC with fiat is no different. No, it is different. When I earn money, I intend to use it or invest it. I don't see my money as an investment which will appreciate in value if I "hodl" it. Money itself is not an investment. You invest with it. >Deflationary currencies also don’t contribute anymore to hoarding than high savings rates. [Citation needed.] Deflation literally is economic crisis where people hoard and refuse to spend which brings economy to a halt. Central banks use their policy to encourage people to spend. Deflation is our "crisis" state. >Bitcoins main issue here is that it’s not a country’s main currency. It is an issue but IMO it is quite a bit far from being the main issue. Bitcoin is technologically incapable of being any country's currency right now, the throughput alone is not even close to enough. |