[cocktailpeanuts]

Internet was a "solution in search of a problem" too.

That said, you're free to believe what you want to believe.

Just one thing though, everything you said above I heard hundreds of times before, and there are good explanations for them. I just don't have time to argue here because these are things you can find out on your own if you put your mind into it. (To be honest I don't think I can convince you no matter how I try unless you open up your mind, so I won't try)

Anyway, if you don't care, that's fine too. It's not like not believing in cryptocurrency will doom your future. You'll do fine. And even if the whole thing fails, I'll do fine too. But it's always good to have an open mind about things you don't yet completely understand and try to learn. ("Thinking that you understand completely" doesn't count as actually completely understanding)

[JumpCrisscross]

> Internet was a "solution in search of a problem" too

Eh, the history of ARPANET involved practical use cases (i.e. communication between specific institutions and ballistic missile defense coordination) from the start [1]. If one includes circuit switches, i.e. the telegraph/telephone system, as a blueprint Internet then the practical application reaches back earlier.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET#Creation

[cocktailpeanuts]

And Bitcoin doesn't have a practical use case?

[te_chris]

Please elaborate?

[mrep]

> Internet was a "solution in search of a problem" too.

No, no it wasn't. Close to light speed communication provided about 10 orders of magnitude faster/cheaper communication than before. I cannot even fathom how someone would not immediately realize how that massive increase in communication would not be useful.

Contrast this with blockchains which are practically 10 orders of magnitude more COSTLY since every node has to process every transaction when you could just do that on one server (hence why bitcoin transactions cost 2.5 Billion dollars a year to process a fraction of what Visa can process).

[cocktailpeanuts]

> I cannot even fathom how someone would not immediately realize how that massive increase in communication would not be useful.

Just like you cannot fathom how Bitcoin can be useful in February of 2018, 99.9% of the world population couldn't fathom how Internet would take off back then when it launched. That was why it was not mainstream for a long time until it took off.

[mrep]

> 99.9% of the world population couldn't fathom how Internet would take off back then when it launched.

The dotcom bubble was fueled by speculation in how useful the internet would be. Granted, it busted but many companies survived it and some are now the biggest companies in the world.

> That was why it was not mainstream for a long time until it took off.

Internet growth has been incredibly fast: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Internet_usage

I can see some utility in blockchains. However, my main point is that the economics of them make them terrible for 99.99% of problems.

Internet: 10 orders of magnitude faster/cheaper communication than before.

blockchains: 10 orders of magnitude more COSTLY.

[cocktailpeanuts]

> I can see some utility in blockchains. However, my main point is that the economics of them make them terrible for 99.99% of problems.

Then we're talking about different things. My comment was specifically in response to "Internet was a solution searching for a problem".

Your point actually supports my comment because like you said it's terrible for 99.99% of problems, which means it may be great for 0.01%, which means it's a solution that's solving only a small problem for now, and looking for more problems.