[path411]

That seems to be the consensus of what people say, but I think that all of those things are false or atleast assuming functional parts that aren't actually guaranteed.

No anonymity, means sure you are free to transfer, but the gov is free to track you down, and if you live in an anti crypto gov, that means entering or exiting the crypto universe is very difficult.

You say $100 or $100 million, but this is a large failure of Bitcoin. You are tying it's value to fiat. That compounds on my previous point, if all governments crack down on crypto, would it actually have any value? If tomorrow, all exchanges were shut down, the truth is, Bitcoin would be dead.

Lastly, the largest flaw of Bitcoin is it's failures to scale. That means that in the golden crypto universe that every follower dreams of, every text, transaction, breath, thought, all exists on the blockchain, Bitcoin inevitably collapses. You have the problem of both the blockchain size has grown to such a size that the barrier to entry for nodes becomes too large, as well as the failure for Bitcoin to handle any rate of transactions/seconds to handle the real world.

[sweetbitter]

Other currencies have addressed the issues of anonymity and environmental impact, and the block size can be scaled dynamically. If the block size increases too much, there is an argument for sharding/pruning- this is an open question, and probably not the one which will crypto-currencies.

[rhn_mk1]

> if all governments crack down on crypto, would it actually have any value?

Which puts cryptocurrency at a minimal advantage over other currencies: it's easier to crack down on currencies whch have centralized control.

[127]

Current Bitcoin blockchain size is at something like 500 GB. Which is definitely not out of reach for most people in the first world.

[samhw]

And his comment was referring to:

> in the golden crypto universe that every follower dreams of, every text, transaction, breath, thought, all exists on the blockchain

Bitcoin is necessarily, explicitly inefficient, by virtue of being an immutable append-only log. A first-year CS student with a week of Data Structures and Algorithms classes could tell you that.

And it's not even being widely used as a payment system yet - at that point the transaction volume would explode, and the computational and storage inefficiency would become even more salient issues than they are now.