[vertex-four]

On the other hand... the existing financial industry - even just the bits around creating and storing currency, and handling transactions - is rather a massive waste too. If it's possible to replace that with something that (a) gives more power to the people and (b) requires fewer people to run, that's probably a good thing - no comment on whether Bitcoin is that something.

[TeMPOraL]

I totally agree. Existing financial industry is a huge waste too (sadly, not many seem to see it that way). But Bitcoin, from what I read about it, seems to have an exponential hunger for power which doesn't lead me to believe that if it replaces current system, we'll be better off.

[baddox]

I think the problem is that you are predicting the viability not of Bitcoin itself, but of your specific assumption about how Bitcoin might be used. I presume you are implying that Bitcoin could not possibly replace the current system, in the sense that it could not efficiently handle all global monetary transactions. Of course this is true by design, and will always be true barring some significant changes to the software. But that is not the only conceivable sense in which Bitcoin could be considered successful and widely used.

[vertex-four]

> Bitcoin, from what I read about it, seems to have an exponential hunger for power which doesn't lead me to believe that if it replaces current system, we'll be better off.

Actually, it's capitalism in general that has an exponential hunger for resource consumption, Bitcoin is simply the first decentralised capitalist system, and it's so simple it's clear.

[TeMPOraL]

Again, I agree.

But well, in the end capitalism will have to go too - lest we want eventually to be strip-mining the whole universe at close to light speed.