Agreed in general. Only additional comment here is that a buy and hold on Bitcoin's future is a way to make money on "crypto's" success in a way that wasn’t possible with the Internet build out. With the Internet you needed to pick companies that would win. With Bitcoin, if you buy the hypothesis that money is winner take all (or winner take most), you can invest in Bitcoin as an asymmetric bet. I realize this is getting into Bitcoin evangelism shilling weirdness. So Ill leave it at that.Kbg wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 9:37 pmThe "internet" didn't became a "thing" until it became widely deployed/employed.
If bitcoin becomes better than my digitally enabled Visa card, I'll adopt it.
If one understands the associated technology and can make good bets for investing purposes or is good at speculating in bitcoin good for them.
Petro is centralized garbage. I hope no one confuses a centralized "crypto" with a decentralized Bitcoin. To paraphrase Tommy Boy: "If you want me to take a dump in a box, and mark it a cryptocurrency I will. I've got spare time.". Remember the point of all of this is decentralization to facilitate censorship resistance (so transactions cannot be stopped, supply cannot be inflated, etc). Petro has nothing to do with that.
We cant all be early adopters of all technologies. Esp ones requiring a financial investment.
Im curious. Is there an objective metric that you would consider bitcoin to "have been adopted to your satisfaction"? For example there have been debit cards tied to bitcoin balances allowing you to "spend bitcoin" wherever Visa is accepted. I assume that is insufficient for you. Even though that is the same payment rail used by the USD. So what would be a more accurate version of your subjective Bitcoin-is-adopted-sufficiently?