Ninja, we obviously have very opposite opinions on bitcoin, and we feel equally as strong about our respective opinions.
It really is matter of letting some time elapse, and then we will see whose opinion appears to have been correct.
On that basis, I think we can simply hold a "lets agree to disagree" opinion on this and move forward, and be friends ;)
In the end, to try and wrap our novels of writing into something simple, I think our fundamental difference of opinion can be summarised in the following paragraph from your last post;
"Let me pose this question to you. Why do you think Bitcoin is the ultimate asset, when XRP (as a random example) outperforms Bitcoin on almost every metric. Transaction finality in ~3 seconds, 5,000-10,000 transactions per second, almost 0 energy expenditure, integration with the existing financial system, etc. I am not an XRP proponent, but it is technologically superior to Bitcoin on every metric, and by a long way. The only argument against it is that it is "centralised". Well fiat currency is centralised as well. The reality of the world that we live in is that there will be centralisation. A purely decentralised society is simply lawlessness and anarchy. Centralisation, and structure, is important for a well-functioning society. Society wouldn't exist without centralisation. "
In my opinion, the bold sentence is the answer to everything you said immediately before it.
As for what comes after it in italics, that is the meat in our debate.
Yes fiat is centralised, and to me that is the problem. But my difference of opinion from you is that the world is going to continue decentralising in every respect, including money, and that it will work, and it will work well.
Lets not forget that this was the same argument with the internet - identical in fact. The internet protocol is decentralised, anyone can build anything and plug right in. It does not preclude it from regulation and taxation though - same as bitcoin. Hence why we do not have anarchy and lawlessness due to the internet being decentralised. I am sure you will disagree and argue that centralisation is necessary, and I understand your point of view, again it's just a difference in our opinions.
Lastly, when I said that I am grateful for your debate and strong opinions, I really meant it. You have really helped me in figuring out how to explain these things, and also assessing the valid criticisms of bitcoin and its adoption. For example you've led me to researching more on the SWIFT system, among several other things. So thank you for taking the time on this! And please do keep it up! Although I also do want good chat about bitcoin in this thread, so maybe if you want to write a lot more criticising it, we could make a separate thread for that, just throwing it out there ;)
It really is matter of letting some time elapse, and then we will see whose opinion appears to have been correct.
On that basis, I think we can simply hold a "lets agree to disagree" opinion on this and move forward, and be friends ;)
In the end, to try and wrap our novels of writing into something simple, I think our fundamental difference of opinion can be summarised in the following paragraph from your last post;
"Let me pose this question to you. Why do you think Bitcoin is the ultimate asset, when XRP (as a random example) outperforms Bitcoin on almost every metric. Transaction finality in ~3 seconds, 5,000-10,000 transactions per second, almost 0 energy expenditure, integration with the existing financial system, etc. I am not an XRP proponent, but it is technologically superior to Bitcoin on every metric, and by a long way. The only argument against it is that it is "centralised". Well fiat currency is centralised as well. The reality of the world that we live in is that there will be centralisation. A purely decentralised society is simply lawlessness and anarchy. Centralisation, and structure, is important for a well-functioning society. Society wouldn't exist without centralisation. "
In my opinion, the bold sentence is the answer to everything you said immediately before it.
As for what comes after it in italics, that is the meat in our debate.
Yes fiat is centralised, and to me that is the problem. But my difference of opinion from you is that the world is going to continue decentralising in every respect, including money, and that it will work, and it will work well.
Lets not forget that this was the same argument with the internet - identical in fact. The internet protocol is decentralised, anyone can build anything and plug right in. It does not preclude it from regulation and taxation though - same as bitcoin. Hence why we do not have anarchy and lawlessness due to the internet being decentralised. I am sure you will disagree and argue that centralisation is necessary, and I understand your point of view, again it's just a difference in our opinions.
Lastly, when I said that I am grateful for your debate and strong opinions, I really meant it. You have really helped me in figuring out how to explain these things, and also assessing the valid criticisms of bitcoin and its adoption. For example you've led me to researching more on the SWIFT system, among several other things. So thank you for taking the time on this! And please do keep it up! Although I also do want good chat about bitcoin in this thread, so maybe if you want to write a lot more criticising it, we could make a separate thread for that, just throwing it out there ;)