And as far as I know, it's denominated in Kenyan shillings, not in its own currency (i.e., hype about M-Pesa does not result in something with Bitcoin's to-the-moon valuation relative to the prevailing currency in the land).

I suspect that most Bitcoin detractors, whether those who call it a Ponzi scheme or simply those who oppose proof of work, will be absolutely thrilled with the growth of more centralized electronic money transfer systems that are denominated in existing fiat currency. I know that I've been personally happy to use Square Cash, Apple Pay, EMV cards, etc. in the US. No mining, no or low fees, high security, quick, and suitable for small transfers.

And the fact that this is how M-Pesa works is an extremely strong existence proof that Bitcoin is not needed by the "African farmer".

What he said is that others countries that doesn't have a solid electronic transaction system are actively trying new stuff. In that case, M-Pesa won that race but the fact that it was centralized isn't why it won, it won because it was needed.

Now does Bitcoin is needed for another country? No idea, but I would have said the same for M-Pesa.

For instance, "Bitcoin is a bubble" only makes sense if it's its own unit of currency. "M-Pesa is a bubble," "Square Cash is a bubble," etc. aren't meaningful statements to make; they just support transmission of the underlying currency. ("Kenyan shillings are a bubble" is a meaningful statement, but I've never heard anyone claim that you should use cryptocurrencies to insulate yourself from hyperdeflation of a fiat currency.)

"Bitcoin is environmentally dangerous" only matters if proof-of-work is relevant; in a centralized system, you don't have the problems that lead to you wanting to even consider proof-of-work.

"ICOs are a scam" doesn't make sense in a centralized system. "The transaction rate is too low" isn't a complaint anyone has about a centralized system (the usual complaint about the US markets is that the transaction rate is too high, and HFT should be throttled). And so on and so forth.

"environment": Proof of work systems ensure that the ledger is secure and worthy of trust. Proof of Authority systems require trust, where the ledger is secure "because we say so." Isn't this the major reason why people are fleeing from legal tender? People can't trust the issuers, the processors, or the banks because they're colluding with politicians who provide bailouts using taxpayer dollars?

"ICO scam": absolutely makes sense in a centralized system. Are you actually claiming that people don't create scam companies with centralized currencies? Because why? Even legitimate companies can be slandered for the same reasons that people call ICOs "scams". The Franklin Mint, for example, produces coins which are sold on late-night infomercials that have little-to-no intrinsic value, but people buy for speculative reasons. Are they a scam? The reasoning is identical.

"slow/expensive transactions": One of Bitcoins main value propositions is aiding in international transfers. The centralized systems were too slow and expensive, so a better alternative was developed. Saying that speed and expense aren't complaints that people have made about existing centralized systems is simply wrong.

And so on and so forth.

You are mind-boggled because you have created a strawman; a caricature of what the "bitcoin non-believer" looks like.

Your mind would be less boggled if you accepted that there are valid points on both sides in this case. People who question bitcoin's current valuation or utility often have valid points, but if you immediately interpret their points to be as extreme as possible, of course they're mind boggling.

Similarly, people who are bullish on bitcoin often have good points and sound reasoning, but it's quite easy to also paint them with a brush which makes their positions and points mind boggling as well.

It's good to have some empathy and to actually listen, especially when it's about subjects that are so divisive. The most divisive things are the things that should least be divided further by constantly misrepresenting each side's points.

Not at the one's who are raising very valid red flags on valuation and how hot the market is becoming. In my personal opinion it is absolutely 'bubble' like behavior right now.

And i believe we both echo the same sentiment.

The main point here is that there's absolutely nothing innovative about BTC anymore, if anything it's way behind. Which is why the valuation is so suspect; it's totally disconnected from the utility BTC provides compared to alts. Anything BTC does, alts do better, except for marketing.

That demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of what makes bitcoin valuable, and what separates it from all other competitors. Bitcoin node decentralization is what keeps it censorship resistant, and in bitcoin node decentralization, it is ahead of any and all competitors. It likely has more fully validating nodes than all other cryptos combined, and by some margin.

There are a lot of people that want to sell you on a great new thing. Until they can get 150,000+ fully validating nodes to support their technology, they will be nothing more than a mildly distributed inefficient database. What is innovative about bitcoin is that it is the only real cryptocurrency, because it is the only one that isn't controlled directly by its creators, and also maintains its decentralization. The only ones that are even close are ethereum and litecoin, and ethereum is beholden to a single person who dictates changes to the network. Litecoin is simply a clone of bitcoin with minor changes to its implementation, but has a fraction of the fully validating nodes.

http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/softwar...

160K and counting.

Thanks!!

It's why I'm sometimes so short with people who make statements with such confidence and finality. "Bitcoin IS this." without even really understanding the subject matter. I'm not thinking of one month/year timelines for its market penetration. I want to see what it is in another 10 years. I don't subscribe to the view that fiat is going to crash, or that type of apocalyptic talk. But I do think that we are in a 50-year-old debt-bubble, and I'm not sure it is going to be quite as difficult to 'shift', if that is even the correct word, from debt-fueled monetary instruments to credit-fueled monetary instruments. Most people don't even really understand the concept of a market-cap, and how the total value of the cap has no, or very little, relationship to the amount of capital that might be extracted from it. Bitcoin could easily be 10x or even 100x its current 'market-cap' and for it to still not really have any real relationship to monetary supply IMO. Bitcoin definitely has a relationship to gold, but more importantly, I believe bitcoin has a relationship to fixed-asset debt.

I wouldn't want to be entering a career in consumer banking though. Investment banking on the other hand... that is going to freak out over the next decade as the business of supplying debt for fixed assets that are depreciating in value reverses, and people start looking to place their investment dollars in industries that increase productivity.

Just remember bitcoin could lose 85% of its current value, and for it to only have doubled in value this year, and still be the best performing asset class in the market. Because a correction will happen. The only real question is when, and how deep.

Thanks again!

Plenty of things that were eventually successful products went into extreme bubble and correct mode before they were successful.

Blockchains may or may not be part of the finance of the future. But that doesn't mean that 99% of the price of a given blockchain product today isn't bubble based bunk to be avoided just as many 1800s railroad stocks and 90s dotcom stocks had value only from bubble-dynamics despite railroads and the Internet being technologies that went on the succeed massively.

And while we were kind of unsure whether it's a pyramid or a Ponzi, actually it _is_ something new: a Nakamoto scheme. https://prestonbyrne.com/2017/12/08/bitcoin_ponzi/

It's nuts to imagine that Africa as a continent compares to the West in terms of fintech. We like to imagine Africa as a monolith; it's a terrible mistake.