Quote from: tvbcof on January 01, 2016, 06:13:48 PM

Quote from: johnyj on January 01, 2016, 05:58:07 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on January 01, 2016, 04:56:37 PM

...

Similar to people not complaining when banks are closed during weekends, they will always find a way when bitcoin's blockchain transaction capacity is not enough, but they won't give up on bitcoin, just like they won't give up on gold even it has terrible transaction capability

To me, Bitcoin is a very specialized and high-powered asset. It is actually even more cumbersome to use that precious metals in some respects, but this is mostly and artifact of the security precautions I choose to take. And again, I choose to do so because of the high value I place on this asset.

I think there is balance to be had in this perspective, I use cold storage, which is cumbersome and somewhat complex, though I also use mobile wallets for everyday spending and ease of use. Bitcoin also gains much of its value through its utility, it is exactly this utility which I think makes it a better store of value then gold. After all I can not sprinkle gold dust down the phone line and send it across the world quickly and cheaply without relying on third parties.

Quote from: tvbcof on January 01, 2016, 06:13:48 PM

The various lags, costs, and inconvenience of using the system in a autonomous ways which are native to the system are, to me, part of the deal and have never bothered me excessively. The real problems I've had are on conversion to and from the fiat system, and these are almost exclusively caused by roadblocks which are a specific feature of the fiat solutions. XT and it's ilk are dead-set on importing these same problems into the Bitcoin system itself. No thanks.

XT is dead set on importing the same problems of the fiat system into Bitcoin itself? That is absolute bullshit, I am sorry, I thought we where past this. The only consensus critical change that is made within XT is the increase of the blocksize. We also now have Bitcoin Unlimited through which we could all just agree on a two megabyte blocksize limit for instance without relying on either Core or XT.

Quote from: tvbcof on January 01, 2016, 06:13:48 PM

Only a fraction of the world's souls are inclined to treat Bitcoin as I do personally. That is fine in my mind because there are 7,000,000,000 or so of us. If 0.1% of us are in my category, that is still a very large pool, and one which is tipped toward the economically more 'critical' so to speak. Importantly, anyone can use the amazing power of Bitcoin to build sub-systems which provide the 'PayPal experience' to their less rigorous brethren, but in a way which is much safer than what PayPal/VISA/etc can/does achieve.

I would want the worlds seven billion to use Bitcoin directly and become empowered through its benefits, not just the 0.1% as you say, I also do not consider this 0.1% more critical in importance for the use of Bitcoin when compared to the rest of the worlds population, I believe the opposite is true actually, we are already empowered through cryptocurrency, the rest of the world needs this more then we do. Mass adoption is also what would bring about the most profound change in our society and civilization as well.

Furthermore I would also not be satisfied with pushing these remaining seven billion onto sub-systems of Bitcoin which would provide a PayPal or Visa like experience, that is exactly my concern and it completely defeats most of the purpose behind Bitcoin in the first place.