If it isn't working now, why should I believe it can work 5 years from now when there will be better alternatives for sure? This is the Devcoin moment where it either finds a way to get everyone working for it, or next year the infrastructure to work for Bitcoin will be set up and no one will care about Devcoin.
Ethicoin has a chance to fill the void and possibly fill the niche so I'm waiting to see what they do and Litecoin isn't exactly Bitcoin so they have a couple years and then they too will be in the same position of Devcoin. Bitcoin is about to go mainstream in 2014 and if Devcoin isn't being used by all of us by that time then I would say it may be too late.
And when I say used by all of us, I mean anyone who wants a job on this forum should be able to find a job which pays in a significant amount of Devcoin if they are willing to do the job. I know people will say Devcoin was set up to pay developers, but most people on this forum are developers and how many of us are paid in Devcoin right now?
Bounties are not a very good way to do things. Subscription models like what Coinbase is offering could kill Devcoin once enough podcasters and bloggers switch over. Writers just starting out will use Devcoin but once they become successful they'll sell their works for Bitcoin. Journalists may have to go with a Bitcoin subscription model because Devcoin just wont pay them enough in $. I can't believe I'm the only one who can see this coming.
The deflationary model is right. You don't agree for philosophical reasons but to anyone who owns Bitcoins which are worth $100 each, and who owns ASICminer shares worth 2.5 BTC each, or who is mining with an ASIC right now, why would these people have a problem with the 21 million Bitcoin limit?
My disagreements are on economic, financial and rationality grounds and not for philiosophical reasons (although I suppose every and any view could be defined as philiosophical). I have bitcoins, like you and most here and sure I'd love bitcoin to work. But it won't. The primary reasons for this are that of replication and deflation.
I won't reiterate my thoughts there again ad nauseum, but I do think you need to flip your points around to the perspective of somebody who doesn't own Bitcoins worth $100 or ASICminer shares worth 2.5 BTC and ask why such an individual or group would purchase Bitcoin rather than an alternative, when Bitcoin does not satisfy most basic criteria of a currency. Bitcoin is not about to go mainstream, it can't go mainstream as is. The issue is similar to the debates on this forum about fractional reserve lending, credit etc - the question is not whether these things are possible with bitcoin, it's why applying rationality and choice anybody would utilise bitcoin for such purposes. They wouldn't. It would make no sense to do so.
I appreciate we don't agree and I welcome your perspective as it's structured and thought through, but if Bitcoin does not address some very straightforward problems any objective observer has to conclude it's either an outright scam, or a slightly less scammy pyramid scheme, or suffers such inherent flaws that it's rendered useless for the purposes claimed, or at best a Bitcoin 2.0 will be along to correct the flaws. Either way, each of those options means there is a significant probability of Bitcoin 1.0 having a future value of 0 beyond a niche group or facilitation mechanism.
The reason I persist with these points is because it bothers me to view a group that could be affecting real change in societal empowerment and subversion of state dictates (which are not all bad, but as we have little choice I have a problem with them) instead prefering to remain in their own bubble.
Remaining blinkered to the reality that just waiting for change and for society's economic, demographic and financial structures to mould themselves to Bitcoin's economics will not happen. Rather will result in the forces that saw the promise of Bitcoin gain some initial credence over broad monetary failings and inequities doing the same to Bitcoin's monetary failings and inequities and finding a better alternative. This is not a philosophical point, it's just the way the world works.
Ethicoin has the same problem. Devcoin is also not perfect, but the unlimited blockchain actually fascilitates much more than Bitcoin. I'm not sure if this was technically ever intended as such beyond the payout equity element, but it is what it is. If it persists Devcoin should over time settle to a price that gives me the ability to buy some, pay a plumber, who pays his window cleaner, who pays to have his computer repaired ...etc... over the long-term with some certainty of forward value until somebody in that chain needs and transfers to fiat. Constant exchange. This will never be possible with Bitcoin as is.
So you are probably correct that Bitcoin works very well for those who already have some, provided they realise their gains before they become losses. Alternatively yes a Bitcoin could be worth anything in the future as a commodity traded between a niche group, but that's a significant gamble and waste of resources in the meantime. I attribute far greater value to a medium of exchange that could in the future increasingly eliminate the requirement for fiat transactions in the fee-based private and state financial system. So yes that's my gamble but I work on probability not prayers, and I think the probability that at some point there is better broad appreciation of workable economic reality > probability that an economically flawed and skewed system will subvert reality. I don't know whether that will be devcoin but it will be a similar 'inflationary' concept, because it has to be to compensate for world realities.