Quote from: Jacques_Bittard on February 23, 2018, 09:28:18 AM

Quote from: olumyd on February 23, 2018, 09:12:12 AM

Quote from: BobLawblaw on February 23, 2018, 09:09:12 AM

Quote from: Jacques_Bittard on February 23, 2018, 08:33:14 AM

The ugliest truth of bitcoin is that it just isn't useful in any legal fields.

What ? I... just... huh ?

Lol... don't go into a cardiac attack just yet... The guy's got a point, - 'legal'..., there are no current state or federal stamps on BTC codes acknowledging it as a medium of exchange, however, it does suit the masses to do as they please - freedom of... something.

The main thing I pointed out with this is that bitcoin doesn't actually offer anything practical for doing business. It's not simple, secure, fast or cheap enough to be useful in practical finance. I think that the reason is that being the first, bitcoin is just the most simplistic, general and non-specialized product. New generation of cryptos are built from the ground up to solve specific practical problems and that is why they are a lot more efficient and useful.
Bitcoin was trying hard to define itself as a store of value asset. In my eyes this won't work because an asset, that's value is highly dependent on speculation, will never be a good store of value asset. This would be as moronic as to recommend pink sheets as store of value investments. Store of value needs stability and predictability the most.

I agree it is the first most simplistic, and it's quite hard for it to deviate from its original consensus plan - a store of value, peer-to-peer electronic cash system that has an in-built decentralised transaction history with high-tech-class security. Nothing more should be expected from it, other than for a scaling function to accommodate mainstream usage; because, I think that's the only thing the developers didn't factor in during the early development phase. But for stability and predictability only a centralised system can achieve such regulatory benchmark.