Quote from the OP:
Note the argument of
an absolute network effect advantage for Bitcoin
is illogical. The network effect can lead to more mass for Bitcoin but it can't entirely shut out altcoins, not in the way that for example an internet standard shuts out alternatives due to the
inertia of modifying millions of servers ... Friendster followed 2002 later peaking with 100+ million, Myspace 2006, and then Facebook 2008.
Last year Bitcoin was only at an estimated 350,000 users. We have a long way to go to 7 billion.Appears the number of Bitcoin users is
still below 1 million.
I disagree with your premise that flaws will cost investors "billions".
That wasn't my premise in the OP. That was the premise of Alex Daley (this thread's title quotes his article's title), and I stated his understanding is myopic and incomplete.
I suppose that was you that just voted "No" increasing the total votes from 106 to 107.
The bitcoins aren't going to disappear, and in order for governments (really the people behind them) to want to have them they have a vested interest in making sure they have value.
You are missing the point that the only reason governments would want bitcoin is because it has value. No value = no interest from the government.
No where in this thread did I assert that Bitcoin will have no value any time soon.
I have argued that if Bitcoin can't scale its transactions as fast as its price growth, then it will have a
collapse in price when the investors leave and it collapses to its currency use value. But that won't happen soon and it is not certain that transactions might start scaling faster than price. I linked to a chart which shows transactions are currently growing much slower (and much of that might be SatoshiDice dust then much of the rest investment trading, coin mixers, etc).