What's notable is that Trolfi admitted he couldn't be argued out of his position, so only empirical evidence will convince him.
The original poster asked what I would consider proof of success. Obviously that can only be empirical.
Logic can only change someone's
expectations of success. I could be argued out of my position, but I see big flaws in the supporter's arguments (like "the price will go to the moon because the supply is limited") which they refuse to acknowledge. Why should I change my expectations then?
That's bullshit. I asked you what it would take to convince you of the merits of Bitcoin and you responded that I shouldn't bother to even try.
Sorry, I may have confused you with someone else who asked me what I would consider proof of
success. I stand by my reply to that.
As for
your question, I can see some merits of bitcoin, like the offline creation of address-key pairs with cryptographically signed "checks", and the totally open ledger. Other things that you apparently consider merits I see as flaws, possibly fatal. Like the impossibility of seizing stolen coins and returning them to their rightful owners, or correcting mistakes like sending coins to the wrong address. (Those who do not see that as a problem obviously never did any real accounting.) Or the dangerously misleading pretense of anonymity. Or the intentional inefficiency of mining. Or the impossibility of proving that you do NOT own an account. Or the fixed supply.
As for the economic model, why does it matter? The prediction of "going to the moon" and its refutation are based on elementary supply-demand logic. An economic model that does not include that is not worth considering.
(But I have lived under both monetarist/neocon/reaganomic and Keynesian governments, and I am for the latter all the way. Like 80% of my countrymen, workers and industrials alike. Have you been through the 2008 economic crisis? We heard something about it, yes.)
[/quote]