aaronwalker's comments

> *don’t extend far beyond fraud, gambling, or purchasing illegal goods.

There are many use cases outside of these. See Cross-border payments, censorship-resistance, trust networks, access to credit, etc.

> The normies are into crypto because of hype and FOMO.

Hype and FOMO are indeed drivers of growth, but those alone would not explain why rates of crypto adoption are highest in countries with large unbanked populations.

Take a look at this website, which ranks countries by rates of crypto adoption: https://blog.chainalysis.com/reports/2022-global-crypto-adop...

Then compare it to this chart from Statistica, which ranks countries with highest unbanked populations: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1246963/unbanked-populat...

Notice that there is a lot of overlap.

While Bitcoin adoption in countries with strong national currencies like the US or EU is likely driven by FOMO and hype, its main appeal is as an investment/store-of-value for those who lack access to them otherwise, and that is why Bitcoin adoption is highest in unbanked populations.

> * I would assume that the same would apply for gold above some reasonable value (e.g. a really big gold necklace :) ).*

Whereas with Bitcoin, it is much more difficult to confiscate it because it's purely information. You might be trusting the manufacturer of a hard wallet to protect the privacy of your seed phrase, but once you memorize it no one can forcibly take it from you.

> evading tax, money laundering etc.

And evading oppressive governments. Disobeying the law is not always a "bad" thing.

> * You don’t store wealth in currency. *

Do you have a bank account with money in it? If so you are using currency as a store of value. This is a very common use case.

> Only poor people store their “wealth” in currencies

So are we just dismissing the needs of poor people then?

> the value will not increase, but rather rapidly decrease.

So a testable prediction would be come back to this and ten years, look at the price of Bitcoin, and see who was right.

What is your definition of decentralization? What is it based on?

You're right, my generalization is too early. It is based on crypto's correlation with the overall stock market since it is seen as an investment, which has always returned positive over a 15 year period. But this is more speculation than anything else.

> * being physical is actually an advantage (easier to secure in a way that they can understand and verify). *

Because gold is physical it is not easy to transport, and can more easily be seized by the government -- both of which make it a worse store of value. It is also worse because its supply growth rate is higher, which means that if you hold gold you are losing more value every year (absent changes in demand) than if you hold Bitcoin. In fact, we know exactly what Bitcoin's total supply count will be, whereas with Gold we do not. If BTC gains mass adoption, then it will be the best store of value that we have.

> the masses aren't interested in this

Having a store of value is in fact appealing to the masses, especially those with weak national currencies. We know this because the rates of crypto adoption are highest in developing nations, where national currencies are not as strong.

Yes, the possibility of making a lucrative investment is also appealing, and is what's driving most of its current growth, but as BTC settles into its role as store-of-value (which may take 10+ years) it is expected to become less volatile, and adopted for this use case.

> central bank money will always be superior due to its intrinsic connection to the governing authority of the region that mediates the economy

There are two sides to this sword. In wealthy, democratic governments this allows for more control over the economy, boosting it in times of need, but for oppressive regimes it just gives the government more power to act in their own interest.

> * people want their stuff, they don't want bitcoin and have no reason to use it.*

People do not immediately use all of their wealth to consume things, instead they have to store some of it somewhere. This is one of the uses of currencies. In countries with high inflation there is difficulty for people to store any wealth at all in their central bank's currency, and have instead resorted to Gold, USD, and Bitcoin.

> Peak bitcoin is what bitcoin looks like today.

If peak BTC is what it looks like today, then there is no incentive for people to keep pouring money into it, so its value relative to Gold, USD should not increase too much from what it is today.

I believe we are still far away from peak Bitcoin, and that Bitcoin will continue to rise in value in terms of USD over the long run.

If we are defining value, I would not say that value is equivalent to intrinsic value, or else the phrase "intrinsic value" would be redundant. Currencies have value even though they do not have intrinsic value. Notably, this value is as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and as a store of value. Bitcoin's capped supply increases its ability to store value, and so too does its demand increases. Yes, you could make a currency the exact same as Bitcoin, but it probably wouldn't be as good as a long-term store of value, because its network is smaller.

Both. There are ongoing developments in Decentralized Finance and Identity Networks on Ethereum that are reinventing more parts of the current financial system, as well as the shift to proof-of-stake that is making Ethereum more scalable and efficient.

I focus on Ethereum just because it's the center of innovation in crypto nowadays. Bitcoin has only incrementally changed its software throughout the years and only gains more use as a store-of-value as demand for it increases (hype cycle). After a bull market run it generally takes 5-10 years to reach its peak again.

I'd like this to, but to me it's still unclear whether Bitcoin's potential will be just as a reserve currency and store-of-value (like Gold), or also as a unit of account and medium of exchange (like the dollar). I'm more confident in the former and less on the latter.

There's a difference between being known by the mainstream and being used by the mainstream. Bitcoin is the former, but not yet the latter. It appears that Bitcoin's main use case is as a long-term store of value (like Gold, but digital). It will be very helpful to have a currency that anyone can use without one country's central bank controlling it, and with Bitcoin's strong network effects, its only a matter of time before it becomes adopted by more commercial banks, central banks, and individuals.

Just like a dollar, digital currency would be liable to your central bank, whereas the digital forms of payment that you use now are liable to your bank. So a digital currency would allow people to spend digital money without the need of a bank account.

Interest in crypto comes in cycles, and with each new cycle there are more incumbents that want to get involved. This bear market may have been particularly worrying for the industry, but I'm confident that in 5-10 years from now large financial institutions will again want to incorporate crypto. The networks behind these currencies are too resilient and the upside is too high to avoid.

What do you think is some of the more “modern and efficient material” we should be learning in school now? Things that come to mind: - Keyboard typing - Converting between binary and base 10

I know Miami hosts many crypto conferences, but I’m surprised you’d choose it over NYC or SF. Do you think that Miami is under appreciated compared to those cities or it really is more of a global center for crypto innovation?

Definitely cryptocurrencies…

A lot of things… the technological innovation, the developer ecosystem, the potential to change how society is structured. To me the core innovation of Ethereum is having programmable money, which will enable an entirely new financial system to be built.

Also a good experience that would strengthen my CS knowledge and pays some. Thanks for the suggestion!