Has the Bitcoin experiment run its course?
According to Mike Hearn, who claims to be one of the founding developers, the answer is yes.
He cites technical problems, the block is too small, transactions take too long, and no one can agree on what can be do to resolve these issues.
Mike Hearn fails to see the wood for the trees, and does not address the fundamentals that are wrong.
For a currency to be viable as a currency, it has to meet two criteria:
- store of value
- unit of exchange
Bitcoin fails miserable on both counts. It is extremely volatile due to the activities of spivs and speculators and you will be hard pressed to find anywhere to spend bitcoins.
If a euro can buy a loaf of bread today, I need to be able to buy a loaf of bread tomorrow, the next day, the next week, the next month. I also need a baker who accepts my euro.
Bitcoin has grown too fast. Parasitical add ons have jumped onto the Bitcoin bandwagon, spivs, speculators and other low life have crawled out of the woodwork.
Can we trust any of the exchanges, a bitcoin wallet? How do I know a bitcoin wallet does not have a hole in the bottom out of which my bitcoins fall?
Bitcoin was an interesting proof of concept, but little more. It is useless as a currency. The best that can be said of Bitcoin is that it functions as a quick and dirty method to transfer out of a currency, across borders and into another currency. Its hopes of becoming an internet currency have not succeeded.
