Yes, but can you convince the hardcore PoW maximalists to join your fork? IMO Bitcoin is doing its best to be a raw, pseudo-physical element.
That means immutability, costs rooted in the physical world, etc. The community will change its protocols sparingly and slowly.
To some who prefer rapid change and development this is unattractive. But to Bitcoiners, decentralization and immutability are the foundations of this new type of property. They are uninterested in technical gains that come with complexity and risk.
You can do a quick search to have the answers to all these simple questions, it has about ~200k transactions per day which settles about ~2B$ worth of Bitcoin a day (which is up very significantly since last year and down quite a bit from few months ago).
Are you trying to argue that transaction capacity is the most important metric?
If so, then you don't want Bitcoin. You can use Paypal.
However if you want to own an asset that can't be debased by central banks, where your transactions can't be censored, where you can participate from anywhere geographically, then you might want Bitcoin.
Those features come at a transaction capacity tradeoff.
I'm not trying to argue that transaction capacity is the most important metric, but it's a metric you yourself mentioned as important and it's a metric I have not been able to verify for many cryptocurrencies I've looked at.
If you say "Choose proven cryptocurrencies with transactions" I am going to assume you don't mean ten transactions/day.
I do not think it is unreasonable to ask "How many people are actually transacting with this cryptocurrency?".
I once worked at a startup which had put together a binder of documents, declaring the company's vision, values, principles, etc. They strongly suggested new hires go through it at least briefly.
The trouble with the documents you've mentioned is they don't really create capability and it's really the social structure that enforces those values and principles as opposed to the documents.
With engineering it's different because it provides tangible value.
From a team perspective it can help you transfer mental models. Programming is an abstract activity that benefits greatly from those shared models. They build capability, help people learn rapidly, settle disagreements, bring the team together as one and are used in things like code reviews and filtering of technical decisions. People come back to them again and again - it's integrated. Then when a new member of the team comes a long, you're not going back to those discussions again and again.
As an individual. One of the reasons you look back at your principles to remind why you believe something or to be more convincing. They provide value, so they keep being used. It's also part of that persons identity. It defines what they care about and helps them join teams with people who are aligned.
So I agree to an extent - They Ain’t Gonna Read It... Unless it provides value.
Publicly listed companies are equally available opportunities for anyone participating in the contribution rate-limited game of Roth IRA maximization.
Private share contributions give huge asymmetric upside to private investors/founders. Yes they take risk in that their shares still have to end up being worth something one day, but clearly the upside tax advantages are ridiculously unbalanced against the middle class because not everyone has access to early stage investments.
So, even the playing field by:
- Letting anyone invest in early stage companies (this has many other implications)
Inflation is absolutely a "bad" thing in the same way that gaining weight from eating ice cream is "bad". It is the consequence of indulgence. An increase in the cost of living is generally never a "good" thing.
The question is if it is controlled and the tradeoffs worthwhile.
No, inflation is more like the weight gain of a child growing to an adult. The metaphor breaks down at adulthood.
> An increase in the cost of living is generally never a "good" thing.
Inflation is only an increase in nominal, not real cost. If I give you a dollar more and charge you a dollar extra, then you haven't lost any purchasing power.
That's been true since the 70s, but it's not an intrinsic feature of inflation. In fact, this time it may be different, and that's what all the CEOs are complaining about.
But I'm not getting a dollar more, I'm just getting charged a dollar extra. Wages will never actually keep up with inflation, they certainly haven't thus far. In part because government inflation statistics are not trustworthy
One problem with this that now you need expertise in building a cheap, high quality school. And how do you know your product (education) will be better than competing products?
And by what metric do you compare the effectiveness of your school vs competition? "Retaining customers", so does that mean we judge a school's quality by year over year revenue growth, since that indicates customer retention?
Yes, but can you convince the hardcore PoW maximalists to join your fork? IMO Bitcoin is doing its best to be a raw, pseudo-physical element.
That means immutability, costs rooted in the physical world, etc. The community will change its protocols sparingly and slowly.
To some who prefer rapid change and development this is unattractive. But to Bitcoiners, decentralization and immutability are the foundations of this new type of property. They are uninterested in technical gains that come with complexity and risk.