idle historical musings, cryptocurrency 

If the US had had something like SEPA (and the associated infrastructure), I genuinely wonder if Bitcoin would have ever caught on in the first place

idle historical musings, cryptocurrency 

@joepie91

i think it would.
many are unbanked.
bitcoin is also about no more money printing beyond 21 million.

not saying its needed, but... i guess those are the "ideas". 🤷‍♀️

idle historical musings, cryptocurrency 

@serapath My question is very specifically about it 'catching on', though. Sure, it would have probably *existed*, but the early broad adoption was primarily driven by frustrations with the US banking system, and the then-promises of lower transaction fees.

I'm not sure it would have ever reached that point of mass interest if it weren't for the terrible banking structures in the US inviting people to look for alternatives. Only very few people ever cared about the *philosophical* underpinnings really.

idle historical musings, cryptocurrency 

@joepie91
interesting. from what i see on social media, bitcoiners are quite reluctant to any other form of crypto (they call shitcoin), because
- better distributied than other crypto
- 21 million hard limit
- proof of work

Also, not sure if banking in EU or elsewhere is really better than in the US, but then again, probably depends how you look at it 🙂

Follow

idle historical musings, cryptocurrency 

@serapath Oh, sure, but "Bitcoiners" is a very very very small group, and that group alone would have never caused Bitcoin to catch on.

The mass "adoption" of Bitcoin happened in roughly two stages; first, a bunch of actual shops and companies accepting it as a payment method, while it was being marketed as a fast and low-fees money transfer method, and then a ton of 'traders' (ie. capitalists, including commercial miners) trying to extract profit from it.

The traders then went on to spawn a lot of other cryptocurrencies, with a fig leaf of functionality that never actually became reality, because they fundamentally didn't offer much over Bitcoin anyway.

It's that first group that I'm thinking of here - in the US the existing payment infrastructure is generally nightmarish, both for consumers and vendors, and this functioned as a selling point for that group to adopt Bitcoin. Which then made it interesting to traders, which eventually sustained the hype themselves.

Had that first group not been there, the second group likely also would not have been, and it would likely have forever remained a weird nerd thing.

· · Web · 1 · 0 · 0

idle historical musings, cryptocurrency 

@joepie91 interesting.

maybe. i have no clue what did and didnt help bitcoin. i see a pattern between average bitcoiners and average non-bitcoin crypto person. Non-bitcoin crypto (web3) seems to be a mix of silicon valley and wallstreet investors and is mostly about schemes and scams 😄
The narrative around bitcoin i see these days is "end all money printing" to "save/heal the world".

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Pixietown

Small server part of the pixie.town infrastructure. Registration is closed.