In my opinion, all crypto-currency ventures which rely on their token suddenly becoming money -- meaning it's liquid enough to absorb large sums in and out of traditional currencies -- will fail. Currently, only the Bitcoin market has sufficient depth to support a reasonable level of trade, since merchants -- as things stand now -- need to pay their bills in traditional currency.
It's a bit like creating a Snapchat/Instagram Stories competitor, claiming that you have a solution that lets everyone in the world chat with each other. All that needs to happen is that everyone switch to your protocol. And with money it's even worse, since people are not just risking incompatibility, but the loss of real wealth, in case things don't work out as intended for the users. The market, not the inventors, decides to what extent a given token can be used to transfer value, by doing market making at the exchanges which trade these tokens for whichever currency people's paychecks are denominated in.
Bitcoin becoming reasonably liquid is a damn-near miracle, in my opinion. I thoroughly doubt any crypto-currency that doesn't substantially improve upon Bitcoin will ever attract enough liquidity to become useful for tranferring value (and even in this case, I think it's much more likely that Bitcoin will just adopt whichever features that make this competitor superior).
> it's much more likely that Bitcoin will just adopt whichever features that make this competitor superior
since the bitcoin community continues to fail to adopt the most basic measures to do something about its scalability issue (transaction fees >> $1, confirmations times >> 1h), i highly doubt that this is likely. Just like with megacorps and startups, all the money in the world can't buy you out of internal divisions and politicking.
Bitcoin shares the same limitations in scalability as all other blockchain-based crypto-currencies. The only difference is that Bitcoin is so popular that its limitations, scalability-wise, are becoming obvious.
There is no easy fix to adopt, so nothing has happened. Raising the block size isn't a fix, it just pushes the decentralization/throughput-equilibrium further towards "throughput" and further away from "decentralization".
It should be noted that our current financial system has the exact same limitation: an international bank transfer (SWIFT) costs roughly $35, which makes it entirely unsuitable for consumer-to-merchant transactions. This is fixed by using credit instruments to clear payments going from consumers to merchants, such as is done by VISA, MasterCard etc.
A similar (VISA-like) clearing system can be deployed on top of Bitcoin, thus making it behave exactly as our current financial system does today. The lowest layer (Bitcoins on the blockchain/USD in a bank account) acts as the store of value, while protocols on top of this layer are used to make consumer payments sufficiently cheap.
My bank charges 20DKK (~$3) for a SEPA transaction. I'd be really interested if you could show me a Danish bank that offers free SEPA transfers.
As for dispute resolution, I think it would be appropriate for this to be a third protocol layer -- on top of VISA-style clearing. I see no reason the clearing layer should handle this as well (and incorporating it into the Bitcoin layer would be true insanity, in my opinion). Nor do I see a reason it should be difficult. Costly, perhaps, but it's a simple matter of finding a mutually trusted third party, who won't release funds to the merchant until the consumer has received the goods.
"it's much more likely that Bitcoin will just adopt whichever features that make this competitor superior)." Yes. Particularly with Sidechains. Stripe is great but Stellar has huge headwinds.
It's a bit like creating a Snapchat/Instagram Stories competitor, claiming that you have a solution that lets everyone in the world chat with each other. All that needs to happen is that everyone switch to your protocol. And with money it's even worse, since people are not just risking incompatibility, but the loss of real wealth, in case things don't work out as intended for the users. The market, not the inventors, decides to what extent a given token can be used to transfer value, by doing market making at the exchanges which trade these tokens for whichever currency people's paychecks are denominated in.
Bitcoin becoming reasonably liquid is a damn-near miracle, in my opinion. I thoroughly doubt any crypto-currency that doesn't substantially improve upon Bitcoin will ever attract enough liquidity to become useful for tranferring value (and even in this case, I think it's much more likely that Bitcoin will just adopt whichever features that make this competitor superior).