Similarly ETH saw Ethereum as a beta prototype, and ETC saw it as a final contract. Those two ideas were each strong enough to support a community.
But this doesn't work arbitrarily. If I see Bitcoin as a currency primarily for selling ice cream cones and I fork IceCreamCoin, which responds to the seasonality of ice cream sales, there's no guarantee other people will see value in that idea, and mine blocks on my chain, or pay for coins transacted in those blocks on exchanges.
This is key to understanding cryptocurrency: there is no central reality. There are as many realities as you want. There are incentives to participate in some of them, but it's voluntary. You can walk away from whoever you want, and decide their money doesn't even exist for you, for any reason.
Forking again will probably not relieve any pressure. It wouldnt take off.
Buying $10 worth of namecheap domain and pay $5 on fees no thanks!
P.S. Fees has actually got lower since the worst back in May, but there is no telling it won't happen again. Paying for anon hosting is not a bad idea but fewer providers are willing to provide it now - Vultr still accept bitcoin but require to have credit card on file as well due to abuse.
-Peer to peer remote transactions
-Embed money into a binary, a puzzle, an image, a file
-The only money no one can take away from you, even states. Protection from governments like Greece
-Inflation hedge. Protection from governments like Venezuela.
except hackers, if they get their hands on your wallet.
That being said, I don’t think Bitcoin will become truly relevant (to the average saver) until either a) inflation picks up to a worrying degree, or b) negative interest start prevailing. When/if this happens, the advantages of a decentralized monetary unit will become obvious.
As long as you have trust in your government for making the money, and the banks for multiplying it, you have nothing to worry about.
The market's decision about what to use as a store of value is a market-wide Schelling point decision based not around "what asset has underlying value" as any underlying value is quickly dwarfed by the magnitude of the value that needs to be stored, but instead the Schelling point decision is based on what asset has the best properties for money. If you look at what has been money in the past, you'll see examples (like giant stones) that were clearly not based on underlying industrial demand.
I don't want to say I'll transfer $1000 to someone and by the time the transfer is complete the vale has dropped/I need to wait 5 days for confirmation/ the bitcoin exchange has collapsed.
Exchanges are only for trading your fiat currency for bitcoin.
As an amusing thought experiment, imagine that
Bitcoin is successful and becomes the dominant payment
system in use throughout the world. Then the total
value of the currency should be equal to the total
value of all the wealth in the world. Current estimates
of total worldwide household wealth that I have found
range from $100 trillion to $300 trillion. With
20 million coins, that gives each coin a value of
about $10 million.
The actual truth is even weirder: if Bitcoin takes over as the world currency, its value in $USD will be infinite, but the question will be meaningless, as the dollar will be worthless. Currencies tend to be winner-take-all within a society; if one takes over, its rivals lose all value, as their only value is in being a medium of exchange and store of value.
This is perhaps a contributory factor to the Bitcoin's volatility: if you actually believe it's going to succeed, unambiguously, the rational thing to do is to move all your wealth to Bitcoin. And similarly, if you believe it's going to fail, the currency by definition is worthless.
I think the US government tolerates crypocurrencies because realistically they are far more damaging to countries like Venezula and China who have much more restrictive economies and in those countries the flexibility of bitcoin is a huge advantage.
How many aircraft carries does bitcoin have? 0. Which (in my opinion) happens to be the exact same chance of bitcoin usurping the USD as a global currency short of some fundamental change in world power.
On the aircraft carrier issue - the killer app (literally) for cryptocurrencies is autonomous weapon systems. Imagine if you could deposit $Xm Bitcoins into an address and have access to a fleet of 100,000 drones on 10,000 speedboats. At that point, we're really in uncharted territory, though.
Who creates money is the best answer to your questions.
Plus I don't think anybody would mind if their currency tends to increase in value.
If bitcoin has utility, its price will reflect that.
Here's a logarithmic graph of the price over the last few years, the slow price drop from $1000 to $200 was painful for most investors:
I'm bullish on Bitcoin, but you should also acknowledge the price could go to down to $1000 or $100 or $0 and stay there.
Notice what happened during the alt-coin bubble?
Now go look at nvidia's stock price around that time. Everything went bonkers in May.
So I understand what you are saying, but there is clear historical evidence for my claims. When it comes to market manias the safest place to make money from it is adjacent to it in a way that supplies the maniacs.
Split ended up bringing the potential forward for both camps and able to move on