No one is suggesting that everyone must use Bitcoin, but please understand that over the past 100 years the majority of the world's currencies have collapsed one way or another. Not every country is the U.S. which has been able to use its military might to maintain the value of its currency. Russia, Mexico, India, many European nations prior to the Euro, most of South America, have all seen their currencies collapse at some point in the past 50 years or so, and in many cases within the past 30 years.
It's possible that the US dollar doesn't collapse at all in the next 50 years... and that would be great... but it's also possible that at some point in the next 50 years the US dollar ends up being devalued significantly in which case it isn't such a horrible idea to take some of your cash and store it in a globally accessible cryptocurrency in addition to other assets such as gold.
Okay so I kind of see where you're coming from, but I still strongly disagree with you.
You're saying that because world currencies collapse (your claim is the majority of them have within the past 100 years, which I don't have the data on, but let's just assume for the sake of argument that you're right), bitcoin is needed.
But bitcoin collapses not just every 30-100 years, it collapses every 0.5-5 years. [1]
How is that in any way better? Why are we spending all this energy on this?
> But bitcoin collapses not just every 30-100 years, it collapses every 0.5-5 years.
When someone says that a fiat currency collapsed, it means the value went to zero forever. Bitcoin hit a new all-time high price in USD just recently. Not the same usage of the word collapse.
This paper by the European Central Bank has a very in-depth discussion of the definition of currency collapse in section three [1], including three proposed definitions, two of which are given as mathematical formulae.
It specifically does not require permanence for any of the definitions, there's even an entire subsection on the varying degrees of persistence of various currency collapses.
Interestingly, from a first glance, it would also appear that most of the bitcoin collapses linked above fit the definitions in the paper, or iow, are just that, collapses.
Thanks for the arcane technical note, I’m sure the OP who referred to currency collapse was using that term in the precise technical sense that the ECB uses it /s
You tried to derail my argument by casting doubt on my use of the term, I demonstrated at great length my use was in fact correct, you responded with snark.
Crypto is an attempt to solve a political problem, untrusted authorities, with a technology. This can never work, and without a political fight any crypto/web3 infrastructure will not catch on in a meaningful way unless it is bent to serve the interests of those authorities.
