There's plenty of new markets which failed to take off, and died after a few years of use. Confederate dollars aren't quite the useful currency they once were, as an obvious example.
Otherwise it cuts too close to survivorship bias: is there a popular asset where the market has "low liquidity and crappy technology"?
Yes, real estate.
I bet they're having even more legal difficulties though, as just running a regular share exchange requires a team of top notch lawyers to keep abreast of the huge volume of exchange laws. I doubt poor MtGox even has 1 full time qualified lawyer and they're dealing with entirely new legal ground.
^ points out some nice parallels between the "Bitcoin rush" and the California gold rush. One of the points he makes is that it wasn't the miners, by and large, who ended up rich. It was the people who sold equipment and supplies to the miners. The namesake of Stanford University was one of them, interestingly.
The top sellers of mining hardware that I could find on Google (Butterfly Labs, Advanced Miners, Cointerra) all accept Bitcoin for payment.
Are you referring to some group upstream of the hardware sellers? I'm curious where you're getting this information from...
There may eventually be a time where trading in bitcoins is productive, but for now it is a bit risky.
MtGox never had their shit in order, exploded overnight because Bitcoin is awesome, and hopefully we are finally seeing their inevitable collapse so that someone with more competency can take over.
"The new technology platform has been developed using the Microsoft .NET Framework, with support from Microsoft and Accenture, and marks the final phase of the Exchange's four-year Technology Road Map project. "
I was also told that there were Microsoft engineers on site doing training and review through the project. Either way, my point is that building a trading platform is extremely difficult even with top talent and enormous investment.
That boggles the mind. It is impossible for bitcoin to become fully illiquid as long as people believe it has value, because there is no infrastructure to approve transactions. The approval happens p2p.
Bitcoin and its ilk are going to repeat the issues the US had when small and regional banks all printed their own bills. Their info infrastructure were large books, updated monthly that provided info to determine exchange rates/values. People didn't like getting burned everywhere on transaction costs and their value going poof when unsavory characters ran the underlying banks into the ground or rumors about the stability of far off banks were spread.
Centralized. government-backed fiat currencies solve many issues that most Bitbugs are coming to grips with the hard way. It's those issues which are exposed publicly and quickly which will keep it the most amazing speculative financial invention to a group of fiercely, independently minded folks who have the skills and means to gloss over all the failings of such a device being a proxy for fiat currency. It's just another layer of abstraction, not a replacement. And it's a leaky abstraction.
I suspect regulation of various kinds will come to Bitcoin not through authoritarian government fiat (see what I did there?) but the way most regulation actually comes to pass: the public calls for greater regulation and transparency. It's possible that Bitcoin markets will accomplish this with minimal government intrusion, and I'm sure that's what they'll all aim for, given the underlying philosophy. I'm just not sure it'll happen.
This comment really seems like poorly disguised crowing and nothing more. Not a reminder, certainly. Maybe a reminder of your great prognosticatory abilities -- you took the default position on 99% of new technologies, products and innovations. Where do you find the courage?