This article is entertaining, interesting and relevant. Humans are exceptionally good at rationalizing their biases, especially if they involve trust, and interest is required to alter those biases in a positive way. The biggest challenge for cryptocurrencies today is raising interest and trust in the general population. We can best effect that by working hard to raise interest in cryptocurrencies in a positive way.
For example, the article claims that Cash is loved by Libertarians. As far as I'm aware, Libertarians would prefer privatized currencies, akin to the mid-1850s banking system. A centralized institution creating a centralized currency is much different from what the libertarians would like.
They miss the basics of the politics involved here. BTC (apparently) represents decentralization, freedom, etc. etc. At least according to libertarians.
The complaint about the lack of tracking and anonymity is also ironic, because BTC "marketing" has been filled with misinformation and lies. Fortunately, the article seems to take the correct stance. (BTCs are tracked, the ledger is public, it is far easier to be anonymous with Cash than it is with BTC).
Finally, there are systems in place because Cash has a 200+ year long history. It is impossible to ignore the "momentum" of cash. FBI has ways of tracking and marking bills. Secret Service actually keeps track of those Serial Numbers.
--------------------
Besides, BTC is but the first popular poof-of-work cryptocoin. I don't think BTC is perfect for many reasons... I think DOGE is going in a better direction.
The article fails to mention any of _my_ complaints. The extremely long transaction time (10 minutes minimum, if you are willing to trust a 1-block confirmation), the deflationary nature (block chain rewards halving every couple of years). The hard cap at 21 million (DOGE has no cap on coins fyi).
You know, the legitimate complaints about BTC, the ones that people are trying to solve with alt-coins.
Bitcoin is not ready to be marketed to and trusted by the general population as a general currency, since it's so unstable, while i've seen ideas on how to solve this, they kill the currency's appeal as an investment tool, which would seriously hurt adoption.
There's a beautiful irony there, the best thing that bitcoin has going for it is the very same thing that's keeping it from being useful as an actual currency.
Maybe the speculative "hold to hoard/invest/speculate" thing is just a phase.
There is no lack of irony when you are dealing with cognitive dissonance!
We have ton of unstable events going on in credit card land, but the vast majority of individuals filter those events from their fears because they are bored with that type of news. With Bitcoin, it's interesting, so you pay attention. Once you start paying attention, it's not hard to be surprised about something happening within the movement. If anything happens that causes a concern (fear) you get people going "Oh my gosh! Look at how awful this Bitcoin thing is because it's so unstable! It's gonna fail, for sure!".
Wait a few minutes. The hive mind will find something else to become surprised/fearful about soon enough. Boredom will kick in and everyone will settle down and forget their fears. By then they'll wonder how they lived without it.
>> The biggest challenge for cryptocurrencies today is raising interest and trust in the general population.
I would actually say its getting the general public informed. 75% of the US population are aging baby boomers. They can barely work an iphone, how the heck do you think they're ever going to accept cryptocurrency? Even with a ton of marketing, this is something that is completely foreign to 85% of the general population.
>> "I would actually say its getting the general public informed. 75% of the US population are aging baby boomers. They can barely work an iphone, how the heck do you think they're ever going to accept cryptocurrency? Even with a ton of marketing, this is something that is completely foreign to 85% of the general population."
You're saying 75% of the US population cannot work an iPhone? Or 75% are baby boomers?? Just so you're more informed next time you make up stats, less than 15% of the US population would be considered baby boomers.
If we take your first figure of 35% I am closer. If we take your second figure of 45% we are each 30% off. So yet again - stop making things up, you are not a lot closer.
Also "By 2015, those aged 50 and older..." Some of those people wouldn't be considered baby boomers as that generation ends in 1964.
I agree, but I think in practice it will be quite simple. Most people have phones which can be used as wallets. I already pay for my coffee at Peet's with my Nexus 5 using NFC. Assuming most drip into a spending wallet, and are OK with that spending wallet's security model, this leaves the challenge of implementing savings wallet security.
Banks are already set up to provide these services and when they decide to jump in, adoption will take off pretty quickly. Those services could come in the form of cash exchange at ATMs, wallet hosting, compromised savings wallet insurance (if they host your wallet), best practices around passwords/etc., loans, and cold storage security via fireproof lockboxes.
This will (obviously) require the banking industry to wrap their heads around these new models. How long that takes is anyone's guess.
This is more commonly known as "marketing".