Limited scope and obviously doesn't justify the money that is swirling in crypto right now.
However, if we want digital things to be non-fungible we're probably going to need something like a block chain. Cryptokitties(as beanie-baby-esque as they are) and the implementation of the ERC-271 token come to mind.
Again I realize cryptokittes are not really a great example other than proof of concept, but imagine with me for a second a fine art market where all the art is digital, this requires a decentralized non-fungible token, maybe digital house or car keys would be another thing where we want to limit the number of people with access to the thing, again if we don't want to trust someone like say equifax, with control over that we're going to want a decentralized non-fungible token.
I realize these aren't necessarily the best examples of non-fungible assets we might want one day. However it seems absurd to me that moving forward society won't at some point demand some digital asset that is non-fungible. If that assumption holds true then some form of cypto-currency is going to be necessary to provide such an asset.
Call it gambling if you will. What is the intrinsic value of a game of blackjack? None, yet an entire industry is propped up by it.
The externalities. This very thread is about how Bitcoin is messing up power grids and will soon be responsible for a non-negligible percentage of Earth's entire power usage (and the attendant pollution). It's not consequence-free fun.
That's weird, I've been using it to buy stuff off amazon and aliexpress. Am I a conned rube?
Does that mean Visa is conning rubes as well?
How? Neither company seems to accept Bitcoin directly.
You've got some strong arms on you my friend, moving those goal posts so far so fast.
I pay with bitcoin. Stuff arrives in the mail. I am using bitcoin.
>Cryptocurrencies have been around for 9+ years, and there has been literally 0 use for it apart from conning rubes on the internet.
So...
>Yes, you are using Bitcoin
Yes, I am. I don't understand why you two are so angrily and bitterly agreeing with me.
The opposite way to pose this is: Cryptocurrencies have been around for 9+ years, and there has been literally 0 use for it apart from conning rubes on the internet. The important thing to ask is whether it has a purpose and has it delivered on that purpose. There's really only one theoretical purpose that it's meant to serve - being free from tyrannical government. Well that kind of worked when capital fled into it from China - but there's also been crack downs. It also doesn't explain the US fascination.
I think there comes a point where 9 years in, you have to ask: What purpose does cryptocurrency serve beyond enriching people who are already invested.