> one can argue that that is its way of showing that it will be a paradigm shift of something in finance.
Judging by the recent interest of large financial institutions and corporations, I agree - there will be ripple effects of this, one way or another.
> I realise that one can argue that within a decade the market valuation of bitcoin (whatever that means) reached $200B which is a spectacular achievement
I've been on HN long enough to catch the cynicism which tells me that tech market valuations are pure bullcrap, so I'm not reading much from that number :).
I remember having discussions online with people who passionately argued that open source software was effectively theft from programmers at large--permanently filling niches that used to gainfully employ coders. I remember a guy who had some little utility he'd been selling online, which had been providing an income stream for him for years--and then along came some little free tool (that he claimed was an obvious rip-off) that did the same thing, and his income dried up. He absolutely thought OSS was theft.
Also, SCO, MS, and other companies certainly did try to paint a lot of open source software as explicitly stolen or copied. They always stopped short of providing proof, but that sure didn't stop them from making wild claims. SCO in particular went on and on about the sheave of Unix code they'd identified in the Linux kernel (while asking the judge to extend the deadline yet again for them to have to present evidence).
"Satoshi, grant me the serenity to accept that some regulations are good, paid for in tears and blood. Grant me the courage to work towards changing ones that are bullshit, and not just ignoring them. And grant me the wisdom to understand Chesterton's fence."
Yeah, that's my point.
> Red tape has stifled not just the financial space but the entire economy.
After 2008, that's really your opinion?
> when YouTube and brochure on how to sweep hair from the floor is perfectly adequate. How is regulation fair again?
I guess let's get rid of driver's licenses too, while we're at it? After all, if someone feels their driving skills need improvement, they could always voluntarily apply for lessons or download an app or something.
But as I like to keep an open mind about new tech, I always wonder if something like this could have been said about the early days of Linux:
1) Open-source is pure unadulterated theft of other peoples' work. This model cannot ever be allowed to become significant in the software economy.
2) That people who are into open source have naive ideas about how economy and society works.
3) That the main users of Linux are into other shady activities like hacking (the bad kind) and ripping other people's work.
The main reason I think the analogy doesn't hold that well is that we are now a decade into crypto with few signs of adaptability, while within a much shorter duration you could say that Linux was already showing signs that it was going to lead to a paradigm shift in the software industry.
Having just typed this I realise that one can argue that within a decade the market valuation of bitcoin (whatever that means) reached $200B which is a spectacular achievement, and one can argue that that is its way of showing that it will be a paradigm shift of something in finance.