Most would likely fall into a "speculator" definition, as they don't actually use bitcoins for transactions - therefore they aren't really "adopting" bitcoin, but rather are just stock piling something in hopes it goes up in value in the future.

I.e. if I buy 20 new xboxes but leave them sealed for resale before Christmas, I'm not really an early adopter, instead i'm just a speculating opportunist, even though I did purchase the consoles the day they were released - the same time the "early adopters" did.

I appreciated your comment. It's easy to overlook definitions and categorically group things based on simple criteria checking. People who are currently buying BTC is a shared characteristic of (1) speculators, (2) early adopters, and (3) probably other actors.

Regardless if they are speculators, does their initial reason for adoption matter to the definition of an early adopter? Speculators may at any time become users, and normal users may at any time start speculating.

What if they use BTC as a store of value and not a currency?

I consider the people buying into Bitcoin today as lesser fools.

The people buying into Bitcoin tomorrow are greater fools.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory

The greater fool is the one holding the bag when nobody else will buy it; People buying in today could very well be the greater fool -- time will tell.

If by 'early adopter' you mean 'in it before the price skyrocketed', then yes.

I don't believe I'm a slow learner, but it took me about 1 year from first learning about Bitcoin to becoming comfortable enough with the technology to speculate on it.

I honestly believe it will replace Gold as a store of value, but it will take a very long time for the general public to understand it enough and/or trust it enough that they'll sell any amount of gold for bitcoins. But when they do, perhaps in a slow process that peaks around 15 years from now, the value of a single bitcoin could end up somewhere around $300k.

I personally estimate the likelihood of this being around 10-15%. So yeah, I'm still buying more today.

Gold and BitCoin don't compare well. Here's why. Sure, gold is "useless", except for the fact that its value is historically verified (over centuries) and culture-independent. If nothing else, it's used in jewelry (and drugs, and electronics).

There aren't many elements on the periodic table, and even fewer are viable as metallic currencies: rare enough to have value in small weight, not so rare as to be foreign (historically) to many cultures. Gold has a visceral, visual advantage, too: it's the only yellow metal.

On the other hand, anyone can launch a new cryptocurrency. There's no natural monopoly there. The idea is valid, but all Bitcoin has to defend itself against competition is the brand/reputation. And people hate Bitcoin because it was clearly set up to favor early adopters for no good reason.

If it hadn't favored early adopters... there wouldn't have been early adopters.

Well, it has favored the early adopters a few magnitudes too much. I am not comfortable with someone holding 10% of currency.

If Satoshi came out of the high tower and announced plans for his stash, I would feel a little bit better. When/if BTC hits 1m/BTC his stash would be worth 2T and that is a lot of claim checks on society.

Silver was historically verified too. But it lost it's value in the 20th century, when people stopped using it as a money.

Silver took a sizable hit, but it has retained value. It still has two aspects to it that are very valuable: industrial and jewelry / fashion. Those are likely to remain for a very long time, providing silver with a value base.

It's gold ratio fell from 16:1 in 19th century to 100:1 in 1930s.

Getting only 15% of your savings is not a good result :)

It's not so bad either, imagine you held the continental dollar or the zimbabwe dollar, or even just the USD since 1975. They did worse than silver.

There are around several hundred thousands of bitcoin users. There are more than 7 billion people. Bitcoin is in the very early phase.

For comparison: first GSM call was made in 1991. In 1994 subscribers hit 1 million, nowadays there are several billions. Would you consider someone with GSM phone in 1994 an early adopter or not?

There are also tens (hundreds?) of thousands of piano tuners. Does that mean piano tuning is in the early phase?

Bitcoins are arguably useful to everybody, unlike piano tuners.

Nope. Early majority now, especially with it getting big in China.

Innovators were the early miners who invested in actually taking BTC from 0 to 1.

Early adopters were those who got into it prior to 2013 when most of the mainstream considered it a scam or were otherwise scared off by the price instability.

With the recent government hearings I'd say we're right at the start of the early majority phase.

Bitcoin market adoption looks like a skyrocket curve compared to other tech. Hence the early adopters window closed a while back during the first 4 years when 50 coins were being mined every 10 mins.

There are two early adopter classes that I think matter in this sort of case.

First are what I'll refer to as technologists. No elaboration necessary, you get the gist.

Second are Jane & Joe consumer.

People buying into Bitcoin today are early adopters as far as consumers are concerned, and they're years behind on the technologist scale.

Bitcoin has reached enough publicity at this point that a former business partner of mine - she's in her mid 60's, and is a very very light user of technology, that hasn't yet joined Facebook, has never once used Twitter, has heard / read about Bitcoin. She is a CPA, so we had an interesting conversation about the implications of Bitcoin. She gets the premise of digital currencies, but not exactly how Bitcoin works (why mining exists, who controls it, how the encryption works, and so on).

Publicity wise, Bitcoin is quite widespread, it has spent months in the mainstream media at this point. Consumer adoption is clearly still in the first inning however.

Yes, from utility point of view it's still just a protocol and an experiment. Many iterations of applications will be built on it before it becomes mainstream. As an investment, early adopter days are over.

No. While Bitcoin is still insanely young, it is hardly at the early point by which I would say this is still an early adopter phase anymore.

I'm seriously wanting to invest in Bitcoin. I think in 8 years the price of every bitcoin will be around 100k each.

Price is about to hit $1,000/btc - def. NOT early adopters, more starting to go up towards the bell curve.

People won't remember Snapchat's fall from grace or Groupon's mediocre twilight. They'll be talking about Bitcoin (and however it busts) in 2050, 2100 even. Not because it will be worth a damn. It won't go to zero. It will be a neat novelty "good" that is fully electronic. It will hold some value, just like Black Lotuses would still be a part of gaming history if no one played Magic anymore.

Still, I expect it to tank. It might have enough relic power (as the first, if not the best) to hold a value around $50 million in toto (or $6/BTC). Why? Because the forced deflation is a Dick Move of epic proportions: favoring early adopters for no good reason. As it turns out, Dick Moves damage your reputation in the long run, and all Bitcoin has is a brand. What stops someone else from creating a new cryptocurrency without the hard upper limit?

There is something interesting about it, which is it reminds us that we truly really have no fucking clue where value comes from. Nation-states? Companies? Total abstractions, many fraudulent or flimsy. Bitcoin has some transient value because some smart people solved a hard problem, but there's no long-term brand advantage or natural monopoly. But it's still pretty fascinating that smart people can create so much value (often "of out nothing", but sometimes genuine). Or take Magic: cardboard probably worth a billion dollars in totality. The first trillion-dollar business is going to be one that recognizes the value of the time of high-talent people and somehow provides direct access in a scalable way (independent of social networks, because well-connected, talented people are already in-place). I've had a rough idea of how that might work-- a call option exchange on high-talent peoples' time, see http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/fixing-employ...: -- but I admit I have no idea how to scale it (or even deal with the ethical assurance issues).

> Why? Because the forced deflation is a Dick Move of epic proportions: favoring early adopters for no good reason.

No good reason? Does there have to be one?

If the protocol succeeds despite your assertion that there is no good reason to favor early adopters, will you change your mind that the reason was immaterial?

http://paste.lisp.org/+307S

how certain are you it will tank? have you shorted it?

My parents know about Bitcoins. Officially, you are no longer an early adopter.