The key difference here is what's backing the US Dollar and what you can use it for (paying US taxes), the Venezuela printing more makes no difference to those.
Venezuela fiat is also secured in much the same way US dollars are. Via reserve assets, a military, and a tax paying base to name a few aspects that "backs" fiat. It is a separate currency however, just like alts are to Bitcoin.
Contrast to bitcoin vs some other cryptocurrency. Bitcoin probably wins on the magic name and it's establishment, the point here though is that those are things that can get eroded.
Just like how fiat currencies die and are reborn every few year as well. As I understand the average life of fiat is ~40-50 years before it needs to be rebooted into something different. The US dollar has already gone through several major iterations. Bitcoin is an evolving project, and not static. Bitcoins security also exists not just in first mover advantage and branding either but in billions of dollars of physical infrastructure, much of which cannot be repurposed.
The thing which most likely kills it against competition which is what I see your response absolutely dripping in, complacency.
Me correcting your misunderstandings shows you how non complacent I am. I am not suggesting that Bitcoin is destined to succeed, but it is merely the best candidate at this time and because I understand the difficult task ahead, I and many others are placing the effort to make sure its a secure long term project.
You appear to have 2 questions/concerns. The first dealing with privacy. Bitcoin is pseudonymous which ultimately means the end user can choose to be transparent or very private depending how they prefer to use it. Most dark market transactions occur in Bitcoin even to this day and are growing year after year. Bitcoin is also rapidly becoming far more private every year with advanced chaumian coinjoin, dandelion, Schnorr Signatures, Taproot, sidechains, and payment channels to name a few advancements.
Your second concern is a vague suggestion that governments can shut Bitcoin off easily which is untrue. If they could they would have done so already as they have with all the other private and sovereign currencies that grew to decent market caps beforehand(liberty dollar, liberty gold, egold, digicash, et cetera
Let me know if you have any other questions. Cheers.
However, I can argue that it's already gone below zero. You'd have to pay me in REAL money before I'd accept your cryptocurrency.
The price of a currency or asset is determined by a marketplace not solely you. Thus even if you don't accept US dollars, it still has value because others do.
There is NO limit on numbers or on amusing mathematical games that can be played with numbers to pick out "valuable" ones.
Bitcoin is valuable because people find it useful for regulatory arbitrage and its scarce. Not quite the same as random numbers as you suggest.
only large servers will be able to store and host the blockchain,
The size of the Bitcoin blockchain with storage space is not the concern as pruning has been available for many years bringing down the blockchain to under 5GB disk space with a full node(not SPV). These full nodes have all the same security and privacy properties as a full archival node (currently ~250GB) and these pruned nodes validate the complete protocol rules and peer blocks just like archival nodes.
The more the use cases for Bitcoin are proven valuable, the more competitors will appear.
Those are altcoins, not Bitcoin. You don't suggest that US dollars are hyper inflating when Venezuela prints more fiat do you?
The new competitors often have technical advantages over the older cryptocurrencies.
Often they do not. 99% or altcoins are just memes or marketing fluff and have no advantageous and since Bitcoin is an evolving open source project it can adopt any real advantageous.
I would note that a gov't or multinational financial institution could easily create its own crypto, that has the properties that most consumers actually care about.
Countries like Canada, Ecuador, and Venezuela have already tried this, but its a pointless marketing exercise that has failed in the past and will continue to fail because fiat is already mostly digital and cryptographically secured and countries will never adopt the unique properties that give value to a currency like Bitcoin as its not in their interest.
What an ignorant dipshit you are. It is, in fact, the most trackable "currency" ever. Every bitcoin transaction that has ever taken place, is stored in the blockchain. Every. Single. One.
Privacy in Bitcoin is a complicated topic. Are you familiar with coinjoin and the effects Taproot has on the anonymity set of both onchain transactions and payment channel creation? Most of my transactions today are done in a lightning wallet which extremely private from default as well with multihop and onion routed. The ultimate weakness will always be sting operations for physically delivered items but anything in the digital world can be very private if you choose to use the right wallet like Wasabi or any non custodial lightning wallet.
Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are mostly used for legal speculation worldwide as of now. Fiat currencies , especially the US dollar unfortunately dominate the black market as of today , but I appreciate your optimism that Bitcoin will eventually take more of the market share from fiat in these categories.
I agree with you that it is quite absurd when countries create their own "cryptocurrency" as fiat is already already mostly digital and cryptographically secured. The attempts to do this in Venezuela , Peru, and Canada have all been failures. It appears that this topic is more concerned with creating a "global fiat" standard that eclipse the reserve currency status of the USA which would have some advantageous over using national fiat currencies though.
There are protocols which would negate the need for fees, the popular ones just don't use them.
You are correct that fees are essential in the security of Bitcoin. Fees can be very nominal however as my purchases from my BTC lightning wallet have fees of 0 to a fraction of a penny and have instant and secure confirmations.
The first provably fails because the expense of forging a transaction blockchain neccessaruly must scale with the capitalization of the currency or it's not secure. Ergo it becomes too expensive to hash unless you can steal free electricity or performs some task whose value equals the cost of the hash.
With Bitcoin transaction throughput/capacity has nothing to with electricity used in PoW. Already bitcoin is working with much higher transaction throughput on layers like sidechains and payment channels like lightning. Difficulty is also dynamic auto adjusted up and down insuring that mining will always be profitable for the most efficient miners(which encourages green sources of energy , innovation, reusing waste heat, and using untapped or waste energy)
There is a fallacy which rests on a false assumption that total amount electricity burnt must always correlate with the price of bitcoin. In reality the **cost** of electricity burnt will tend to correlate with the price of bitcoin.
This means that as bitcoin continues to compete with all other forms of electrical demand worldwide the price per kW across the board will rise and thus decreasing the amount of electricity needed for bitcoin even if the price of bitcoin continues to rise and making bitcoin more and more efficient. This also has the side effect of encouraging more and more efficient and greener forms of cooling and electrical production.
There are other fallacies which ignore the indirect energy used and environmental impact in more human involved means of securing fiat currencies in relation to Bitcoin. There has yet to be a comprehensive study but many suspect that fiat currency consumes far greater amounts of energy in production , validation , and security per capita value secured.
WARNING TO ALL PERSONNEL: Firings will continue until morale improves.
