> Bitcoin original goal is to create a digital currency that people can use. We're not even close to achieve that goal.

I disagree. Cryptocurrency is de facto being used as a currency quite successfully by lots of people. Sure, there are technical hurdles that prevent people who don't really have any need for a decentralized currency from using it. But none of those hurdles are so challenging that people can't use it if they really need it. Plenty of people have used cryptocurrency to move money across borders, make purchases that are illegal under oppressive regimes, etc., and not all of those were technical users. There aren't technical hurdles so high that someone who wants to buy drugs online can't do it with enough effort, for example.

Hacker News types will point to the failure of cryptocurrency to emerge as a competitor to traditional currencies within the regulated market, but that's precisely what you'd expect: cryptocurrencies hamper regulation, so of course there will be resistance from the regulated market. But don't mistake that for failure: cryptocurrencies have created whole markets and flows of value effectively didn't exist before.

To be clear, here's what I'm NOT saying:

1. I'm not saying there isn't room for improvement in the user experience. There is.

2. I'm also not saying that the effects of cryptocurrency are necessarily positive. That remains to be seen.

I d say most of the hurdles are regulatory. Bitcoin has become digital gold - a place to store large amounts as a hedge and nothing more. Cryptocurrency will not take the place of visa payments because there s no insurance, its slow etc. All the uses where cryptocurrency would shine and visa cannot do (e.g. quick anonymous tips for your comment) are illegal. So we re stuck until either the regulatory framework or national currencies fall apart.

> How do we make Bitcoin/crypto easier for normal people to use?

Pay people with bitcoin. This is #1. People don't have a problem figuring out even complex systems if there 's money involved (And that's a good thing)

> Bitcoin volatility makes transaction really hard.

Not sure if that's really an issue if cryptos were being used daily. They are instantly convertible to other cryptos or stablecoins, therefore the volatility would quickly go down if people used them in real life. People would exchange them for the most stable currencies only, because people don't like to see their coins devalued. We see lots of volatility today because most bitcoin big players got them by sheer luck / being there first so they treat it as casino chips; its not "a hard day's work" earnings.

A major benefit of cryptocurrencies is the inability to chargeback. Obviously this is not desirable in 100% of situations, but it is undeniably a necessary niche. This is something streamers and other public figures constantly have to worry about, since some people find it amusing to donate thousands of dollars and then chargeback months later.

Not sure if the idea that Bitcoin acts as an hedge has much weight considering it’s never been tested in a first world economic downturn; arguably, it has worked in third world countries which face high inflation and have a lack of public confidence in monetary policy. But where is the majority of Bitcoin held, in the former or latter?

i d assume a lot of chinese do it - no idea really, but it's a form of easily accessible gold

> your crypto no regulation gauntlet at fiat and demand them to comply to your game

you can pay a homeless person with cash. you can pay a street performer with cash. you can gift cash. it's all anonymous no fuss. that's what crypto is, digital cash, not a digital credit card

Someone (government) has to print your cash, track them, fight counterfeit. Cash is harder to track. But it is not no regulation.

i am not aware that a government's function is to track people's cash

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Bitcoin so far hasn't delivered (I refrain from calling it a failure) on it's primary premise: being a currency. People touting that there are some hundreds of thousands of transactions a day miss the point. Those numbers are absolutely puny for something that is meant to be a currency.

The unfortunate story here is that a technically and fundamentally interesting idea has been turned into a total cesspit by the influx of money and greed before it could escape it's roots of ideological purity and adapt to the realities of human society.

The starry eyed technologists who were unfortunately not well equipped for the gnarly world of finance got replaced by financially better informed "businessmen" with shady motives or outright frauds.

In the eyes of the broader market, cryptocurrencies have been tainted by black market dealings, non-stop high profile scams, excessive volatility, lack of liquidity and near-zero useful acceptance for retail transactions. I won't even mention the large number of zero value-added ideas that offer nothing beyond what could also be done without blockchain, but just wanted along for the ride. These further diluted the already thin trust.

As much as I shudder at the idea of a Big Tech Co. launching a cryptocurrency, perhaps that'd would have been the one winning shot that the concept had about 2-3 years ago. If Googlecoin or Facebookcoin materialized before either the tech companies or the concept of cryptocurrencies turned into demons, some good could've actually materialized.

Am I too jaded here? Maybe. But after so many years and no killer concept materializing, one has to start asking questions. The other "fads" of the last decade (AI, VR/AR, EV, etc..) actually continue to deliver ever more amazing innovations, putting the stagnation of crypto into a rather stark contrast.

Wtf are you talking about? Digital currencies don't "work" because they are volatile not because they lack a Tree Notation strategy. They have become an speculative investment/gambling rather than a method of payment.

I agree that volatility is a problem but I think it's a symptom of the root cause. I think digital currencies do work now for a few use cases (cross border transfer, for example), but they don't work mainstream because you can't trust them at the core.

It's not a very understandable system, and that's a benefit to certain powerful players in the field, to the detriment of everyone else. Most people now holding bitcoin are speculators or fools. A few people/groups with significant resources have the ability to truly understand what's going on, and unless you are one of those folks you are just along for the ride.

With Tree Notation you could start moving toward a far simpler system with no unnecessary complexity, where it would be much harder to maintain an information advantage over the average user. The chain of transactions itself would be very easy to audit, but long term so would the node code, etc. All cryptocurrencies currently use overly complex languages (mostly BNFs) both for their nodes and their blockchains. I think Tree Notation will eat those (http://longbets.org/793/) and someone(s) who apply it early to the crypto world will win a lot of users.

People use visa, mastercard, bank transfer/swift, paypal etc but have no clue about the implementation. This doesn't stop them using them. You are focusing on the wrong things. Users have no interest to know what's going on behind the scenes but you can be sure they won't use cryptocurrencies again when they find out that the bitcoin bought yesterday is now less valuable and they are no longer able to buy whatever they planned(i speak from personal experience). Wtf does the programming language has to do with the end user experience??? Fix the volatility and you may have a successful cryptocurrency otherwise all you get is a gambling tool and a way for shady people to transfer money anonymously. Obviously for this latter group of people loosing some money is not an issue.

VisaNet is the simplest program imaginable, relative to the value. People do have a clue how it works because any problem you have can be explained with little more than basic arithmetic. The phases of the credit charge process are clear and well defined. (I used to work on things for Visa). Simplicity matters. You’re not gonna fix volatility when you have the complexity of the current bitcoin network, IMO.

You know that Visa works with stable(government backed), regulated currencies, right? Maybe that should give you a hint why people use it. Your "complexity" argument is pure bullshit.

People use it because it works and they can trust it, and it's easier to make that happen when you have simpler things.

Now, if you don't want to go explore what a Tree Notation backed blockchain could look like, totally fine.

Plenty of other people will. It's a massive low hanging fruit opportunity. (And Tree Notation is all public domain, btw)

I would much rather use stablecoins such as Dai for spending instead of trying to tweak Bitcoin's monetary policy.