So THAT's your definition of "electronic cash".
These are marketing failures. Satoshi Nakamoto didn't market bitcoin. Anyway, the price of bitcoin would indicate otherwise (your definition of "electronic cash" not withstanding).
Or pretty much anywhere.
Some of them are marketing failures. Some are design failures. Some are failures for other reasons. All of them performed according to the design specification. All of them were failures in spite of that.
What's the price of an individual BTC got to do with it? Of course, if you were looking to speculate with it and you bought when it was $115k, you'd probably be considering your choice as a failure right now. But that's irrelevant when you are talking about an electronic cash system. Nobody in Japan thinks the Yen is a failure just because you can buy 160 of them with a dollar.
That's a whole lot of vague right there and irrelevant when the only criterion you are basing bitcoin on is whether it meets your personal definition of "electronic cash".
Ripple is not a failure. It is being used by banks.
Obviously nothing if it doesn't support your notion that bitcoin doesn't meet your definition of "electronic cash". But if you can sell it then it is not a marketing failure.
finance.yahoo.com
You have forgotten the point of this little part of the thread. I'll remind you that you asserted that BTC is not a failure because it met its design criteria. The examples I gave you were all counter examples to your assertion that a thing that performs as designed cannot be a failure. Whether it was a marketing failure, a design failure (i.e. design criteria were wrong) )or other kind of failure is totally irrelevant. There was a design spec for each of those things and they met the spec. They didn't fail because they didn't meet the spec.
You can sell Deloreans and Cybertrucks. Neither is a success. Bitcoin is not a success.
What is its "intended purpose"?
What is your definition of "electronic cash"?
I didn't think you had a definition. And "anything that bitcoin is not" is not a definition of cash.
What would your definition be? And the definition of normal cash?
I would say that "normal cash" is a set of physical tokens where each token is recognised as representing a certain amount of money. That would make "electronic cash" or "digital cash" a version of cash that exists only on computers or on the internet (the tokens are not physical). This distinguishes from money that exists in ledgers (computer or paper).
I would think that this last point would be very important for the definition of cash including electronic cash. Otherwise it would be difficult to distinguish electronic cash from a ledger. And I would also think that the number and types of businesses that accept this cash is important. For instance, is something "cash" if it is only accepted a single place, like casino tokens?
You're JAQing off again.
You know what cash is. Stop taking the piss.
This is the thing that psionl0 can't get his head around. Bitcoin performs exactly as specified in the white paper. You could use it as cash. You could use it as a starting point to develop a better cash system on similar but more scalable principles. But nobody is using it as cash and nobody has created a successful second iteration on the same principle.
Well, you can spend them at the casino's bar and restaurant (and use them to tip staff) so maybe the answer is "yes"?
I'm not surprised that you attack me instead of answer my question. It is easier to address the arguer than to address the argument.
