I think the all examples you give are "technically" ready and can be used somehow. Therefore, the "hard" part seems to be that they are high learning costs, reckless, or not usable by the masses.
Recently, I have come to believe that since Wall Street and Silicon Valley will take care of penetrating the masses, it is important for Bitcoiners to keep to stick to telelogical and ontological problem setting, such as non-custodial, decentralization, and privacy, and not focus on the fact that it may be a little difficult to use or that the masses are not using it.
That being said, I understand that there are problems in daily life and business growth and it's getting closer to a something of noblesse oblige. If the BTC price crashes, I may not be able to say this.
Login to reply
Replies (3)
To my point, why are learning costs high? Are we saying these problems are categorically UX-hard (in the vein of computational complexity theory)? I'd love to see some formalization of that. I think "bitcoin is good enough, retail is lazy/dumb" might be true, but without probing how easy bitcoin can possibly get, it's equivalent to folding in texas hold'em before we've seen the flop imo.
I think i got your point, probably. But I'd say that "what Bitcoiners need to attack" is kind of "UX-hard" is also rightーChallenge to make it usable on a daily basis while keeping the important principles.
I think these things are hard because self-hosting is hard. Umbrel is probably state of the art on the easy scale but still no normie would touch it