Phones took literally decades to get to a point where an affordable mass consumer item could sit in a pocket and last long enough to be useful.
What's Bitcoin missing in technological or infrastructure terms that's holding it back? I'd wager nothing.
For the vast majority of people, Bitcoin doesn't solve anything - in fact, 'is slightly incomprehensible and weird' and so is actvely disuassive of its use.
> What's Bitcoin missing in technological or infrastructure terms that's holding it back? I'd wager nothing.
A cross between ease-of-use and simple knowledge that it exists.
As one example, I know of digital artists who sell their work over the internet, but have trouble receiving payments because paypal doesn't like their platform being used for porn. Bitcoin (& etc) would be the perfect solution, but it doesn't ever seem to even cross their minds as a possibility.
Sure, but the lure of '1000x gainz' (ie. high volatility) isn't useful to its uptake as a replacement for many types of transaction, and here in the UK/EU many countries have allowed (even if somewhat tenuously) some regulatory legroom, so all we're missing is... an app?
Yet...?
It's a solution wherein principally the currently-invested are the only stakeholders hungry for a problem to solve.
At least in the US, phone prices used to be subsidized by the carrier, who passed on the cost as higher monthly prices. The industry almost completely moved away from that now. Verizon, for example, was never buying iPhones from Apple for $200.
As far as I'm concerned bitcoin should become valuable as a protocol (i.e http or html protocol) with no direct monetization. I think comparing it with mobile phones is an apple vs oranges situation
Early on, people are unconvinced by a nascent innovation, so are willing to pay less. As the network effect grows and the innovation becomes indispensable, they are willing to pay more.
