my thoughts on a couple of Simons points: (my main request is that people recognize that BTC is more than a currency and stop defining it in their heads in those terms)
1 - "its a waste of electricity which is harmful to the environment and could be doing something more useful instead"
I agree that clean power for the Internet is important. Greenpeace has rightly begun holding large companies feet to the fire on this issue. http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/Global/usa/planet3/PDFs/clickingclean.pdf Facebook seem to be in the lead on this, followed by Google and Apple. In the same way that fossil companies should not be allowed to sell their products with no regard for dumping waste byproducts into the atmosphere, Internet companies should not be free to consume dirty electrical power to the detriment of society at large. The company I am involved with is committed to 100% hydro energy and free air cooling for maximum efficiency - thats why we have built our Bitcoin mine near the Arctic Circle.
Who gets to decide what future technologies may be useful? Nobody really knows how digital currency is going to turn out. History has plenty of examples (eg the car, the PC, the Internet) which were derided as being only for geeks with no clear benefits for the rest of us.
2 - "nobody uses e-wallets"
http://www.coindesk.com/blockchain-passes-2-million-bitcoin-wallets/ 3 companies are claiming over 4m wallets between them. Yes we are in early adopter phase and yes the technology has to become much more seamless. Its not a reason to write it off though. You could have made the same argument about P2P downloads of music files a few years back. (Install Kazaa, find and setup your downloads from multiple peers, wait, save file to PC, transfer to MP3 player..etc - now we watch HD 5.1 content via Netflix on our TV's as easily as watching terrestial TV, but it had to start somewhere) Typically the technology to do cool stuff is really around for years before mass market adoption - it takes investment from large companies and/or VC's to get the ball rolling and that exists for Bitcoin today. Marc Andressen is a prime example http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/05/21/marc-andreessen-in-20-years-well-talk-about-bitcoin-like-we-talk-about-the-internet-today/
3 - "large retailers are only doing it for show"
Speculation m'lud :-) the large retailers I deal with have no time for show for its own sake. they are intimately concerned with profitability and consumer experience. Some of that experience may be theatrical in nature and yes - some companies do want to appear to be on the cutting edge. Show for shows sake - not in my experience. The Bitcoin halo effect is well reported on where retailers accepting BTC gain new customers who spend more on average. Sensible retailers will both want to offer consumer choice and keep track of potentially significant trends. I don't see a downside to either of those early-stage objectives.
4 - "low cost transaction fees aren't low cost at all, and anyway credit cards can offer a better deal if they are forced to"
If all that BTC achieves is making payment processors offer a better deal then OK no harm done :-) this statement also recognises the rip-off that has been taking place for years. Western Union and Moneygram are charging ~15-20% to allow migrant workers to send money home in the fiat ->WU -> fiat process. If BTC custs those fees in half or more we will have achieved plenty. I agree that the transaction fee-less concept needs mass adoption and for people to start living (at least partly) in a BTC economy. There is not much point in transferring small amounts of fiat into BTC and back again. But today, in practice not theory, I can transfer 0.00000001BTC or 10,000BTC without significant fees to any other BTC wallet in the world.
*Makes note to check back in 5 years.
