Bitcoin 100%, because of the optionality and network effects.
I don't believe you can separate the value of Bitcoin and it's usefulness because the more valuable Bitcoin is, the more useful it becomes.
The more people who hold Bitcoin, the more scarce it becomes and therefore the more valuable it becomes. In 20 years, Bitcoin could go to 0, or become a widely used currency and skyrocket in value.
Once the number of Bitcoin holders reaches equilibrium then the value would remain stable, but we are definitely not at that point yet.
For the simple reason that it exist in the physical space and can't disappear, unless the laws that regulate our existence change, which is quite improbable
Gold will also work and retain a value even if society suddenly shuts down and reset to a "sticks and stones" state
Bitcoin advocates have this weird tendency to completely ignore decades of game theory
USA is only 5% of the world population what happens there is vastly insignificant outside of it.
Android is on 75% of European phones, the CEO of the fortune 500 company I work for uses an Android phone, same goes for the vast majority of the management there, many highly influencial politics own Android phones, that's simply a spurious correlation
Haskell absolutely has waaaay too much cruft. Have you read the 30 page articles recommending which extensions to use? Have you ever seen MTL? Read any documentation written by Edward Kmett?
Modules and libraries are not part of the language
Java,for example, can't have proper generics because at the bytecode level (the "real" Java) they are not supported, it can't have static constructors because it would break inheritance and they had to come up with static blocks, it has no support for static methods with the same signature of an instance method, because the call syntax doesn't differentiate a call to a static method from a call to an instance method, so the compiler can't tell which method is being called, etc. etc.
These are all consequences of the original choices taken 25 years ago when they designed the bytecode and the sintactic sugar over the bytecode, that still live with us today
IMO, the prevalence of libraries like MTL, or with poor documentation, is a consequence of design decisions as well — maybe not of the abstract language, but at least of the primary implementations.
Overreacting is equally dangerous, I could argue that if they were really killing the freedom to communicate we should fight them as we would fight an enemy, possibly going to war, armed.
That's not what's happening here.
It might be useful to remember that our communications have never been encrypted before a few years ago and they haven't been less free.
Also: encrypted communication but clear text metadata kinda defeat the purpose of encrypted communication.
If I know where, when and who was involved in a call, I can easily tell that two people chatting and ending up in the same place every time both their partners phones are away from home, could be cheating
If I call an ambulance at the same time and place where an accident happened but the ambulance doesn't report a second vehicle, guess who probably didn't report an accident?
Privacy and secrecy are a broader subject, it's good we discuss about it, it's not good to blindly trust WhatsApp or Facebook with our data.
Bad as it might be, I have more control and trust more my state than a private company on the other side of the World.
