I'm not suggesting "an appropriate time" in which an invention can be deemed impactful, because that isn't how history works. This is the point I am trying to convey. If we look at other inventions and broadly speaking, "knowledge," it's quite common for the real impact to not be seen for quite a long time. E.g. the Renaissance and re-interest in / rediscovery of classical sources.
I don't know why this is so controversial, but I suspect it's because of #2 in my original comment.
Again, I didn't say that crypto will become extremely useful and important in the future, but simply that declaring it useless or unimportant now is foolish and unlike virtually every other technology.
I just find the general sentiment very hand wavey by conflating impact and use because it doesn't say anything. It's a wait and see indefinitely to prevent any real discussion on the merits today, while being a catch all to side step critique.
I'm not sure where or how I am "preventing any real discussion." If anything, the people constantly criticizing it are shutting down genuine analysis of its merits and downsides.
I don't know why this is so controversial, but I suspect it's because of #2 in my original comment.
Again, I didn't say that crypto will become extremely useful and important in the future, but simply that declaring it useless or unimportant now is foolish and unlike virtually every other technology.