Bitcoin Forum

One of the narratives in the media these days is that lots of people are saying that they believe in bitcoin the technology, even if they are not necessarily believers in bitcoin the currency. I have the impression that it is the conservative approach in some circles -- it is a way to ease into bitcoin (professionally speaking) without sounding like one of the early adopter nut jobs.

Indeed, there are more and more stories about financial institutions and even governments making use of bitcoin the technology, not necessarily bitcoin the currency. Notable examples include: Overstock issuing the first ever crypto-bond; Nasdaq building a mechanism to record trades on the blockchain; Honduras working with Factom to record land titles on the blockchain. Even the idea that Greece may somehow make use of the blockchain is sounding less like a joke, and more like a serious proposal by serious people.

And yet, the bitcoin market cap remains just a few billion dollars, which makes it vulnerable to attack.

At some point, I can envision the US government waking up to the fact that the bitcoin blockchain MUST be kept safe and secure for the sake of regional or even worldwide political and economic stability. The last thing they would want would be for someone (China?) to spend a few billion dollars in computing power and take over the blockchain in some attempt at economic terrorism. So, how can the US protect the blockchain? In the time-honored tradition of course: they bail it out. IOW it may become official US (and other nations) policy to prop up the value of bitcoin in the name of worldwide stability. Some will oppose this policy. Others will argue that this will turn out to be a lot less expensive than maintaining a gigantic military, and guess what -- more effective.

What do you think, oh ye citizens of bitcointalk? Is this what the future has in store?

I've been following bitcoin for over four years, and during that time I've met a few people who knew about bitcoin and two who mined.  The vast majority of citizens in any country you care to mention have never used a bitcoin.  If bitcoin disappeared tomorrow there would be maybe tens of thousands of upset people, and a few thousand really upset people who lost a lot of money on it.  I'm guessing the other 99% wouldn't notice it's gone.

Maybe a point in time will come where bitcoin is seen as a key financial instrument that should be protected.  Maybe in five years?  Ten years?  I can't see it happening any time soon however.

The Finance Industry woke up two-three years ago to the idea that a cryptocurrency might prove a disruptive technology and threaten it's operations. Ripple have been aggressively marketing a form of crypto that the existing finance industry love because it enables them to maintain the existing closed user loop model but still take advantage of some of the advantages of crypto around instantish payments and remittance.
In the short term expect the finance system to begin to use ripple , see CBA and others, and try to block/impede the use of other forms of crypto , see bitlicences, and Accenture's submission that wallets should be regulated (ie user loops closed).  In the medium term I think these closed user loops will fail as the tech is there for person to person activity and the US methodology of regulating the point of exchange of fiat for BTC adequately covers the money-laundering angle that banks are using as their main point of defence. However Europe has yet to rule and don't be surprised if they come out in support of the existing European Banking system and make crypto extremely hard to use.

PS: Please don't make this is a shouting match about Ripple I don't like the system but have to admit the way they are selling it to the Finance Industry is smart.

Ripple!!! Thats the keyword for a shouting match  :o XRP is totally centralised and created at whim of open labs (or whatever they are called these days). The bitcoin in your ripple wallet is not bitcoin it is IOUs, it depends on a chain of debt. Take your ripples away from here

 :-[

Sorry couldn't help myself.

Blockchain is already too big to fail, for me at least. So it better not

These guys fall into the assumption that the blockchain can exist without a healthy Bitcoin which is nonsense. If the blockchain is a success, it means Bitcoin is doing great because is the native currency in which miners get paid to keep the blockchain going. Everyone will be using Bitcoin, even if they don't know they are using Bitcoin, as the Winklevoss brothers pointed out. It will be the underlying mechanism of all future electronic transactions.

blockchain and bitcoin both need each other, don't think anyone would disagree with that. i only think people expect too much from bitcoin. nothing wrong with it if bitcoin purely functions as an alternative to other services.

I don't think that the size of the blockchain is as important as other factors in bitcoin (mining network and node network). The way I think of it, the blockchain could be forked at any point of it's existance and is also highly dependant on miners and nodes.

Dont be so sure. In my country most of them know what BTC is or digital currency for that mater. Now all mine but some small amount of them most of them work for it via some sig camp or got some programing or something else and most of them are on faucets and games (thinking that this will bring them fast cash).

Anyway we have lots of people who how or in some way are involved in this story. I agree that there is lot of them that dont know what BTC or any other digital currency is which is shame but give it time. In the beginning very little people are involved look at it now.

it is already to big to fall, i read once an article that was comparing it to others network, and blockchain was the biggest one among all of those others, if something like this fall, it is easy to assume that before it those other network will fall first

also add to this the fact that banks are very interested to it, will help it to not fall

so they say that blockchain not bitcoin, bitcoin may fail but blockchain can live

you need bitcoin in order to use the blockchain.. so they both go hand in hand.

those people are misinformed on how the blockchain works.  ;)

NOTHING is too big to fail..

Perhaps to big to jail but never to big to fail.  One of the stupidest ideas of our "leaders".

The US government do not care about bitcoin. Bitcoin can fail tomorrow and no governement will lift a finger to help. They will just say "I have warned you about Bitcoin and you didn't listen!"

There may be large investors involved, the Bitcoin community is still small and has no political power in any government. Governments are not threatened by a loss of votes or support if Bitcoin fails.

That's true now. The question is whether this is going to change in the future. There are currently powerful people (i.e. people who have held or currently hold high-power positions in the financial and/or governmental sectors) who are starting to build financial infrastructure on top of the blockchain. What happens once this infrastructure starts being utilized?

Well some governor was using bitcoin to raise his campaign, I forget his name.

But I actually saw it on reddits page, so people are considering it in some political sense, but thats about it.

I assume in this context 'failure' is about it dying from indifference or being usurped by an alternate system.

With that in mind there might come a point where there are more people incentivised to keep things chugging along than there are people out to damage it or supersede it. There'll always be plenty who don't care about it. I think that moment's a long time out yet.

but what about others who say that bitcoin = blockchain?

tl,dr

bloatchain will be so big it fails?

I don't very understand what you mean, why bigger blockchain would to fall??? I think it's the more bigger, the more better.

Storing a great deal of informations and contracts would partly assure it will being kept secure and running

Nothing is too big too fail. How do you think the blockchain would keep running if the bitcoins the miners get paid become worthless or next to worthless? Miners aren't going to run it for free or at a loss so it would grind to a halt very fast. Bitcoin needs to remain profitable to keep it going and if it becomes unprofitable it will cease to exist.

by this logic, one could argue, that bitcoin must rise in price, at all cost, otherwise in 2140 when there will be fees only, and a shitty price, miners will not be able to sustain the  network, and thus bitcoin will die at 100%

i think a restart it is always possible, in the case the network crash in the future

a blockchain can exist without a healthy bitcoin. (if we define healthy as one that makes mining profitable)

Miners can have incentives to operate without making a profit on mining. Mining companies that have diversified revenue streams, generating fiat - including hashpower rental, exchange services etc, would have an incentive to continue to operate the network regardless of it being profitable purely from mining.

Bitpay, or coinbase for example would have an interest in operating a transaction confirmation service (mining) in order to maintain their business models so long as the potential cost of operating the miners was lower than the potential profit from the service that the blockchain enabled.

Don't assume that mining has to be a source of profit for miners - the blockchain enables other services to be offered to customers - so long as those services can generate revenue someone will have an incentive to maintain the blockchain - even at a loss from mining alone.
 

It will need to rise in price proportionally less of course miners will not continue to mine if they're losing money. They wont continue to support the network if the fees aren't enough to sustain it either.

"a blockchain can exist without a healthy bitcoin. (if we define healthy as one that makes mining profitable)"

I think this reasoning is fundamentally flawed. It's clear that every blockchain needs a token, in this case Bitcoin is the strongest one.
The more infrastructures and systems running under the BTC blockchain, the more money invested in mining, because these big companies depend on a strong network. The more companies depend on Bitcoin, the higher the price due that fact alone, it becomes even more valuable regardless mainstream adoption or not. And miners will always get rewards in the native currency (Bitcoin) before anything else. The more miners, higher difficulty.. everything is interrelated. There's no scape from a higher Bitcoin price if Bitcoin is a success in any shape or form, if this correlation is not seen then the price is temporarily manipulated.