Bitcoin Forum

Bitcoin's biggest scourge is 'cypherpunk anarchists' idiots who are anti-establishment.  All these banks are putting serious effort and money into building on this great invention - and they totally disown the idiots who might be characterized as cypherpunks.  http://www.coindesk.com/citi-hsbc-partner-with-r3cev-as-blockchain-project-adds-13-banks/ (http://www.coindesk.com/citi-hsbc-partner-with-r3cev-as-blockchain-project-adds-13-banks/)   Bitcoin needs to carefully get rid of the morons who keep blowing the anti-society anti rules horn.  What a stupid end to a great invention.  

Is bitcoin really dead?  Did the cypherpunk kill bitcoin?

The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks
I just leave this here

do you even bitcoin? ::)

you think bitcoin would even exist without cypherpunks? fuck banks, why should i care about them? the banks are only here to plunder anything they can, at any cost.

like any good cypherpunk, i believe cryptography (read to include: bitcoin) is a way to combat that.

No Bitcoin is not dead and cyperpunks as you called them didn't kill Bitcoin.

I always claimed that Bitcoin doesn't need to displace any currency, government or kill banks. The financial system is so imperfect and can be so much improved that there is place for Bitcoin, existing technology and even more innovations.

At the end this will be the case. Don't worry what some anarchist are telling and preaching. This is normal. The important is that they are not an absolute majority.

I was introduced into Bitcoin about only half a year ago, and I have read so much "Bitcoin is dead" news in that time that I do not pay much attention to them.

I think people often equate "lack of progress/innovation" with "death" -- slow death through stagnation. The thing is, teaming up with banks to bring you bitcoin payments at Starbucks is not the end-all of innovation. Some people clearly don't understand that. Bitcoin has made great strides over the past several years from its infancy, scaling from nothing to blocks consistently above .4MB. In that time, network security (and therefore the storage of value of our wealth) has been at the forefront.

We won't be at $10k overnight, if ever, and that is obviously a real problem for some people.

I don't think it is really a "anti-society anti rules" mentality. Their mentality is based on reason, not emotion.
If you want Bitcoin/bitcoin to be like Paypal, then I think you will be very sorry when blacklisted coins are the norm.

I say, Let the banks come to us, not us go to the banks.

Banks aren't looking into it for the same reasons anyone else is, though.  And we shouldn't be looking to sacrifice anything just so they can co-opt the system for their own gain.  Why disrupt the fiat monetary system, where everyone supports the system to provide tremendous benefit to a small, wealthy minority, with Bitcoin, where everyone supports the system to provide tremendous benefit to a small, wealthy minority?  If it's going to lead to the same outcome, why are we bothering to disrupt it at all?  And that's precisely what will happen if we hand over control to the banksters.  So screw the banks and let Bitcoin benefit the masses.  The banks had their chance, but repeatedly took advantage of their position and expected the wider public to come to their rescue when they inevitably screwed it all up.  That's not happening again.  

Bitcoin is open, inclusive, permissionless and trustless.  Banks, at their core, are none of those things.  They need to adapt to us, not the other way around.

Interesting classification of people that do not take to the same ideology as you OP. If Bitcoin was to become another arm of the banking system controlled by them,I would argue it is no longer Bitcoin but a extension  of a corrupt system. I have never understood the people that want to turn Bitcoin around and make it something it was never intended to be for profit or mainstream adaption. Why be a part of bitcoin if these are ones intentions to change Bitcoins way.
Maybe I am looking at this to black and white,but when some one states they want to eliminate the tinfoil hat aspect or anti government group,it feels like they are wanting to jack
a philosophy. Meaning you are in this for one of two reasons,you want to profit off Bitcoin or you want to make Bitcoin more accessible to the general public.
Profit crowd has little to stand on in my eyes because they are why the financial system is so screwy to begin with. They ride a horse till its legs give out and then look for ways to get a little more juice out of it. The people that want to make Bitcoin more mainstream I think have more of a leg but at the same time,how much are you willing to cut out of Bitcoin to achieve this goal!

Bitcoin must stay out of governments hands or it will become dirty and hold no meaning and I would move to something that could achieve less internal corruption.
Its governments way to profit and control and it will never achieve a positive goal for the every day person.

Right now we have a election in Canada and there are three parties running. Each one will stay clear of any edgy topics that may cost them voters,now is this a honest system?
What does that tell you about how they will run once in power! Closed doors and nothing changes.

Bitcoin certainly isn't anti-society. Quite the opposite, it's peer to peer.

Bitcoin is, however, anti-permission and anti-authority by design. Users simply need to agree to and abide by the rules of the protocol (a society if you will) and they are free to use Bitcoin as they see fit.

Anarchists aren't anti-society or anti-rules either, simply anti-rulers, but that's a different discussion entirely. The term has been applied throughout history by certain groups to any doers of chaotic violence, which is absurd, yet fits nicely with their agenda.

Wow.  You got it backwards dude.  Without them, there would be no Blockchain.  Satoshi could even be part of that elite group for all we know...  Aight?

Anarchists are not anti rules. They are anti rulers.

In other words, Anarchy is the radical notion that others are not your property.

Do not underestimate the banks my friend. They are doing a fine job to deflect the attention and to create a smoke screen to protect their business. In this scenario, they want to inject the notion that Bitcoin is only for cypherpunk & anarchists. What they really want to do, is to group crypto users into groups.

In the end you will have one group, who will use the <public> Blockchain (Cypherpunks and Anarchists) and the rest will use their <private> Blockchain. (The one they supposedly created for everyone else)

They are masters in what they have been doing for years. They even use your money to create their own <private> distributed ledger or <private> Blockchain technology.  

Even though we don't know what will banks do and which direction will take surely, I tend to agree a bit more with your assessment. In my opinion, they will very hardly just adopt our blockchain. This would mean that they would lose a lot of possible control that they love to have and that they just would have with one of their own private blockchains.

I guess we will see everything.

Unfortunately, the whole point of Bitcoin in the first place was as an independent alternative to the exact same banks you're painting as somehow what the Bitcoin ecosystem wants or needs. The reason for that being, that those banks have seriously broken the trust of their creditors/depositors, and cannot hold any reasonable expectation to be trusted further.

On the other hand, I don't find the anarchist argument totally convincing. That's not to say that I'm content right now with the level of control that I and others can exercise over our own lives, I want that to change and all people to have more control, and it's obvious that Bitcoin and cryptographic technology in general will play a huge role doing it. What I can't get along with is the idea of zero/selective legal resolution, it sounds like a possible recipe for a variety of frequent, small wars.