Bitcoin Forum

Hi,

I want bitcoin to succeed and very much hope it does, so please don't read this message as bitcoin bashing post, not intended that way. The fact that we're all reading and posting on this forum probably indicates our positive interest in Bitcoin specifically. But just thinking negatively with our black hats on, what could spell the end for bitcoin

1. 50.1% attack - where someone gets enough computing power to out pace a little over half the current hashing capability and invalidates the chain. Probably only feasible for large companies/banks/governments whose interests might be threatened by bitcoin.

2. Government regulation - if the US & EU legislated against holding or dealing with bitcoin, or started seizing wallets. Bitcoin could flee to other jurisdictions, but it certainly could significantly affect its adoption if none of the large multinational companies would accept payment in bitcoin.

3. Unknown bugs - Some flaw in the algorithm that we don't yet know about

4. Better competitor crypto currency with some technical advantage, like speed - Could ethereum replace bitcoin?

Any others that people can think of? and which do you think most likely if any?

Again, not meaning to be negative so please don't be offended,

Thanks

Just like FIAT has not been challenged by another FIAT, Bitcoin wont be challenged by another Bitcoin. If it is challenged, then it has to be something innovative, disruptive... that has not been thought after as of yet.

Well, I reckon USD and EUR will get challenged by asian money (JEN and CNY) in the future, this will be the leading FIAT, and BTC will be huge along with metals. But no, no other crypto is replacing Bitcoin, no fucking way lol.

1) In practice ? Impossible ... not profitable at all.

2) They try, they fail ... like usual, not new.

3) Ah Ah Ah ...  ;D dude, we have been go to the moon with maths (simple math, not cryptography).

4) Big EPIC FAIL

Well... that's kinda true. With the formation of BRICS Development Bank (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Development_Bank), this is highly possible IMO.

Doesn't need to be profitable. Eliminate a competitive threat and then continue your business as before.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-01/visa-profit-beats-estimates-as-consumer-card-spending-increases.html

They haven't outlawed trading bitcoin yet have they?

Its still beta software. There are bugs, to assume there are not, would be naive.

Fair enough  :D ... but maybe not a particular coin, but a superior system of some sort, like napster begat bittorrent

Some of the things you state could happen I will not deny like the attack and also unknown bugs, these are things that will always be a possible problem. As for government regulation I believe they will try and will fail over and over but it will never stop them trying.

4 - Better tech does not means they will win. There are already some huge amount invested in the BTC network, and too much acceptance, to undo it the cost will be very high, I guess way more than people are willing to pay 

Personally if I invented a coin that was better than bitcoin.  The first thing I would do would be to mine 12 million and offer them to bitcoin owners on a like for like basis.

Maybe if transactions (thus fees) do not increase or Bitcoin price dont go up when the block rewards becomes very small. It could mean poorly protected coin, and 51% attacked like some altcoins already

What spells the end for bitcoin?

Attacks on the power system.

Better competitor crypto currency is the most likely reason of bitcoin‘s failure .
Hope Bitcoin protocol could evolve more faster than now .
If a new competitor defeats  bitcoin, i doubt the main beneficiaries would be the same group of guys  ;D

People not spending BTC  is what I'm going with.

That's an interesting one. You mean everyone just sitting on their coins, meaning there is no circulation and it ceases to operate as currency, which in turn causes it's value to decrease. Hadn't thought of that one, but it is a definite possibility, thanks.

Definitely if there was a successful competitor, the beneficiaries woudl be a different set of people. They might even be a much wider set of people, which itself would be a competitive advantage. Thanks p2pbucks

I'd go for a combination of (1) and (4). Not so much a 51% attack as implicit agreements between dominant miners making transaction fees high as the block-reward halves. Meanwhile competitor PoS coins offer very low fees because they don't have to pay for monster hashing rigs. High fees discourage Bitcoin use and make users flee to other non-PoW coins. Fewer transactions further reduce the income to miners. Lack of demand reduces the BTC price. It's a downward spiral. Miners give up, the network hash power drops, and the network becomes less secure, making users even less want to trust it. Eventually someone mounts a proper 51% for laughs and to be able to say that they were the ones who destroyed Bitcoin. The end.

I'm not sure if what we are seeing now is the start of this. The block reward remains high, and fees are relatively low. However, the high block reward means that Bitcoin inflation is running at around 10%/year. That's part of what is depressing the price: all those miners selling. It makes Bitcoin a terrible store of value - you'd be better off holding dollars (2% inflation). Perhaps more importantly, the writing is on the wall. Despite being ridiculed, PoS have been running for a long time now with no core security issues, so they have proved themselves a viable alternative. Anyone doing due diligence into the state of crypto-currencies today will realise the above scenario is at least possible, if not likely. Perhaps that's why no-one is rescuing the BTC price.

Very interesting thoughts, thanks for taking the time to express. Definitely feasible I think, especially when combined with "People not spending BTC" and the resultant apathy/loss of interest exaserbated by a falling price.


Interesting article here on PoS system downsides.

"However, proof of stake, as implemented in nearly every currency so far, has one fundamental flaw: as one prominent Bitcoin developer put it, “there’s nothing at stake”."

https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/01/15/slasher-a-punitive-proof-of-stake-algorithm/

Must admit I didn't understand all of it but!!!! I get the general gist I think. Do you think Ethereum could be the PoS system that suceeds?

Maybe if bitcoin falls below $200, I will be very worried.

It turns out that isn't a problem.

I don't know much about Ethereum, but I believe it is not currently planned to be PoS. Generally, about half the top-10 coins are PoS; isn't that success?

Absolutely, didnt mean to imply PoS wasn't a success.

Just googling Ethereum PoS PoW, I think you might be right. They might be a hybrid proof of work system, with elements of Pos design to avoid the centralisation problem.

http://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/23k1kg/why_did_ethereum_choose_to_use_proof_of_work_as/

If its value decreases, everybody would rush to spend them.....

So to bring it all together...

0. new bug found in bitcoin core, which worries people
1. bitcoin value decreases
2. everyone rushes to spend them/convert back to Fiat
3. as prices drop miners profit gone so they abandon processing and shutdown operation
4. network becomes very susceptable to 50.1% attack
5. hacker/gloryhunter who wants to be the one to bring down bitcoin launches an attack (or anyone/any company whose interests are threatented by bitcoin success)
6. alternative cryto PoS or PoW which isn't susceptable to centralisation problems reboots the system
7. alternative is more widely spread in terms of ownership and more secure
8. off we go again

Satoshi is a genius. Bitcoin is uncorruptible, unbeatable, perfection. No such as end of Bitcoin.

This.  With a slight twist.  Inefficient forward-progress of Bitcoin development, innovation, and protocol enhancements.  This is my concern.

-B-

Bitcoin might stagnate and become a bit dusty over time, but a big subsection of society assign some value to it now. So even if it slowly fades away people might use it as a store of value. Like gold or silver.

Valid concern. So much money flowing into bitcoin ventures, but so little into protocol development.  >:(

It is kind of amazing that this 6 billion dollar mammoth is head together by a few overworked and underpaid people, isn't it? :P

You forgot:

0. new bug found in bitcoin core, which worries people
1. commit is made fixing the bug as soon as possible

Bitcoin 2.0 spells the end of Bitcoin.

It's inevitable.  HTML5.  IE7,8,9,10,11,12.  Android Froyo, Gingerbread, Honeycomb, Ice Cream Sandwich, Jelly Bean, KitKat.  Windows XP, Vista, 7, 8, 9.  OSX Snow Leopard, Lion, Mountain Lion, Mavericks, Yosemite.

Bitcoin will end, it's just a matter of when the next iteration of it will be developed.  All of it's core properties intact, but with none of it's shortcomings.  Like all technology, it will evolve eventually.

We need to get to Bitcoin 1.0 first.

Read the whitepaper!

A 51% attack to double spend would be less profitable than using 51% of computational power to generate legal bitcoins.

Exactly.  We're effectively in Beta, as current Bitcoin Core version is 0.9.2.1.

We're in very early days, so I don't think we'll see Bitcoin's true potential for another few years.

What spells the end one word

 D E M A N D

there si no true demand for bitcoin or any other crypto currency, thuis why the banks continue to let our escapade continue, with no real demand the value will continue to decrease. if no one has a reason to buy bitcoin other than hope its market value willincrese, no one is going to buy it. why buy something you can get for free. There a but ton of faucets, and ways around all of thier time stamps and captchas. you can solo mine crappy script coins with GPus and even CPUs and tradethem for Bitcoins.

no one ever wakes up one day and says any of the following phrases

"OOOH I want that product right there, but damn the only way to get it is buy bitcoins I guess I will buy a few just in case there is another product that comes up i can only buy with bitcoins"

"OOOH I needlike 3 of these products and WOW they are waaaay cheaper if I use bitcoins to purchase them, I will go get some bitcoins now so i can get them cheaper"

"OOOH I think today I am gonna buy some bitcoins"

"OOOH I am a huge investor I love high dollar short term profitable investment trades I am going to buy a lot of bitcoins today"


There is no real demand for bitcoin thus spells your failure you are seeking.

Doesn't need to be profitable. Just needs to be worth while to eliminate a competitive threat. Have a look at some of the financial institution profits... I think I read somewhere to launch such an attack would be 500 million. Its really not much in that world

sorry, but in industrie ... even windows CE work very well with internal net (like canbus or I²C).
monetary system must be strong ... not new every years.

android is the same since 5 years now.
the apps that i have found ... is always here now.

and macox ? (oh hell, no...)
and apple ios ? (well ... the freeze and don't work ... iOS7 needed gun on your head)

 ;D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks-N4rI_1RU

the last one is not an industrie ... it's an hobby.
and even hobbyist are more industrial way than apple in many factories.

I'm not comparing the quality of the products or each release.  If you hate certain companies or operating systems, that's just your opinion.

Fact of the matter is, technology progresses over time, and in theory at least, the next version builds upons and improves the former.

No way can Bitcoin can stay stagnant without further development, bug fixes, and innovation.  You think someone is going to wait in a Starbucks for a single cup of coffee for 1 or 2 confirmations if they paid using their mobile phone wallet?  Especially with Apple Pay simplifying mobile pay, competing technologies have to step up.

Bitcoin is still crawling, we need it to walk, talk, and eventually run, from this Beta/Toddler phase.

If done correctly, a merchant can accept 0-confirmation payments with no risk. In the Starbucks example, it would be way more expensive to manage a double spend attack than the price of the coffee.