Bitcoin Forum

You are on the right track, but it isn't yet a war. It is a paradigm shift where idealists and opportunists must learn that they are looking at different halves of the same coin. They must realize they have a common enemy and that Bitcoin needs them both to work together to defeat that enemy.

Thanks for letting me know that I have to pick one of these two very specific choices. Here I thought all along that anyone could use Bitcoin for any reason they like. Gosh... silly me.

This market anarchist wants financial privacy, predictable money supply, and free trade among all people of the world. 

Why would anyone want to buy coffee with Bitcoin?  We already have centralized systems that work well for that kind of thing.

Bitcoin is a game with rules. They are very broad, but absolute. You don't have to play the game, but you do have to follow the rules if you do play. That's the whole idea of transparency. The OP probably didn't intend to form a dichotomy, but was trying to be broad and inclusive regarding general interests in Bitcoin. You don't have to pick sides, but it behooves you to see the nuances of blockchain assets.

This market anarchist wants financial privacy, predictable money supply, and free trade among all people of the world.  

Why would anyone want to buy coffee with Bitcoin?  We already have centralized systems that work well for that kind of thing.

As an Anarchist I resent these statements that have been made about Anarchists, not just you in particular because the OP did it as well, I don't necessarily want/need anonymity but that's a nice feature, what I want is a currency that is free from the state and central banks and can be traded freely without restrictions and there are people who are actively trying to prevent that through groups like the Bitcoin foundation. Thankfully though, it's seems that there are currencies like Darkcoin etc. that are stepping in to fill that kind of gap that Bitcoin seems to be leaving, I haven't seen any moves yet by Gavin to take away the freedom Bitcoin gives but I'm not holding my breath.

So long as we're free to exchange our Bitcoins anywhere in the world and not have anyone interfere with transactions based on our I.P address etc. I at least am happy, though obviously I can't speak for all Anarchists since they all have very different opinions.

It's hardly idealism, the simple fact is if we give ground and change the source code to suit the needs of regulators that's when Bitcoin will end up failing, you can insitute what kind of tax rules are to be placed on it all you like, just don't go saying things like "Yes we'll change the way the public ledger works" and so on because the first time I see a "Full Name" field on my Bitcoin wallet I'm transferring everything.

It's hardly idealism, the simple fact is if we give ground and change the source code to suit the needs of regulators that's when Bitcoin will end up failing, you can insitute what kind of tax rules are to be placed on it all you like, just don't go saying things like "Yes we'll change the way the public ledger works" and so on because the first time I see a "Full Name" or "Country" field on my Bitcoin wallet I'm transferring everything.

Who wants to change the source code to suit the needs of regulators?

Wouldn't large miners (who basically control the network) have to comply with any provision issued to them (including modified code with whatever rules regulators think of to code in there)? Regulators don't bother with this just yet, as they see that Bitcoin is too small and fading away by itself to become irrelevant due to its flaws, and it's cheaper for them socially to just wait it out. But if it didn't fade away and began to grow to threaten the fiat system, be sure, they'd issue this license in a heart beat.

When it is a change, that changes how the blockchain works, you would need a hard fork. Users/miners would just have to stay on their old version to not accept it.

The real concern with what you suggest there is that users that had Bitcoin on the pre-fork chain can spend them on both the new & old forked chains.

If the majority migrate to the new hard-fork, then it's not really an issue, because the old protocol dies, but if we end up with 2 large sets of users on each, then you can double spend previous BTC on both.

Obvious way around that is of course to have everyone run both the old and new chains and cross reference between each, but then that adds a whole new level of technical complexity to an already tricky non-technical problem.

Alright, users and small miners would stay on their old fork, but large miners that control the network would have to comply with the regulations or shut down operations. Eventually users would have to either sell their Bitcoins (sell them on the old or new fork) or switch to and stay on the new regulated fork as well. What's wrong/impossible with this picture I just drew?

Alright, users and small miners would stay on their old fork, but large miners that control the network would have to comply with the regulations or shut down operations. Eventually users would have to either sell their Bitcoins (sell them on the old or new fork) or switch to and stay on the new regulated fork as well. What's wrong/impossible with this picture I just drew?

I could be wrong, but I would imagine that the coins in the new fork would have lesser value than the old fork. For example, if I have relatives living in a "terrorist" country and the new fork does not allow me to remit them money, why would I even use the new fork?

From my almost an year old observation and experience I feel there is a sort of cold war being waged between 2 kinds of people!

The first are some  Anarchocapitalist, anarchist and some techno libertarians who want bitcoin to be a product of the Darknet and be used for buying drugs, childporn and whistle blowing and care much about anonymity.

We're all in this for profit, but the point is that a decentralised and unregulated currency is going to be far more profitable than another digital dollar, once you take away the decentralised and open source nature of Bitcoin that's it's value gone, it was specifically created to get round the banking system and if the banks take over it then it's pointless as a currency.

We've all seen the dollar and we all understand how it works, what interests people about Bitcoin is the fact that you only to download some software onto your PC in order to use it and that's it.

You have the incentives wrong. Your mistake is starting with the premise that miners control the network. They don't. The economic majority controls the network. If the economic majority doesn't agree with a change, it won't happen (or last for long).

Let's imagine a scenario where a large percentage of the global hash rate wants to implement a change which a large percentage of the economic interests do not want.

This group of miners forks Bitcoin. Everyone who has bitcoins at this point now have coins on two chains. They don't want the new forked coins, so they immediately start selling them. The price of the coins on the fork starts to plummet (a majority is selling). If those sellers happen to find buyers for their forked coins, they will now have additional funds which they might use to purchase actual bitcoins. There will be massive (we are assuming an economic majority here) downward pressure on the price of the forked coins, and possible upward pressure on the price of actual bitcoins.

You are a miner. You have costs. You may even be in debt for hardware. Are you going to mine the forked coins which are rapidly decreasing in value or bitcoins which are at worst holding at the same value and possibly even increasing in value?

This scenario can of course go the opposite way, if the economic majority wants the change, they will liquidate their actual bitcoins and possibly use the proceeds to purchase additional newly forked coins.

The point is, the miners are at the whim of those who value the coin. If they try to force changes on the economic majority, they will quickly find themselves mining worthless coins. Prohibition can not stop economic forces (typically quite the opposite). If mining is outlawed, then outlaws will mine. If a coin is valued, people will find a way to mine it, regardless of any legal hurdles.

If you're a large mining farm, you're going to mine whatever fork the regulations dictate, if regulations force you to go bankrupt, well, then you will go bankrupt. That's the nature of large businesses, they are easily targeted and regulated.

Bitcoin is just too small now, so they don't bother, the whole market cap of Bitcoin is pocket change to them at this point, it's politically not worth raising hell about. The economic majority may as well support the new regulated fork, and the network will keep humming along. But will this new fork be any different from fiat?

You are on the right track, but it isn't yet a war. It is a paradigm shift where idealists and opportunists must learn that they are looking at different halves of the same coin. They must realize they have a common enemy and that Bitcoin needs them both to work together to defeat that enemy.

And the above needs to be posted as a sticky :)

It's hardly idealism, the simple fact is if we give ground and change the source code [...words]

You are saying that regulators are going to force a particular fork to be legal and others to be illegal based purely on what? If that happened and I were a miner, I would sell my equipment and get out of mining before it happens again.

This can be done with anything in a dictatorship. They could make your blood type currency. You should be careful what you wish for.

It doesn't matter if you change bitcoin's sourcecode. If the changes aren't desirable to most people, adoption of that update won't occur and people will stick with the old version. A natural self-interested democracy solves the problem.

They can't force either to be legal or illegal, and even if they did, it wouldn't be enforceable anyway.

What they can do is make/commission changes to Bitcoin that suit them and create a fork themselves, which implements all of the measures they want in place.  Then endorse THAT Bitcoin fork to the public at large, its still "Bitcoin" in principle, so it can be marketed as such (plus who's going to sue them?  The foundation?)

Aside from the fact that the public would have no idea technically whats going on, I'd imagine that members of the public, including ones that were/are skeptical, would be more likely to use this Bitcoin derivative as it has the backing of the state (hell, they could go as far as secure deposits against loss as per the regular financial system).  

What you possibly end up with is a mass exodus of new users into the system, as they now feel safe.  Miners will follow the money, more users = more fees to collect, thus more profitable.  Before you know it, the original BTC fork is suffering, and the new one is blooming.  

Then you'll get the scenario that Holliday suggests, along with some dishonest users spending BTC on both forks that they had before the split.

I am not interested in details, based on what doesn't matter, I am just saying this can be easily done if Bitcoin becomes large enough to be a threat.

I am not interested in details, based on what doesn't matter, I am just saying this can be easily done if Bitcoin becomes large enough to be a threat.


You sound like you're in denial. Every time someone tells people what has a high likelihood to happen based on history and they don't like the bitterness of facts, they start blaming the messenger, sticking their collective heads in the sand, that's denial at its best. Do I need to remind you how many times democracies have turned into dictatorships when they were economically devastated?

Are you are suggesting that we just bail out now and sell our coins because of a potential threat? Or are you going to propose countermeasures?

How does it feel to always live in fear? Many democracies do fail. Does that mean they are not worth fighting for?

Bitcoin is PoW = vulnerable and flawed and can be taken down easily if there is a political will to take it down. Period.

Who's political will do you fear?

I don't. But holders of Bitcoin should.

Not a bad post, OP.

I think the solution, whether intended/desired or not, will be that Bitcoin (or another cryptocurrency, if Bitcoin is ever to be replaced as the "default" crypto) will turn out similar to the Internet as a whole: easy to use for the average consumer, but an absolute nightmare from a privacy standpoint. With substantial effort and technical knowledge on the other hand, you can mask your activity on the Internet and prevent eavesdropping on your sensitive information: Tor/I2P, VPNs, strong end-to-end encryption, sufficient knowledge of your own system to make attacks via vulnerabilities unlikely.

I can see something similar for cryptos then: Bitcoin will be monitored and nothing like what the early nerds were hoping for. It will also be the crypto used by 95% of the population. Another privacy centered crypto will take the niche role of (near) anonymous transactions, and it'll be a constant battle between developers aiming to secure it against privacy invasion and and governments trying break into it.

The first are some  Anarchocapitalist, anarchist and some techno libertarians who want bitcoin to be away from banks and government regulations and be  a product of the Darknet

The second kind is the Venture capitalist and industrialist who want to make bitcoin an Apolitical instrument or neutral technology thereby making it consumer friendly for grandma and kids.

Both categories of users benefit from the presence and growth of the other catagory.  But they might not want to admit it.

Both categories of users benefit from the presence and growth of the other catagory.  But they might not want to admit it.

bitcoin was created to disrupt the current system ... shit got real and the creator disappeared! lol go figure!!! :-D

bitcoin was created to disrupt the current system ... shit got real and the creator disappeared! lol go figure!!! :-D

Both categories of users benefit from the presence and growth of the other catagory.  But they might not want to admit it.

The creator (aka satoshi) disappeared because the amount of attention Bitcoin was receiving would amount to him getting doxxed which he did not want.

To respond to the OP, I really do not think it matters what ideology is of anyone who uses, works on (improves), invests in (or even attempts to attack) Bitcoin is. People have the freedom to believe in whatever they want and there is no rule that everyone must follow the same cult.

I agree that there are different kinds of people involved in the bitcoin sphere with a part of them being more libertarian and another part being more of the opportunistic investor type.

However I'm not sure that these two groups will necessarily have to be in a state of war. I think both con coexist. Being libertarian and pro-anonymity does not rule out endorsing profitability - and vice versa.

In my opinion Bitcoin is designed as a decentralized, pseudonymous, trustless system which will automatically lead to a shift towards more libertarian values, because controlling such a system is expensive and will have adverse effects on the system's efficiency. Opportunistic investors will certainly not support governmental control of Bitcoin if it hurts the system's efficiency and profitability.

Ultimately all parties will realize that there is much more to gain than to loose from the decentralization and full fungibility of Bitcoin. The wind of change that stems from Bitcoin is much too strong to build walls...

ya.ya.yo!

Bitcoin is making the U.S government and many others look like assholes, especially bankers, just because it uses actual mathematics to dictate it's money supply rather than someone at a desk throwing a few extra billion at their friends.

... and how were they not already AH's? Bitcoin is the bad guy for holding up the mirror?

may be moderates on both sides can co exist...but extremes do not , if you look at the trailer for dark wallet on you tube you can see they state that the bitcoin foundation exist to compromise the core value of bitcoin..

How can you coexist with this sort of contrasting opinions