Bitcoin Forum

The experiment taught us many valuable things.  Now it is time to back the fuck up and start over with some more workable parameters.  

Let's start with a new genesis block.  A more sane approach to mining.  Much faster block time.  Much higher capacity blcoks.  And no god-damned Blockstream dickheads trying to take-over and own the whole thing.  We need some real organization at the top.  Otherwise, Trump is going to create the Department of Homeland Cryptocurrency and electronic money will be forever controlled by the same politicians just like the last currency.  

No more fucking around with theory, it is time to put this thing right.  

Get rid of that poison team Adam Back and 1 Meg Greg.  Team Core is Team Bullshit.  

So tiresome...

And what is the point of this thread? What you trying to tell. That Core devs are bad? Half of posts here are saying that lol

There are a lot of altcoins out there, a lot, really.

Bitcoin is free open source software and you are free use it the way you want, you can make a new coin with a team of your choice and manage it the way you want, that's what free open source software is all about.

Good luck with your endeavor.

Yeah, Core is horrible and no one would ever run their software... says an extremely vocal (and immensely annoying) minority with an obvious agenda.

https://i.imgur.com/iCYvAVm.jpg

then what are you doing here?!!!

also everything about bitcoin is open source you can use that as your starting point and create whatever you like. whether it is an altcoin with other names and other differences or it is bitcoin from scratch as you suggest!
here is the link: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin

let us see how you handle things. don't forget to update us...

Up to a point, I agree with you.  There's a section on this bulletin board called "Altcoin discussion".  Pay a visit.

I don't know what you're trying to intend here in your statement. But there's only one thing I know that Bitcoin was created as an open source to any one here in this industry where everybody is welcome to use it, Including yourself.

OP can make an altcoin.

also OP if you have any other " We need some real organization at the top." then its still going to be just as bad as blockstream dominance..
any dominance is bad.

also the majority of the community hate blockstream. and if the independent non ass kissing core devs got rid of blockstream out of core. then core (as a separate entity to blockstream) wont get the backlash its getting and earn back some respect

We no longer need this kind of opinion what we need now is a solution to the problem. An urgent solution to stop users to panic and make mining efficient again. What we need is a consensus and any kind of system does not matter as long as it will give an answer and stop the current problems. Let us stop debating and be united for the sake of bitcoin and for the sake of our investments.

That's the right decision to do for all of us and we must unite for the goodness of bitcoin future. No more experiment will be done so that it will elimimate most of the decision mistakes and could save your investments and protect it from possible failures. We must be vigilant enough on most of the accusations and don't easily believe regarding those hopeless rumors from un legitimate people saying negative words for bitcoin.

An altcoin as you and others suggest has $0 value on day one.  Bitcoin has $20 Billion value.  If my altcoin can be the bitcoin blockchain, history and value, with new improved rules, then OK - I'll start my altcoin.  But, only Core gets to put their altcoin, with new features (SegWit) and rules (Lightning) onto the established $20 billion history and record.  People who are not Blockstream can just go fuck off and start an altcoin.

See, that is why Core/Blockstream people love to say - "OK - so go start your altcoin".  They know that they are building their new rules on a very well established 8 year history and $20 Billion value.  A fresh new alt - no matter how good, would have a hard time catching up to that.

Don't believe me?  Then why doesn't that asshole Holliday just tell Adam Back to go start SegWit/Lightning on his own blockchain?  Why doesn't Core/Blockstream just go fuck right off and start their new alt Lightning on a fresh position?  Thought so.  

Blockstream acts like they own the blockchain and their clever ideas and new rules get to be attached to that history.  Whereas all others can 'go start their own alt'.  This is total bullshit.  

'some real organiszation at the top' means protocol and rules not people.  But, it provides for an improved means of settling an impasse.  Like super majority of voters wins, rather than 95% consensus which we all know could never be achieved thus impasses never get settled and we stall out for over two years.  

I guess you're just here to badmouth Bitcoin but I have an advice, you can just start your own Altcoin which would address all these problems you think Bitcoin is having. I'd prefer to shine rather than curse darkness!

Obviously, while you are busy 'shining' you are not reading.  Dumbfuck.  Check the part where he said starting an alt on top of the established chain is different than starting an alt fresh. 

Op with bitcoin I am fine! We would never have a perfect human system that will not be limit by greed and selfishness. Bitcoin as a pioneer crypto currencies has tried to resolve money market issues and problems to a large extent and I pray it should be accepted as money worldwide one day.

I don't understand, why so many threads lately related to Bitcoin beeing dead, doomed, lost, failed experiment etc. What is happening, why such disappointment?
Nothing is perfect and there are some problems and issues with Bitcoin like with everything else, but let's be honest and admit that Bitcoin is great achievement that made a great impact and that will not disappear just like that.

https://99bitcoins.com/bitcoinobituaries/
Someone should make a website similar to this, for Bitcointalk threads.

Yeah you are right we learnt a lot in bitcoin,
I also learn to never believe in some on who are predicting things,
If you are just going to promote some other alt-coin just do it you don't have to be so rude to other person or other team.

We should support bitcoin's side chains (like segwit) to make it great again. We don't have other choice.

Other coins came after bitcoin are all pump&dump/premined scamcoins.

If not, their devs are not as capable as bitcoin devs. (since they are original devs of the blockchain idea)

If those new side chains don't get accepted by the miner communities, then only then, say bye bye to bitcoin.

i agree about the blockstream stuff.

the only thing is though.. in your OP you mentioned starting a new genesis block. which is by definition STARTING A NEW altcoin, rather than bilaterally splitting bitcoin to cause an doublespend-altcoin.

new genesis block = start from 0


agree again. EG Gmaxwell moderating the technical section of this forum and the theymos moderating this entire forum and reddit.
gmaxwell and luke Jr moderating the dev mail list and gmaxwell(until recently, but now luke JR) moderating the BIPS
basically acting as gatekeepers to brush away idea's that contradict blockstreams plans.


the 95% is more about reducing the chances of NATURAL orphan drama at an activation event. which can actually be futile a percentage to achieve unless the feature advertised actually did what it says..  and also that percentage may not be needed to be so high, to accomplish just a small natural orphan risk if it also had a high NODE acceptability to help reduce natural orphan risk.

the main thing is what occurs at activation.
blockstream for instance want to then bilaterally split the network by breaking its own 'backward compatibility' promise by INTENTIONALLY (not naturally) rejecting native blocks, which are actually valid to the network but just not created by blockstreams codebase. which is where this action can cause bigger orphan risks and where things get nasty. rather than it would if there was a real proper consensus implemented and just letting natural orphans do their job. (natural orphans happen for a very good reason)

the funny part.
even the segwit advocates dont realise the REALITY of what will occur at the activation date.
they think (wrongly) that the quadratic/malleability problems are 100% fixed.
they dont realise that its not about the activation. its about later things. such as needing EVERYONE to move all of them MILLIONS of unspents (everyone moves thier funds) from native keys to segwit keys(which this action alone would cause major mempool filling spam attacks). to then as long as EVERYONE never uses native keys again ever. will then disarm everyone from quadratic/malleability and only then get the fixes reach their promise,
which is something that will never happen.
malicious spammers will continue using native keys and the disruptions and issues will continue.

Bitcoin is a great coin, nobody can expect and predict bitcoin can survive until this stage, and I admit there are still flaws in bitcoin, but bitcoin is the pioneer of crypto currency and being used by a lot of people in this world and had helped so many people, we don't need to start over but we can try to fixed it and if you are not satisfied with bitcoin performance there are still so many alt coin ready for you to use

If I may add, up to this point in time, bitcoin had battle and survived. Scalability, competition from other cryptocurrencies, governments among others. We all know that one issue that keeps plaguing us is the block size debate. I will not get into details. I just touch base on it because I believe this is critical if bitcoin will be mass adoption and be used globally and survive.

The block size will not change.  Bitcoin will remain what it is.  And no, people will not use bitcoin on the block chain.  But they will use bitcoin IOU by financial institutions.  Bitcoin and its block chain itself will become institution's backings, and no ordinary citizen will use the bitcoin block chain: too expensive, no agreement with miners to get your transaction processed.  Bitcoin will be simply the reserve currency used by financial institutions and other big players, who have agreements with miners.  You will use bitcoin IOU at your bank.  You will get a bank account denominated in bitcoin if you want to.   And a bitcoin credit card.  But you will not use bitcoin as such any more.  Blocks full, fees too high for non-agreed users, transactions filtered.

In the same way that people using dollars used to think that it was actually silver.

And the price of bitcoin will be incredibly high.  But those that you hold in a wallet, will never be transacted.  Unless you sell them to your bank.

people area full of talk and only that. let's see how you can do it shall we.
we all are well aware of the shit that is going on with bitcoin, but with all that happening, bitcoin still is great and is bigger than you can think. we may be unhappy about a bunch of stuff but in the end we are using bitcoin and we can not see anything remotely close to it.

Bitcoin has some issues but will still be king for the foreseeable future.
This is still the beginning of crypto, however. In ten or twenty years from now another coin may see higher use/ price.
It could be an already existing project, or something that hasn't even been written yet.

Bitcoin is like the invention of the telephone. It may take fifty or a hundred years but eventually we will have mobile smartphones.

are you talking about bitcoins ethos of 2009-2013 or are you talking about the reality of 2017. you cant be talking about both as things have changed

Bitcoin is being institutionalized.  The most scarce resource of bitcoin is NOT the coins, but the transactions.  Bitcoin's immutability will make that nobody is going to change this scarce resource.  At about 2-3 transactions per second WORLDWIDE, this is too expensive and scarce a resource to be used by mere mortals as a currency.  Bitcoin will be an "institutional vault" asset, and the scarce resource of transactions will, at high prices (fees) only be used to transfer big amounts between institutions.  The individual bitcoin value will reach incredible heights, and at the same time, people that are not institutions will not be able to make a transaction unless they pay gigantic fees.  Individual transactions of bitcoin may even be outlawed, if this is considered too precious and scarce a resource for ordinary people to waste.

And on top of that layer, banks and other financial institutions will build a fiat system.  The bitcoin ETF is part of that.

Why do we need someone at the top? Bitcoin is different to other Alt coins, because there is no "central" figure head to attack... and we have loads

of "anonymous" people contributing to this experiment. Everyone can run a node and have a part in the decision making. Satoshi cannot be

attacked, because nobody knows who he/she/they are. Anyone can contribute code changes and consensus will decide what gets accepted.  ;D

Yes, it's still the beginning of Crypto-Currencies, that is why we have some issues and imperfections, but it's like a brute rock that it's going to be sculpt within time until it has a perfect format to attent the demand of everyone. It will take some time, but I'm certain Bitcoin won't die or be forgotten.

Nobody "needs" someone at the top, but it is interesting to be at the top, and to control this.  Bitcoin is stuck now in full blocks, and the consensus mechanism will preserve this precious scarcity, just like it preserves the scarcity of coins themselves.  As such, bitcoin will end up not be usable any more for small transactions ; one will need "good relationships" with miners in order to be able to guarantee to get one of those scarce transactions (only 2 or 3 per second world wide). 
Bitcoin will stop being a means of payment, a currency.  But it WILL be a "reserve currency" for big holders that can obtain guaranteed "slots of transactions" with miners.  Miners will fully exploit this power they have of distributing, at their likings, the scarce resource which is "transaction".  They may even make exclusive deals with banks and other financial institutions, that, against huge fees, these banks get exclusive right to their block room.  They may "rent" their blocks ahead of time to some institutions.  You, as an individual, with no particular relation to a big miner, will be left fighting for the very few "wild" blocks by those few miners still accepting random transactions (with huge fees).  No more "paying stuff on the internet" with bitcoin.  The scarce resource of "transaction space" will be sold very expensively in exclusive deals with big finance.  The mere mortal, even if he has bitcoins in his wallet, will not be able to transact them.  The only thing that he will be able to do, is to sell them to one of those financial institutions, at big loss.

But no problem he will get a "bank account denominated in bitcoin" with bank IOU.
He will be able to get his bitcoins.... but nobody will, because once the bank has transferred them to you, you can't transact any more.

So in the end, bitcoin will end up in bank vaults, and miners will be paid a lot to give exclusive block chain room to banks and other financial institutions, using bitcoin as a reserve currency amongst them.  There will be Davos meetings of bankers and miners, deciding on protocol changes (in their advantage of course).

Financial institutions do not need to use Bitcoin. They can create there own which they can control. They do not want stuck transactions, so they will make sure the blocksize is big enough for their needs. They will deploy datacentres with the storage and network bandwidth they need. It will be private to reduce the risk of DOS attacks. They need a distributed ledger because they don't trust each other.

Bitcoin might become the preserve of high wealth individuals if the technological growth is stunted. But bitcoin failue for ordinary people = massive distrust of any cryptocurrency for the ordinary people.

bitcoin teaches us so many things, not only about money but it teaches us lesson that we may apply in our lives.

This is where an asset they didn't invent themselves, comes in, like gold, or, bitcoin.

You are making a huge assumption that Bitcoin's store-of-value does not depend on its utility to be digital cash in widespread use. 

I believe the opposite to be true:  Without having widespread use (assumes more than 3 TPS)
Bitcoin will lose market share to other cryptocurrencies for all purposes,
both as a currency and commodity-like store of value.

The fraction of transaction volume by digital cash usage is tiny as compared to the daily bitcoin volume (mainly off chain, on exchanges, with bitcoin IOU).  Bitcoin's market cap is essentially made by greater-fool speculation ; its market cap sustained by demand as a digital cash to be used to buy stuff is an extremely small portion of the market cap.  It must be a few percent at most. 

This is like thinking that gold's store-of-value does depend on the few technical and artistic usages of gold.  It doesn't.  And gold isn't used as a currency either (any more).


As a currency, that's evident.  But bitcoin is already a very clumsy currency as compared to the technical performance of a lot of alt coins.  The reason that most of the tiny "currency" application of crypto is still bitcoin is a leftover from its first mover status.  But right at this moment, bitcoin is not usable any more as a currency.  And this will only get worse. 

Bitcoin will simply be a reserve currrency, and its scarce transaction volume (which is, in my opinion, graved in stone and will not change any more) will be a precious asset, only to be used between institutional vaults. 

This is true for all currencies and doesn't change my premise.



I believe that the price is still above $1000 because investors believe a scaling solution will be implemented sooner or later.
If people start to believe this is not the case, I would expect the price to tank.  I understand you disagree.

Lol have you manage to read the whole thread?  This one reply by rawdog is best suited to you together with another reply that he qouted.

---

Honestly debating with stuff will only delay the solution.  People have different assumption, every move, plan, or even sway of person's hand can be interpreted to something bad or good.  How about implement the solution first then adjust on whatever problem it will cause.  Not deciding on the matter will only lag Bitcoin development and eventually to its premise as altcoin are getting more advance and tired bitcoin enthusiast can easily migrate if some altcoin with worldwide adoption become available.

to add to the point..
if..
Bitpay and coinbase (the utilities that MERCHANTS use for their shopping cart payment service)  and other services like shapeshift, pitpasa, itbit, changetip, kraken, xapo
decided one day that they will drop bitcoin and start accepting.. zcash or monero or litecoin..

knowing that DCG (funding blockstream(gmaxwell(monero fan), BTCC(bobby lee(litecoin's bro), bitpay, coinbase etc)
oh nearly forgot DCG also owns coindesk. just to add on some heat to the media propaganda of all of these changes being cough positive(not) cough

http://dcg.co/network/

what do you think will happen to bitcoins "value" when suddenly you cant use it on the exchanges you finding it harder to move to these alts. and you cant spend it with merchants

This is something that the people really have to get over, people say that they had fun with bitcoin and now it's time for a rebirth of it. (usually the people from BU say this) Did you know that the same thing was said about Democracy and the United States, as it really was an experiment in order to really see what would happen. Democracy looks wonderful on paper, but when it comes to reality it's got a ton of its own flaws but in my opinion it would be the best governing type in all of the world.

But back on topic, Bitcoin is a thriving experiment that isn't going to be stopped. I think it's going to thrive and become dominant just like the US is, it'll stand side by side with the other FIAT currencies such as USD and be able to stand the test of time.

Yes, we've learnt alot from it, and meaning of the crypto currency.

We should think on the other way and another perspective, everyone is free to create an altcoin like many others that have created them (it is supposed that there are hundreds of altcoins)

Bitcoin is good, and it's going good, don't take the current bitcoin price so unstable because the price should change but maybe $100 for few days is a lot.

I think that to take bitcoin down is not easy and being controlled fully by the government is really hard to happen.

There are already coins with these properties, with better "workable parameters" with mining alghorits which prevent you from mining with ASICS.
Based on PoS instead of PoW, faster confirmation with higher transaction capacity. Go support them if you wish. You don't need to look far.
If you find and support your ultimate coin then what will you do if even better coin will be designed in the future.
You'll leave your future ultimate coin for even newer and improved version every time?

If you could provide more than one quote supporting your assertion that 'usually people from BU say that they had fun with bitcoin and now it's time for a rebirth of it', I will be impressed. If you cannot, I'll just think you're making shit up to vilify those with whom you do not agree.

so is the change of gold.. if you were measuring it in tonnes.
EG a $100 change of a gold ounce = $32,151,00 change in the measure of tonnes
but we moved away from measuring in tonnes centuries ago. and soon enough we will be measuring gold in grams

however if exchanges measured bitcoin in mbtc
EG 0.001=$1.16today $1.28 last week

meaning its only moved $0.12 per mbtc

soon enough many people will measure bitcoins in mbtc or even bits (0.00000100)
just like we are no longer in ancient egyptian times measuring gold by the tonne.

its all a matter of prospective

Yes, like you leave your old car for a newer one.

this thread is pure fud and make little sense, OP is expecting that millions invested in bitcoin, in the market and in the mining activity will be fucked only because he think that bitcoin was a "testnet"

other coins out there have their problem also, they are not perfect, their problems won't come off because they have no volume like bitcoin, we just need to reach the consensus to fix the known issue

besides that if you start another chain you will have the same problem as now with the same consensus that will not be reached on the block limit etc..., what's the point?

And "consensus to fix the known issue" is essentially impossible, for exactly the same reason that protects the 21 million coin limit.


Not all altcoins have hard block limits.  But they will also run into problems.  However "other coins running into problems" doesn't mean that bitcoin's problems can be solved.   If you're falling out of an air plane, saying that others are falling too, will not avoid you crashing on the floor, right :)

The fact that bitcoin has a hard block size limit, makes that block chain space is a limited resource in the same way that the number of coins is a limited resource.  From the moment that there's a market with finite price for that limited resource (like from the moment that bitcoin wasn't $0,- any more), the consensus mechanism protects this resource scarcity.  As there is now a strongly rising fee for "room on the chain", this resource scarcity will be protected by the same mechanism that stops people form increasing the number of bitcoins beyond the original protocol.

Bitcoin having a fixed block size was programming, from the start, a scarce resource of "room on the block chain", that is coming to maturity.  The artificial scarcity of coins, that made the market cap of bitcoin's coins, is now also applied to block chain room.  Whenever this market cap becomes bigger than the coin market cap, and when "room on the chain" becomes a much more valuable commodity than (unmovable) coins, the 21 million coin limit will not matter any more, and the true value proposition of bitcoin will be "room on the chain".

This was baked in from the start in the protocol, by setting up a hard limit on block size.

This was originally 32MB wasn't it? If hard fork consensus can decrease it, then hard fork consensus can increase it.
No consensus and things stay how they currently are. Only the rich can afford to use bitcoin.

The fact that there IS a hard limit in the protocol is the essence.  There are alt coins that have technology-limited block sizes, like mining is technology-limited: from a certain point onwards, with a given technology, it becomes too expensive.  But when technology advances, this limit is pushed higher.  In that case, the commodity price is elastic, and determined by real world cost of resource usage.  As it should be.  And is not an artificially created scarcity, but just the price of used resource.  In order to make a monetary asset, you have to make an artificial scarcity, like the number of bitcoins.  If you make an artificial scarcity of block chain room, that automatically ALSO becomes a monetary asset from the moment that it becomes more scarce than the real resource usage.  The 32 MB limit will reach that only much later, but will reach it.


One could lower it back then, because it was considered a *technical* parameter with no scarcity involved.  One could have increased it before it became a scarcity parameter.  But that window is closed now.

Note, BTW, that LOWERING the limit is a SOFT FORK. 

Yes, we need an urgent solution.That would be the real tribute and homage we pay to Mr.satoshi nakamoto.

Now, for me, bitcoin is no longer an experiment, it is something very familiar, and it plays a key role in my life. Before, I had never known it, and I was a poor citizen, and when I knew it, things improved, my life had changed since I knew bitcoin. Bitcoin is something new but has a lot of value, i feel like it

If gold was still shipped around the world for the majority of international settlements, and demand exceeded capacity, people would build more ships. I don't see why we need artificial scarcity based on transaction rate. We have that scarcity on coin cap and eventual lost coins.

Please explain how lowering the limit is a soft fork.

We don't NEED it, but the dynamics of trustless consensus leading to immutability IMPOSES it.  That's my point.  This is nobody's fault.  It is the inherent dynamics that brings immutability, that will also keep this (unfortunate) parameter fixed.


The definition of a soft fork is: the new protocol makes blocks that are all accepted as valid by the old protocol, but not all blocks accepted by the old protocol, are accepted as valid by the new protocol.  In other words, a soft fork is an EXTRA CONDITION on the previously existing protocol.  Every 1 MB block is compatible with the previous protocol that allowed blocks up to 32 MB.  But, say, a 7 MB block, that was compatible with the old protocol, is not valid any more under the new protocol.

I think I understand this point.

Of course not.  In order to face the same problems, they would have to have similar investment, adoption and so on.   Most alt coins are technically superior to bitcoin and would only run into the same problems at even higher levels.  Take litecoin for instance.  Litecoin has more room on the chain than bitcoin.  DASH too.  They are also "hard block chain limit" coins, but both of them can at least accommodate 4 times bitcoin's max volume.  Before they run into the same problems, they have to have 4 times more capital/adoption.... Then, they are as strong as bitcoin at that point.

Then there are other coins like monero, that have flexible block sizes, and will never hit a hard wall.

But in the end, all block chain based chains will run into problems of scale, because it is a technology that doesn't scale well.

That said, if we have many *different* chains, they can all carry part of the volume of course. 

I fully agree. I think the idea of putting an organization at the top much like the way the normal government is run these days can be so detrimental to the idea of decentralization and is something that Bitcoin and its technology behind is fighting and avoiding for. Anyway, OP must just be joking and can even be laughing now that his/her post has elicited some good responses.

Actually you do have points on what you are trying to say comparing alts and bitcoin and i partly agree on some related to the capabilities of some coins that could be better than bitcoin but seeing on the situation bitcoin has gone away to far and its hard for people switch directly.

Not to detract from you main point...

Is not an essential part of the definition of 'monetary asset' that it is readily transferrable? (I would assert that it is) If this be true, then 'space on the chain' is not a monetary asset.


Multiple chains scale exactly the same as a single chain. (actually slightly worse) Anyone wanting to freely conduct business will need to employ all significant chains.

You are right.  The term "monetary" doesn't apply.  It is a "valuable asset".

[/quote]

No, you can have distributed exchanges.  Like now, there are many different national fiat currencies, but you don't need bank accounts of all of them.  If there are N chains out there, and everyone uses on average, n < N chains which you pick "in common" with your most important partners, you only need to exchange now and then between one of your chains, and "foreign" chains.

I don't need the chain that is essentially used by customers of groceries, and groceries in a town on the other side of the world.  The single one time I need to buy tomatoes in a far-away grocery, I'll go through some exchanges to "hop" from my chains to the grocery chain over there.  I don't need to have them all.  My transactions with my grocery don't have to fill up their chain.  And theirs are not interesting for me. 

However, a single global chain that has as well my grocery expenditures, as Bill Gates' new porsche buying, as a Chinese guy's buying of a bag of rice, that's simply crazy.  I only need a local chain, a few chains used by local agents of amazon or the like, and the possibility, in those rare cases I need something from far away, to exchange for their chains.

Sure, you can. But geographically-limited chains are hardly The Internet of Value^[tm]

Well, they do not necessarily need to be geographically limited.   But limited in some way, that link together only those groups of people that transact a lot amongst them.  Usually, this is geographically.  But it doesn't need to be so.  Any relatively limited group of people that transact more amongst them than outside of their group, can sustain a "local chain".

We simply haven't found yet a way that is trustless and distributed, and that is sufficiently swift and fluid to sustain the centralized and swift fiat fluxes of trade.   Blockchain is simply not cutting it.  The "trustless and distributed" overhead is too heavy as compared to a lean, mean centralized system.

So in as much as you NEED trustless and distributed, you have to reserve it for those things were it makes a difference.

Really cool to know that bitcoin has changed your life for good,can you elaborate how it helped you in enhancing your life style so that i could follow your path and change my life for good. :)
@OP Bitcoin is a great innovation and the test period was done when no one was bothering or knowing about it and if you really are not a fan of bitcoin you could follow alt coin market as simple as that,people are investing in bitcoin because they see something that is worth and everyone is happy with it.

I understand your sentiment and your frustrations about team Core/Blockstream whatever. The thing is, your statement about another "real organization at the top" just contradicted what you have just said about the current dev team of bitcoin. If there would be another such organization, it would be another "failure" since no matter how things go, there would be some asshole who would contradict one asshole's idea and brainwashing would start to create factions as to who would be the greater asshole who will have authority and power. We as a community cannot come up with a sane consensus because we do not want to settle things in a healthy argument; we just throw mud at each other, that's all I can see here.

Go create an altcoin, OP if you believe that this experiment has reached its conclusion and a new experiment is needed.

TL;DR: Let's hard for Bitcoin!!! Yayyyy!


Are you really suggesting we start from scratch again? Rebuild the already well-established distribution of funds? No. Not in a million years. We just need a hard fork desperately, and some dickheads are hanging on for dear life, saying that everything is good and fine

Up until several months ago, Bitcoin was indeed cutting it. And it still would be today, were it not for a stupid arbitrary centrally-planned production quota.


If there were some limit on what we can make trustlesss and centralized, I would agree with you. But from a practical matter, trustless and distributed -- exclusive of the aforementioned quota -- is sufficient to keep up with current demand.