Bitcoin Forum

It also gave all of us the "idea" of something like "Bitcoin", a form of "money" that is not controlled by the state, is achievable.

Bitcoin might fail, but the idea lives on to make a better "Bitcoin".

I agree with that,but sooner or later someone is going to take control over bitcoin,wether it's miners or whales.I can't imagine how the "better bitcoin" should look like.Is there anything to improve in the current bitcoin?The government fiat money system won't last forever.Actually, it's about to collapse in the next decade.

Bitcoin is like a virus that mutates and adapt to the changing environment, so why would it fail? Yes, before Bitcoin we had other centralized money that failed miserably and Bitcoin broke that mold and opened the gateway to a new form of money that cannot be stopped.

We should applaud the accomplishment and support the freedom that it brought to the world, because we can now achieve much more financial privacy and a lot more freedom to protect our wealth.  ;D

This is all true -- critics want to harp on it for the blockchain being nothing more than a "slow database," but the point wasn't to create the blockchain; the blockchain is simply the means to the end of bitcoin being a decentralized currency, free from government interference.

I don't see a world where bitcoin will ever replace or even rival fiat -- along with the fall of a government would come the fall of not only the economy but potentially important infrastructure needed for bitcoin to operate (power and internet).

It does create competition for other forms of money and money processors to get their shit together, kind of like how Uber upset the taxi industry and what AirBnB did to hotels.

Hopefully bitcoin will mutate and adopt before it dies... seems to be doing reasonably well with that after 10 years. The #1 "bitcoin killer" (ETH, forget about BCH) is now a fraction of its price in terms of BTC...

^ selective usage of words

"not controlled by the state" yet the upgrade proposals and new code is controlled by a group.
and if the community do not follow the group. the group wont care because the group bypasses the community with "compatibility" and if the community added code that makes the group unable to bypass using "compatibility" then the group simply mandate a "accept group rules or f**k off" method

bitcoins 2009-2013 true consensus mechanism has not been used as intended since

The concept of the proponent of Bitcoin is novel and first of its kind. Their main priority was poor and the unbanked to financially empower such through the P2P transaction where the third party and their fees are eliminated. This will lead to more money in the hand of the poor. The government will not have the control over bitcoin because of it being decentralized.

bitcoin is code. so its developers you should be scrutinising

It's good to be optimistic, but that is a very dangerous kind of attitude. Bitcoin is still a software experiment that could fail. We have not even seen its final form yet in my opinion.


Private key ownership of cryptocurrencies is the most sovereign and the most inviolable property rights of this generation. Use it.

I don't know when we will see the final form or how it will look like but my gut feeling is that we are going to see another age like we have seen for the internet. Think about the internet in the early 90s.

So basically bitcoin is the worst cryptocurrency besides all others tried.
Its not perfect but its way ahead of anything else that is currently out there.
It can't be inflated, its code is open source, anybody is welcome to join, mine, run their own node, and be a part of the network.

If you have a better alternative, please feel free to let us know what it is.

1. cant be inflated? you might want to check on that.
there was in 2009 -2013 an idea of limiting bitcoin to 2.1quadrillion sharable units of value(satoshi's). plans are already being made to expand that to being 2.1quintillion sharable units. which will continue the mining reward/halving process well beyond 2140
(millisats)
imagine there were only 10 banana's in the world. then imagine there being 10billion slices of banana.
banana's are no longer rare and out of reach of people to buy.so they have lost their.. accuse the pun. appeal

2. running a node, is not the same as the decentralised power of consensus. it just ends up as you being an distributed data archive. not a decentralised community of consensus

3. many teams have tried to offer proposals. but ended up finding it easier to just make their own altcoin than try fighting the group roadmap

4. im not saying its the worse. im saying its no longer holding up to the same promises/ethos/initial idea as 2009-2013

You know the set limit of coins is 21 million. Going with your analogy, no matter how many times you divide up a banana there's still only 10 bananas. A central source isn't harvesting new bananas and putting them into circulation. That's the difference.

bitcoin is not a fail currency. bitcoin price is down and down it's normal because the currency has the correction time. but it's not a fail currency. we should wait for bitcoin rises

Anyone can propose anything, but "will it reach consensus" is the question.


Didn't the UASF, which began as the minority, teach you anything?


Allowing anyone to propose any idea on Bitcoin would be stupid.


What promises? On-chain scaling?


Get the context of my post. Your "state" has mandated themselves as the authority, and the monopoly in money-printing, and issuance. Bitcoin changed that.


But not the signers of the NYA, or Bitmain?

To be fair, gold sort of already showed us that. Gold bugs have been talking about decentralized, sound money for a long time. Bitcoin improved on that foundation by adding transferability over a communications channel, predictable scarcity, portability and divisibility.


Shouldn't it be the code that's being scrutinized?

Bitcoin isn't only a currency, it's an ideology, a protocol, a lifestyle but we still need to have a total change in mentalities. The challenges are bigger than what people may think even if we have already taken a big step forward since its creation.

Not all people have the interest to adopt Bitcoin or to see it adopted for multiple reasons (economic, political, geopolitical...)
To implement Bitcoin is more difficult than that also, not sure if it could be compared with but take as an example the EURO, it took over 10 years to see Europe adopting EUR, not even talking about the time spend to work on.

seeing as you admire the word "state" to refer to certain group of elitist authoritarians. i shall refer to certain dv team as "dev state" for your benefit


first sentance i was beginning to think you were starting to understand the consensus mechanism of 2009-2013

second sentance you went full censorship-centralist authoritarian and it seems you prefer a central dev "state" in control
but atleast you confident enough to admit your preference.

in a consensus mechanism that existed 2009-2013 anyone could propose anything. code it, run nodes release the source and let anyone run it. with no fear of being thrown out the network. because proposals wont activate without high majority consensus. so it would cause no bad effects on the network, because proposals would not be active unless majority had run them.

funny thing is other full nodes such as xt, classic, bu and others never made mandates. they were happy to just run nodes and see and wait to find out if they got popular. they even adjusted and compromised down a few features to be more of what the community were looking for. but again never made mandates or coercions or threats. it was just run it and see what happens if nothing happens then they walk off with tail between their legs and come back with another proposal that appeals more to the community.

but these days the "dev state" would throw certain nodes off the network before the certain nodes even got majority support simply to make it appear that the "dev state" has 100% loyalty..... hense why altcoins are being made.
"the dev state" were losing with only 35% vote before their consensus bypass idea was implimented.

the "dev state" should have just went back to the drawing board and actually code something that would have NATURALLY and using the 2009-2013 mechanism got them an activation. without having to resort to threats of a mandated contentious fork("dev state" advocated buzzword "bilateral splits")

this is why developers not part of "dev state" are now just giving up on the "dev state" version of bitcoin and making alts. because of the "dev state" censorship and control over what proposals even make it into "the roadmap"

p.s the NYA signee's are part of the central "dev state" which you seem to adore as kings.

the segwit2x part of the NYA was just subterfuge to rally the sleeping sheep into accepting segwit. with a empty promise of 2x if and only if segwit1x got activated.

barry silbert DCG.co organised NYA
barry silbert pays pieter wuille, gregmaxwell, samson mows, luke Jr's wages
DCG.co/portfolio/#b   - notice blockstream, notice btcc

as for the jgarzig, gavin andressen implementation of NYA
DCG.co/portfolio/#b   - notice BLOQ

i already told you many times. it was a 3 card trick
well i should say a 3 hat trick. samson mow and core devs were very proud to wear their UASF hats

i still find is so strange how a year later. even when financial data, even when block data. even when code exists and even admissions by thee devs themselves has made the situation clear.. that you and certain chums of your are denying it all and pretending one minute that bitcoins consensus is as open as 2009-2013.. and then a few minutes later flip your opinion to that of defending the "dev state" actions.

there is no point in you trying to dismiss history. blockdata and code doesnt lie. and its all found in the blockdata that certain things did happen to fake the 100% "dev state" loyalty


now imagine this.
imagine a dev team that was not part of "dev state" done a mandated activation.. would you herold them as new kings. or would you be arguing that their approach and method of activation was wrong and not consensus

In the context of this topic. Does the "dev-state" monopolize the printing, and issuance of the currency in the network? Does it have a police system to administer their "laws"? Does it threaten our freedom?

The "dev-state" can go, and the network can fail, but the idea of Bitcoin can be passed on.

Of course! Bitcoin has shown that a currency can be independent, free and anonymous! I think, this technology will be developed and will eventually be applied in other industries too.

Yes, ofcourse. The bitcoin has given us many many things, most of them good even great but there are some problems too. First of all the bitcoin and the cryptocurrency has changed my life, my work and my living. These all in good ways. But the uncertainty conditions making me nervous and making me feel uncoffortable. I believe that the BTC will live with us forever but i am not sure what will be the circumstances..

The developers clearly don't have power or authority over anything.

That's why Segwit wasn't activated for so long -- they had no mandate to force anyone to upgrade. BIP148 and BIP91 were not part of the Core implementation. If users or miners chose to run them or comply with their rules, it had nothing to do with Core.

Miners made a simple, calculated decision. They could have forced the question and split the chain, but they figured it was more profitable to go the path of least resistance.

Bitcoin gave us the beggining of completely different market, something that we never had before. And it will not stop to exist as mentioned. It will still be the first product that block chain brought.

currently every block is limited to 1,250,000,000 sharable units of the reward.. you do know that they are going to be soon wanting to make the reward have 1,250,000,000,000 sharable units of reward. which will extend mining for reward well passed the year 2140
but yea as per usual they will hide it by saying that 1250,000,000,000 is the same as 1,250,000,000 by saying the extra sharable units are named at the bottom end not the top end... trying to totally sleeping pill the sheep to not realise more units of measure are still more units of measure (less scarcity)

does it have a police system. yep
moderation and only certain "police" with authority to ack/Nack new laws. and then when pushing it through the "state" they are instead of using the old 2013 consensus mechanism. they are using the 2017 mechanism to administrate their laws into passing.

Yes, bitcoin made us realize that it is possible for any individual to control our money without being handled to a third party, wake us up how banking system blinding us and manipulate us and who are the real scammers of your hard earned money. These are the reasons why many still believes in bitcoin's potential in the long run, the key for financial freedom and type of investment where you are fully in control. It is not failing, what happening today is a pure healthy price correction.

Before the coming of bitcoin there wasn't anything that people could use to transact online with other people and the people used to do bank transfers to make deals with people in some other country and that took a lot of time to confirm and wasn't at all trusted so the chances of being scammed was pretty high but bitcoin was liked by everyone as it holds value and in case of transacting online you can't get scammed now as escrow are possible, so for the people who have business online they can use bitcoin to get rid of many problems like charge backs and frauds.

Bitcoin adoption is adoption out of free will. You can choose to not adopt it and it's all fine, which means that the adoption taking place will automatically take way more time to grow. The Euro was forced upon people, and an added benefit for governments was that it burns through the wealth that we all managed to build up throughout the last decades.

The worst thing is that the Euro has shown signs of failure in the very early stage of the 'rollout' and I expect it to implode in the forthcoming years.

Back in 2013 I was buying Bitcoin at an exchange rate of €1 = ~$1.4 and it has fallen well below $1.10 more than once already. If that isn't a bad sign, then I don't know what is.

Bitcoin might fail? No way! it has no reason to fail.

If bitcoin already reach this point is because it was made to succeed... People believes in it, in the math behind it, and in the decentralised concept it give us, was what the world need and is imposible to go steps back.

Yea, bitcoin has succeeded in giving us exposures on the concept of wealth making any where in the world.
It has also helped in keeping so many lives busy with something of value, at least anyone who is a bitcoin user will not say he is idle and be constituting nuisance in the community.
Bitcoin has also helped the government in form of providing source of income to many with which they depend less on the government. And few others .

Yes! That is why Bitcoin will not die, it will live! I can even say more. Bitcoin is the first in the history of cryptocurrency. Right now the story is shaping up. And all the people who participate in this, all those emotions that are experiencing, all this will remain in history. I'm sure many books will be written on all that was. This phenomenon can not just go out, and the idea of Bitcoin will be modernized and used in other areas.

Bitcoin cannot fail, there is too much adoption already and it promises
too much for the future.

A lot of people it seems have lost the concept which bitcoin was created
for, transferring funds peer-to-peer.

So we are going to see that bitcoin is going to fail soon?

I don't want that to happen and as the community we know how bitcoin changed the world's transacion now a days and imagine if it implemented everywhere then we can get away from banking slave who treat like us ther slaves.

A better Bitcoin in the form of a new generation of coins and blockchain that fits the current system is what we need. At this point, it is hard to achieve a currency or money that is not controlled by the state, the government always want to have control over everything, and it is the big reason why there are too many regulations regarding cryptocurrencies. This won't last, the newer generation will accept the fact that cryptocurrencies are here to stay and this is the future of finance. The efficiency it provides is way better and more secure that the fiat system.

For now, bitcoin isn't worth mentioning as a failure. Personally I believe, bitcoin will evolve. Until someday, bitcoin experiences improvements to become a better payment tool, than the current payment system

I am agree, bitcoin is not just a cryptocurrency, its a new economic system that no need authority from government. I am believe bitcoin will not fail because its new investment and the market still at early stage

users do not code a node
bitcoin is not an AI machine that self codes.
its developers that code changes. so any changes made are done by developers.

your argument is like saying house buyers control house creation.. um.. no housing developers do. you know.. the people that lay bricks and cement.
homeowners dont lay the bricks and cement. and these days home owners have less choice of house designs unless they are rich to employ their own developers. the average person only get to choose whatever designs being offered by developers.

these days the developers have now more powers to push their designs through to activation without community consent

but concentrating on the change from 2009-13 libertarian/open border currency. compared to todays more capitalist elite/authoritarian currency.

you can convey the situation like this

dcg.co = NYA agreement = king
core developers = segwit1x = knights
bloq developers = segwit2x = knights
bitcoinabc= bch= pawns

dcg.co = president
core developers = senate law makers
bloq developers = senate law makers
bitcoinabc= kanye wests fake political nomination

dcg.co = town hall housing planning department
core developers = housing developers
bloq developers = housing developers
bitcoinabc= mobile home designers

when you look at dcg.co/portfolio
it all becomes clear
blockstream=core devs
bloq= jgarzic/gavin
blockchain.info=ver

august 2017 was a planned event. even bch was just a distraction fake choice, to give the illusion of free choice
ver is in the pocket of dcg just as much as gavin is. and remember the drama of gavin in 2013-4 vs core... same story played out as played out in 2017

the btc:bch drama is just kardashian family social distraction drama.

people really need to take a step back from being sheep following the promotional adverts and actually need to look at the bigger picture of the whole show being played out to dilute the community down and push people out of the bitcoin network at any means, but under the pretence of fake/empty promises of offering something better.

Housing developers either answer to the market or they go bankrupt. The same goes for Bitcoin developers: If users don't want to run their code, they become irrelevant. (See: Bitcoin XT, Classic, Unlimited)

There are alternative implementations. People are free to run them or to code their own. The fact that the vast majority of users choose to run Core instead speaks volumes about what the market wants.

You're just fighting the market, Franky.

your using the consensus as designed 2009-2013 to explain xt, classic, unlimited... and how core didnt get the vote early on

but you again seem to want to pretend the non consensus mandated august 1st 2017 bypass (dev state buzzword bilateral split) ever occured.
kind of funny because "dev state" were and still are proud that it occured

the fact that you admit in another post that core didnt get segwit in using the 2009-2013 consensus (the november 2016-spring 2017) shows it wasnt high majority. it only had 35% vote.

those that did run other nodes that are not compatible. were rlegated off network, diluting out the 65% objections. or relegated them as non voter 'compatible' (downstream/filtered/not full node/stripped)
purely to fake a 95% loyalty

thats why the mandated contentious events happened at the defined and mandated date of august 2017. because core didnt like their 35% vote, but didnt want to renegotiate/compromise back to a 2015 empty promise that the community would have accepted.

yep if core actually went with the 2015 consensus agreement they would have actually got segwit activated by christmas 2016 without contention(well, with the least contention)
.....
as for the market. dcg is the market. look at all the exchanges they OWN... remember the NYA agreement.. yes that... their involvement activated segwit with a fake promise that looks like the 2015 agreement. but backpeddled out of the 2x part, once 1x was activated. along with the UASF threats made by samson mow(dcg.co paid via BTCC) and luke JR(dcg.co paid via Blockstream). along with the fake offering of objectors with the bch(dcg.co paid via blockchain.info)

one thing is obvious even by the topic.

bitcoin "gave".
even he topic creator subconsciously/subtly admits bitcoins PAST ethos gave people an idea.
but the present. is not the same as the past.

bitcoin is the one of product of blockchain that success, and i think that the real star in here is blockchain, many people here that want to know about blockchain and try to learn about it, so i think that blockchain will give us many many benefeit in the future

Bitcoin was first created to become the future currency, but what is happening now is that Bitcoin has changed its function, becoming a traded commodity, so this is not a failure of Bitcoin, but a setback in digital currency technology, because if this happens then the function from bitcoin only as a digital asset, bitcoin should be returned to its original function as a payment tool, because bitcoin has the potential to become the world's single currency.

FTFY: a commodity is a raw material used to create products.. bitcoin is a asset currency.

what i view as occuring was 2009-2013 bitcoin was a open free choice asset currency to be the opposite of what fiat is.
what i view as occuring of 2013-2018 bitcoin is closing off as a free choice asset currency to become just another "new state" fiat.

Actually its both currency and commodity -- to claim that its not will only confuse people (in the US) that are considering paying taxes on it:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/07/cryptocurrencies-like-bitcoin-are-commodities-us-judge-rules.html
https://www.newsbtc.com/2018/09/29/bitcoin-price-analysis/
https://www.danielstrading.com/2017/12/12/bitcoin-commodity-currency


So basically you're saying that the Bitcoin Core devs are a "state"? You're welcome to have your own opinions but I'd rather go with the reality of the situation, which is that bitcoin is highly decentralized in comparison to actual state currencies, and most other cryptocurrencies. If you look at the dispersion of mining and nodes in BTC compared to "other bitcoins" like BCH and SV, there's no comparison -- BTC is far more decentralized.

There was never a  "designed" consensus. You either agree or you don't -- it's the dictionary definition of consensus. If you agree, you run a node and thus join the network. If you disagree, you don't run a node...


Segwit never violated any consensus rules. That literally means that anyone running Bitcoin already implicitly agreed to Segwit (assuming it was enforced by miners and therefore backward compatible). There's absolutely no reason why 100% of the network needed to agree to anything since there was no violation of the consensus.


Legacy nodes were and are fully compatible. That's why the chain never split. Satoshi explains:

Hold on. You were the person agreeing with Roger Ver, and debating that "Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash bilaterally split". How is it that now you are saying that it is a "dev-state" buzzword. Hahaha.


The community wanted Segwit, your "35% vote" were not really "votes", but miners signalling their readiness to the soft fork, which they politically used to make drama.

1. greg maxwell termed it before august 2017.. he actually was openly saying in that conversation in ~october 2016 how he tried to convince opposers to f**k off and the opposers declined his offer.
2. saying it happened is different than advocating the desire of bilateral forks/split/contentious dilution of the community/mandated threats
3. i didnt agree with ver. i independently mentioned that a moment in history occured.
4. you have on many times subtly worded things to suggest i advocate and i want Y. when im actually mentioning the opposite of advocating/insisting on it happening. you seem to do this so that you can then foolishly have the mindset that i am pushing for things which i am not pushing for, just so you can ignore the real context of the message/topic i am discussing

the community includes miners. but got threatened to accept segwit or find themselves off the network
if they continued to oppose on august 1st they would have had their blocks rejected.
that is NOT community wanting segwit. thats the community forced into segwit.

learn what actually happened on august first to fake a majority. stop denying nothing happened
blockchains dont lie. the block data proves what actually happened, no matter what social yammer you may script out. the blockchain immutable data can refute you

I agree with you, in bitcoin you have brighter future and gives you opportunity to learn and to earned more profit, and there are so many lives changing it become more better now and more people become interested to learn and wanted to join in investing in cryptocurrency. Joining in bitcoin you have brighter future .

Yes the idea of having bitcoin is what leaves on the heart of every bitcoiner.The freedom that we have on our money is somewhat like an endless happiness.We control our own money without worrying about the government being tax.Thats more than enough.

yes I believe on that, bitcoin is the good digital currency right now and I think when the bitcoin price is failing and bitcoin lost their popularity, maybe in the future we can see that the platform and digital currency that have a more good purpose and great benefit than bitcoin do

But did the network "bilaterally split", or did Roger Ver and Bitcoin Cash changed the consesus rules, did a hard fork, and split away from Bitcoin?

There was no bilateral split that Roger Ver wants us to believe.


Ok let me rephrase. The economic majority wanted Segwit. It was Bitmain, who also co-opted other miners in their cause, that did not want it as a soft fork because it would kill covert ASICBOOST.

The miners are a cartel and act by their own self-interest, not the interest of the community as a whole.