I new it will get to that stage for those interested in the American presidency to use cryptocurrency as an agenda for campaigning and of course it has to be for the progressive purpose because the adoption rate is increasing. I think trump will use that as a campaign tool as he is more into the digital investment and business
What we can expect under Trump is that he outlaws Bitcoin so his own coins will go up in value.
And you think that will be possible? That he would have peace with the congress and American society? Moreover, bitcoin is already decentralized with a fast growing population, so that is not visible that trump would think of that when he is a crypto investor. A US president could absolutely crush Bitcoin if he felt like it. For starters, all he would have to do is have his agencies threaten Bitcoin, and that would send the price spiraling downward. Imagine if Trump said TrumpCoin has some special trait that no other currencies have. It would basically shift investors from Bitcoin to TrumpCoin, making him a trillionaire. And there are a million more things after that. Having an actual criminal in the Whitehouse is an extremely unstable thing. Very bad for business. Very bad for Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin went up 500% under Biden.
Trump promises more chaos, rattled markets, and corruption at the highest levels, including the president having a vested financial interest in various markets to the detriment of others (e.g. Trump blocks Bitcoin so TrumpCoin can explode in price).
The safe bet here is to vote for Biden and the Democrats so Bitcoin can go up another 500%.
|
|
|
|
And no country is actually using blockchain for voting, which would be extremely stupid if they even tried it.
You just exposed yourself as a person that doesn't know anything about blockchain. Dude, blockchain is perfect for creating a voting system that's tamper proof. If you don't know, blockchain works in a way where once you put in the data on the block and it's confirmed, there's no going back on that, it would only be stupid in a government setting when they don't do any kind of blockchain technology on what they claim to be a blockchain voting system and the fact that this system will never pass in Congress because they know how powerful that system would be once it's implemented but other than that, it's the best way to prevent fraud. LOL, "tamper proof". Tell that to the thousands of people who have lost billions of dollars on blockchain projects. The data structure of the blockchain is only as secure as the system holding it. Believe it or not, understanding computer systems is a little harder than reading the financial papers telling you to buy more Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin went up 500% under Biden.
Trump promises to upend the US government, creating chaos and uncertainly in the markets. He runs his own company like his own personal pyramid scheme, which is already under investigation by the SEC.
What we can expect under Trump is that he outlaws Bitcoin so his own coins will go up in value.
If you want Bitcoin to go up another 500%, vote for Biden, the Democrats, and stable markets.
|
|
|
|
And no country is actually using blockchain for voting, which would be extremely stupid if they even tried it.
Why its stupid? It addreses vote tampering which is known in any election (fraud/cheating) although there's no country uses it for national election yet. But there already some "stupid" of them uses already in small scale voting for pivot testing [1] in city, organization, etc. in different countries already. [1] https://hackernoon.com/which-countries-are-casting-voting-using-blockchain-s33j34abIt's stupid because it wouldn't do anything except make the system slow, expensive, and error prone because it would be brand new untested systems. Like lots of blockchain "projects" that had happened a few years ago, people blindly put the words, "blockchain" on anything because the price of Bitcoin went to a half trillion dollars and that convinced them at anything made with "this blockchain thingy" must be awesome. But blockchain doesn't solve any problems that voting systems actually have since it makes the system inherently less secure, slower, and more expensive to create (can you imagine every vote taking 15 minutes to cast?). And voting is quite necessarily not anonymous, which is the very opposite of what a blockchain system does. If all votes were anonymous and not connected to an actual person but rather just a private key, then tampering and vote rigging would actually be easier than ever before. |
|
|
|
It's because it is transparent and can't be altered. That's the reason why blockchain has a better integrity if you're for that and projects that are into it aren't just for crypto but also for main use cases like voting.
A blockchain-based architecture does not have "better integrity" than other approaches per se--just ask one of the thousands of people who have lost billions of dollars on failed blockchain projects. Blockchain can fail just like any other computer system can fail. And no country is actually using blockchain for voting, which would be extremely stupid if they even tried it. |
|
|
|
The laws haven't changed in the last 14 years and they aren't going to change in the next 140  . Bitcoin was designed intentionally to be slow and expensive e.g. PoW. If it was easy/fast/cheap to create a node and certify transactions, the paradigm would fail. At this point, it seems like you're simply trolling. The fact that laws haven't changed over the past decade doesn't mean they won't change in the next decade, or even in the next century... By the way, Proof-of-Work does not relate to the network's speed. I don't know about "trolling", but do you think the speed of light will change in the future? I'm personally banking on that staying the same for as long I am alive, at least . And by "network" here I mean the infrastructure supporting Bitcoin, not the interconnect specifically. Yes, but it's not reversible within their infrastructure. Another payment service using blockchain would have the same exact thing. In other words, if you paid in Bitcoin for something you bought from an online retailer and they were unable to deliver it, they would have a procedure for "reversing the transaction" which would entail another Bitcoin transaction. This is not functionally different than PayPal, a credit card, or anything else. And again, if you want to switch the topic to the internal infrastructure, PayPal is absolutely not "erasing the transaction from existence" when they refund a transaction, the data is absolutely there, stored approximately forever, just like a block in the Bitcoin blockchain is. There are many other ways to securely ensure the permanence of data besides the way Bitcoin does it, or with a blockchain architecture. Indeed, a centralized blockchain or one with relatively few nodes would be far more dangerous than any typical regulated US financial institution. And of course Bitcoin itself could potentially (however unlikely) be taken over by China so I would surmise that Bitcoin is significantly less safe than say PayPal as well (although for my own purposes I would easily trust them both). |
|
|
|
I beg to disagree that Bitcoin works the same as Paypal transaction. Once confirmed on the network Bitcoin transaction is irreversible, for Bitcoin transaction to be reversed, it needs to be double spend before the network confirms it. So it does not work like the Paypal way of reversing transactions. I wonder why you think that Bitcoin and PayPal can be reverse in the same way.
Because you can't reverse a PayPal transaction, either. The transaction is always there in their database no matter what. From anybody using either means of transacting, the usage is exactly the same. You can get into which database is "safer" but you'd get into a very long conversation about information security, and you'd need to know a lot about how PayPal manages its infrastructure, etc. My company's transactions are written to distributed WORM drives that cannot be erased, so every transaction stays around forever. I don't know if PayPal does, but it might be similar. But there are people who are able to transfer funds on a small scale, and it is not only specialized for a large-scale transfer else if it is then there will be a very high lower amount limit for Bitcoin transactions and we can even transfer as small as 1 satoshi, can't we?
You can, in the same way you can take an airline flight from JFK to LGA (10.4 miles), but... why would you? That would obviously be a massive waste of resources and you can get there a lot easier in other ways. In the case of Bitcoin, transactions can cost up to 30 US dollars, so unless you are moving at least hundreds of dollars around, the transfer cost as a percentage will be prohibitively expensive. This explains why that Trump crypto support video clip is making headlines on the internet!
Anything he lies about on any given day makes headlines--he's the candidate for president this year.
Btw, I think there is a typo in title which probably was to read>>> Will blockchain "Bitcoin" survive...
No, I very specifically meant blockchain as an architecture to support a digital currency. I think future popular digital currencies will not be based on blockchain. |
|
|
|
No cryptocurrency will ever come even close to scaling to the billions of transactions each day by people worldwide.
That's a bold statement. You can't possibly know that. We're not talking about the next 10 years, but ever. The laws haven't changed in the last 14 years and they aren't going to change in the next 140 . Bitcoin was designed intentionally to be slow and expensive e.g. PoW. If it was easy/fast/cheap to create a node and certify transactions, the paradigm would fail. How do you know what people will use for currency in 2050, or 2150?
IMO it's not going to be fiat currency and if not that then what? Maybe we'll be mostly extinct and back to trading seashells and amber, but if not we'll not use currency printed by FED.
I think the world will almost entirely stop using physical paper and metal currencies in the next 20 years. I think they be replaced by digital currencies. I think those currencies will not be powered by a blockchain-based architecture.
There will not be any FED, I'm pretty sure of that.
The FED will be just fine. They don't care how the money is transmitted, they just trade in value. Maybe you are thinking about the US Mint and the Bureau of Engraving? Those departments probably will shrink to almost nothing. And as we discussed in another thread, I think the USD will stay around forever in the same way that the English language and the Metric System will stay around forever, e.g. as a measurement mechanism for value. People will stop holding physical paper and metal coins, and people will not store their savings in actual USD as much, and people will use various digital currencies to trade, but the USD as a concept will stay around forever, more or less. Even if we're trading seashells and amber, the value of those things will be translated to USD so people know how much value it is. Quite the contrary, my 100 year prediction is that all other sovereign currencies fall by the wayside and only USD stays around, and only then as a measurement device so you'd pay for everything the world denominated in USD, and all digital currencies will have a USD exchange rate which most people won't even see because it's hidden from them by the software. I don't think that there's any danger to bitcoin. The only danger is that there will be no anonymity, but for that to happen they'll first need to ban cash.
I don't think so either, and I've needed to qualify my original OP to say that by "survive" I mean "still be the biggest thing in digital currency". I think it will "survive" in the same way IBM mainframes have "survived". There's no reason people won't be trading Bitcoin forever. It's just that the ubiquitous means of digital transfer e.g. a digital currency that everybody uses on a daily basis will be some other non-blockchain-based thing. |
|
|
|
That is what I am trying to explain, digital cash is different from decentralized monetary system and that's what bitcoin is offering. And Paypal transactions are reversible while bitcoin transactions aren't, Paypal transactions are faster but the 180 days for chargeback is big red flag while bitcoin on an avg TX gets confirmed in 10 minutes and I feel it's worth the fee to pay what we get.
Huh? Bitcoin transactions are reversible in the same way PayPal transactions are, or any other transaction system: you create a new transaction to counteract the value of the one you want to reverse. As for charge-backs, refunds, etc., the technical mechanism of the value transfer is an implementation detail. All of those things happen on top of whatever transfer mechanism you are using. (And ten minutes for a transaction is an absolutely unthinkable amount of time for 99.99% of the world's transactions on any given day. Bitcoin transactions are only viable for extremely specialized purposes e.g. large-scale transfers. This is why it will never be "digital cash" as so many here keep saying Bitcoin was originally designed to be). As for calling Bitcoin a "monetary system", well, I would... need you to define exactly what you mean by that before commenting on it . First of all, blockchain has nothing to do with mixing and anonymization. A blockchain is a distributed ledger with growing lists of records (blocks) that are securely linked together via cryptographic hashes. [Source 1]. Blockchain technology alone (also) is very interesting and beneficial for everyone, for governments too. Some governments and companies invest into development of blockchain technologies in their countries, in different niche. Yes, but that's like saying a car has nothing to do with transportation. Clearly blockchain was meant to provide a means of transactions for entities who could not use the means they had at the time. And I have asked here and elsewhere, in numerous times (with dedicated threads) for certified non-cryptocurrency non-NFT design wins for the blockchain architecture and thus far the answer has been zero. There's lots of hype around the technology, but nobody has actually delivered a clear customer benefit with the architecture outside of the realm of public crypto. (And why is that? Because blockchain's only unique benefit is that it thwarts government subpoenas into transactions, and that is by definition a problem that known entities cannot possibly have since they are... known). Hiding something from yourself is a pointless waste of time, which is why nobody uses blockchain inside of companies or governments. And yes, even without privacy, Bitcoin and blockchains would still be useful, just as these are still very useful today despite privacy being very minimal.
If privacy was important for people, Monero would be number 1 cryptocurrency on coinmarketcap instead of being placed at 47th place right now (with 24h volume - 136th. I've been saying this as well. And given that most people own hold Bitcoin and other cryptos through a broker or an app, almost nobody actually cares about decentralization either. Bitcoin is, in actual reality today, a meme investment instrument. There's nothing wrong with that, though.
I'm sure they are making some plan to close any possibility of taking out everything that leads to hide our identity when holding crypto.
The US dealt with this problem in the early 1970s with physical cash, and their solution was to put a dollar limit on transactions of $10,000. Anything under 10k cash and basically the government doesn't care about it. This handles most people's needs for cash, and aligns with the principles of the Anon Paradox, which states the most people want anonymity for "small" money and known identity for "big" money. |
|
|
|
Technically PayPal is holding the money not by yourself so it's no different from the traditional banking system but it was the beginning of digital payment era when people found that it's easy to make payments with PayPal than going through the banks and their complicated processing for every transactions.
Here you use the blockchain which is not just limited to cryptos so better use the term crypto.
My point was that there was "digital cash" before Bitcoin, and millions of people happily used it. In that context, Bitcoin had to offer something PayPal did not have, which is the ability to thwart government subpoenas into transactions. If Bitcoin was just a slow, expensive, clunky and risky version of PayPal, then nobody would want it and Satoshi would certainly have known that. The US at least, millions of Americans are paid every day for their work in untraceable physical cash, and there are no laws against it all of these years later.
Cash is traceable because the dollar notes have serial numbers on them. That's how they track down gun and drug sales for instance. If you are talking about "most people" then you definitely aren't talking about rich people who have the money and the wherewithal to use offshore banks. Millions of Americans get paid physical cash every day for things like tips and service jobs. And the US government doesn't go after them because they don't have a specific reason (which they would need to take to court) and it's not worth their while to go to this trouble just to tax some hard worker person's... tips.
Government policy in this regard is very clear - anonymity and confidentiality will be eliminated
But this is very specific: they want anonymity and confidentiality from valid court-ordered government subpoenas. The US government is actually supporting privacy against criminals, marketers and fellow citizens through various privacy laws.
In current realities, privacy is primarily needed from government banditry (imagine blockchain in the hands of totalitarian governments).
I certainly agree that a system that allows people to evade the terrible effects of oppressive regimes is a very useful thing: but this is a very narrow audience of a few thousand people across the world, and not a problem most people have. Most people don't need to or want to go against their government--and most in the democratic world are happy its there to protect them from criminals. As for the longer term, this brings up an important question: why use blockchain at all?
Blockchain is well suited in conditions where “transparency” of any activity between all market participants is valued and respected. Maybe, but Venmo originally touted an option to share every transaction you made with your friends, and this feature was very unpopular. And you can create transparency much easier/faster/cheaper/better without blockchain. Are you suggesting we abandon this and take a step back? You can't put the jinnee back in the bottle.
Abandon? No. Did we "abandon" IBM mainframes designed in the 1980s? Not really: they are still in use today. But as a mainstream consumer phenomenon, I am predicting that the blockchain architecture will fade away. People will still use digital currencies more and more, but they won't be based on blockchain. |
|
|
|
Only a tiny, tiny fraction of people have this problem. The rest, who do not wish to oppose their own government (either out of honesty, loyalty, or out of fear of prosecution) don't have any need for a system that makes it impossible for a government to subpoena their transactions.
It's not really a "problem" though. Some people do choose themselves to not use banks. But this does not mean they already are anti government. Bitcoin is not anti government. Yes it contradicts the very essence of central banks but this does not mean that if you choose Bitcoin, you do not accept your government anymore. By using Bitcoin, you are not being dishonest and disloyal and we should stop thinking such. You misunderstood. My point was that Bitcoin's purpose--the reason it was invented--was to allow people to trade value who couldn't use an ordinary bank or credit card because they would get in trouble from their government if they did so. I wouldn't call this "anti-government" any more than using a radar detector in your car is "anti-government". My point was that only a small number of people want to evade their taxes, for instance. People pay their taxes mostly because they fear what happens if they don't, but some also feel loyalty to their country or they are just personally against that sort of thing). And to be clear, I'm not saying that Bitcoin was designed to evade taxes per se, and I am absolutely not saying people today buy Bitcoin to evade their taxes (since almost all buy through a broker, that shows that they don't want to). This is actually my whole point: today, 95% of Bitcoin's users don't use it in a way that it was intended to be used, and don't make use of its core unique feature that blockchain provides. They are instead using a product that would better serve them if it were based on a centralized architecture because it would give them the same value (speculative investment instrument) but better, faster and cheaper. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin went up 500% after Biden was elected. Vote Democrat.
I can't tell if this is a joke or you are actually advertising a local political party using the completely irrelevant value rise of a global currency.  The people here crapping on Elizabeth Warren are just Republicans looking for an excuse to crap on their rival party, and they won't even look at any of the facts of this situation because of that. It wouldn't matter if Warren secretly hated Bitcoin (she doesn't), they only believe that she must hate everything they like since she belongs to the rival tribe. I find it very stupid to make business decisions based on politics, which is what they are all doing. But if all you care about is the value of your Bitcoin going up, then yeah, vote Democrat. |
|
|
|
This is called believing everything the right-wing media feeds you on a daily basis...
As long as the good news I follow, if what smells of bad news is what we follow for, let it be the most important thing now to continue to buy and increase our BTC coin holdings because gradually they will also follow the trend and it's just a political matter and no need to think about it. I think it's time to create a stable economy and keep up with the changes, especially if the big countries have implemented it and I think others will follow suit and the potential looks small now, but if it becomes a solution, I think everyone will come to adopt it. Bitcoin went up 500% after Biden was elected. Vote Democrat. |
|
|
|
As for the longer term, this brings up an important question: why use blockchain at all?
Blockchain is transparent, it's decentralized and trustworthy. 1. "Transparent" is a bad thing when it comes to preserving privacy. 2. "Decentralized" is just an implementation detail that is supposed to accomplish a benefit. But it's a waste of time if that benefit does not materialize. 3. "Trustworthy" does not describe thousands of blockchain projects, and in fact they are the opposite. Bitcoin is trustworthy because it is carefully governed, supported by many, and has been around for a while. But that all has nothing to do with the blockchain architecture per se. It might be slow and costly for now but it won't stay this way forever.
Yes it will, and in fact it will most likely get slower and more expensive over time. Blockchain was designed to be intentionally slow and expensive. This is a feature and not a bug. As such, it will not be "fixed". We're still new so the challenges are what we should be expecting because after we have a triumph over this setbacks, only God knows how explosive Bitcoin adoption will get.
Bitcoin has been around for 14 years now. It's not going to be fixed. I believe Bitcoin is not actually created to make transactions with complete anonymity nor either traceable by the government, it's just to eliminate the middle man and still Bitcoin is capable of doing that.
Almost any digital currency architecture will "eliminate the middle man". Services like PayPal have been around for 15 years before Bitcoin--and PayPal is today far cheaper and faster than Bitcoin for a transaction. Blockchain was a complicated solution to a very complicated problem--but it's a problem not many people actually have.
Privacy and anonymity weren't the "first thing Bitcoin was originally designed to accomplish". Bitcoin was supposed to be peer-to-peer electronic cash, which can be used without the need of banks and third parties.
Using banks/third parties is faster, cheaper and easier. Why would you go to all of this trouble to make a digital currency that is slow, expensive, and complicated, as Bitcoin is? It was because Bitcoin was designed to solve a problem the existing services could not solve, which is resistance to government subpoenas. In other words, this problem did not exist, Bitcoin would have never been invented. |
|
|
|
Could China (or similar) take control of Bitcoin? But OP, I want to ask you why China wants to control bitcoin and what is their purpose? Have you ever thought about the scenario if China or any country controls bitcoin but the rest of the world bans bitcoin to avoid manipulation from China, would controlling bitcoin be beneficial? Several posts here have made the point about whether China would want to do this, but that wasn't my question. My question was whether they could, and the answer to that question is yes. Remember that bitcoin's value comes from its decentralized nature and if someone can control it then it means it is no longer decentralized so no one needs it anymore. The idea of controlling the bitcoin network makes no sense, so I never thought this would happen.
China or some other country or entity with similar resources could absolutely take over Bitcoin if they wanted to. Decentralization makes a network resistant to a take-over, but no network is takeover-proof. |
|
|
|
The main purpose of Bitcoin is not to hide anything from governments. That turned out to be a possibility. At the same time, Bitcoin is global and for example, only a few governments are putting pressure on privacy on the Bitcoin network, and many are still not interested in it. Just as you have neutral and independent countries when it comes to fiat, so will it be for Bitcoin.
The whole thing will only move most of all services and businesses from restricted countries to crypto-friendly ones. Mixers will no longer be called mixers, they will have a new name, and their founders will do it much more carefully and with more anonymity.
Then you are misunderstanding the basis of Bitcoin, and thus the blockchain architecture. If you didn't care about the government, then why not just use a plain old bank? Without the ability to evade government subpoenas, what actual added value does Bitcoin have? What can it do that other means of transfer cannot do? Trillions of dollars in payments go across borders every single day. This is not something that is unique to Bitcoin. Blockchains will survive. But only if they remain decentralized and censorship-resistant. Mixers and privacy/anonymization techniques are completely different things. Governments have only been able to shut down centralized mixers, but they'll never be able to stop decentralized ones. Consider how Tornado.Cash survived despite being sanctioned by the US. These actions are not surprising to me, especially when governments don't want people to achieve true financial freedom and privacy. It will be a long war between crypto (especially Bitcoin) and mainstream governments. I'd say there's nothing to be worried about. Hopefully, crypto will live alongside Fiat for generations. Well, it looks like Bitcoin is no longer decentralized because almost all of its holders use it through a broker or an app, and with chain analysis it's not very "censorship-resistant" either, and they are being cracked down on. To be clear, Bitcoin is absolutely, positively going to "survive". Nobody is questioning that. The only thing to question is whether it's going to stay in the hearts and minds of millions of consumers such that it's market cap remains over one trillion US dollars. And the other question is whether other digital currencies, which are not based on blockchain and not decentralized, will become more popular among millions of people than Bitcoin is today. Personally I think the products that are built for a mainstream audience tend to win out in the marketplace in the long run . |
|
|
|
Bitcoin, i.e. the blockchain architecture, i.e. decentralization was invented to solve one problem, which was to provide a means of value transfer for parties who could not safely use an ordinary bank. Only a tiny, tiny fraction of people have this problem. The rest, who do not wish to oppose their own government (either out of honesty, loyalty, or out of fear of prosecution) don't have any need for a system that makes it impossible for a government to subpoena their transactions. Hence almost all users of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies today use it in a way that is not decentralized, e.g. through an app or a broker. Bitcoin today is, in actual practical reality, just a meme investment. The digital currencies of the future will use centralized architectures that scale correctly to handle consumer demand. We will one day look back at the whole "p2p" and "decentralization" thing as yet another technology fad like so many before it. |
|
|
|
Mate, why do these people hate Bitcoin so much but still want to control it which is not possible, second thing is why do they always intervene in affairs of other nations ? Whether Iran bans Bitcoin mining or supports it is completely upto them based on what's good for them hence we shouldn't be bothered about it. Bankers and US government lobby are the most evil set of people to have ever walked on earth.
"They" don't hate Bitcoin. They hate countries who use Bitcoin to skirt international sanctions. This is called being naive and believing the narrative your being fed over the picture box. This is called believing everything the right-wing media feeds you on a daily basis... |
|
|
|
Mate, why do these people hate Bitcoin so much but still want to control it which is not possible, second thing is why do they always intervene in affairs of other nations ? Whether Iran bans Bitcoin mining or supports it is completely upto them based on what's good for them hence we shouldn't be bothered about it. Bankers and US government lobby are the most evil set of people to have ever walked on earth.
"They" don't hate Bitcoin. They hate countries who use Bitcoin to skirt international sanctions. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
