Yes I agree with you, the government of any country can try to ban or heavily regulate the use of Bitcoin within its borders. However, major countries are trying to completely eliminate the use of Bitcoin but making it extremely difficult for governments. In countries where bitcoin is currently used, it continues to be used through mechanisms such as peer-to-peer exchanges despite government restrictions. Anyone can access and use Bitcoin from anywhere in the world. This makes it challenging for any single government to stop using Bitcoin.
There are no "major countries" trying to ban Bitcoin or otherwise, "completely eliminate the use of Bitcoin". That's nonsense. Bitcoin is legal to hold and trade in almost every country in the world. Spreading this disinformation drives the price of Bitcoin downward. Please stop. |
|
|
|
Wow, you really really REALLY hate America.
Why would I hate another country? I'm just stating facts [...] No, you are just repeating Kremlin propaganda about a country you clearly despise with all of your being. Again, what country are you from that you hate America so much? I'm curious. I agree that the US has indeed been highly disadvantageous to many peoples in the world, which is unfortunate. I can imagine that if you live in one of those countries, it's possible to harbor a hatred for us. But what country is that you live in? Again, just curious. Seriously though, the US was obviously the predominant military power that defeated Iraq, and was easily 90% the military power projected there, if not more.
Of course ~70% of that coalition was US military but as I said Iraq was an already disarmed and defeated country that the coalition overcame not an armed and powerful adversary. I also can't believe your proud tone for such an illegitimate invasion of another sovereign nation and slaughter of about a million people there! Let me guess, you'd also call defeating the Germans in WWII a "slaughter of a million men" too, right? How about our defeat of the British in 1780? Was that a "slaughter" too? And why do I imagine you are somehow going to call the thing going on in Ukraine some kind of fully-justifies police action? Or maybe the Hamas attack on Israel, "self-defense"? I think we've all seen this movie before  . No. US regime should be punished for supporting genocide and terrorism in Palestine, while Xi and Putin must be prevented from doing what the US regime has been doing in the future.
Without the USA and it's army and nuclear deterrent, how do you suppose one would go about "preventing" Xi and Putin from... doing whatever they feel like doing, e.g. invading one country after another? Mean words, perhaps? Democracy is a local thing not a global thing.
Nope, since strategic weapons were invented in the latter half of the 20th century, all democracy--indeed, all government--is very much global now. There is literally no location on the planet that could escape a Russian or Chinese nuclear-tipped ballistic missile, or a Russian/Chinese bomber-launched smart bomb, or a submarine-launched chemical weapon attack. You can live in Poland, or Portugal, or Peru. It doesn't matter. The war-making tech invented in the last 70 years means you can't hide anywhere. Piss off Xi or Putin after you've successfully disabled the US, and you have absolutely no defense against them. Let me know the country you live in, and I can give you a very specific example of how either of those armies could utterly decimate whatever brave response your military could muster (unless your answer is China or Russia of course, either of which would actually make perfect sense to me). |
|
|
|
Biden did indeed just veto the bill Congress brought to his desk, relaxing many obstacles towards integration within the populace.
Biden vetoed it! He is NO friend to crypto!
Bitcoin is not going anywhere. Donald Trump is business tycoon and knows the basis to comprehend in the space, he's always up and doing whenever the market comes to him. He's one of the top influential men in the world and he basically understands how to run everything. United state president, Joe Biden ensure he's straight when it involves the dealings of cryptocurrency. He's no fan of crypto although he make everything smooth for those top whales in the United States. Donald Trump is not a "business tycoon", he's a spoiled rich kid who lost half of his inheritance even though his father did everything he could to guarantee his success. Donald Trump pardoned a couple of people who ripped off his own supporters. He doesn't care about you, about me, or about Bitcoin: he cares about making money for himself. Trump will probably make Bitcoin illegal so he can replace it with a coin he owns himself personally. |
|
|
|
Biden did indeed just veto the bill Congress brought to his desk, relaxing many obstacles towards integration within the populace.
Biden vetoed it! He is NO friend to crypto!
Having oversight into the crypto business will prevent more FTX fiascos in the future, which will prevent more of the massive crashes in prices we saw in the wake of that fiasco. If Trump comes along and says in effect, "crypto businesses are allowed to rip you off and they will get away with it", then the price of Bitcoin will crash. Be careful what you wish for. Mainstream investors like regulated markets, not anarchy. |
|
|
|
|
They aren't going to ban banks any more than they will ban Bitcoin. Banks are regulated. Bitcoin is too. So what.
|
|
|
|
So yea, US military superpower dudes "annihilated" this... and didn't even do it alone. It was a coalition of 36 countries.
Wow, you really really REALLY hate America. Just out of curiosity, what country do you live in now? Seriously though, the US was obviously the predominant military power that defeated Iraq, and was easily 90% the military power projected there, if not more. this has been the most peaceful in all of human history.
It seems like the term "peaceful" is only a matter of perspective to you. My perspective is actual numbers of dead, injured and displaced peoples. You know, hard data and math. Maybe the 1700s "seemed" more peaceful to you, but numerically that was not the case. (If you are one of those "peace is war, freedom is slavery" folks, then suffice it to say I don't imagine our conversation will go anywhere here ). Again, you should really watch that streaming series, "The Last of Us" so see what you are asking for. The collapse of civilization is not fun.
There is no need to watch some imaginary thing, what the US regime has been doing to the world is very real: Ah, okay. Maybe I am starting to understand you. So you think the US should be punished for our support of Israel, and you don't care if the world is taken over by Xi and Putin because of that punishment? In other words, do you think the world would be better off being ruled (without any sort of democracy) by Xi and Putin instead of the "evil" United States? If that's what you think, then I guess you are entitled to your opinion, but I do wonder if you really thought about what you are asking for here you would really want the world you are begging for here. |
|
|
|
The only "poles" in the world that matter are the decisive strategic nuclear arsenals, of which there are currently three that matter: the US, China, and Russia.
Nukes are only used for mutual destruction between equally weak militaries (ie. the ones you named), otherwise they are not of any use on the global scene. If they were, US military wouldn't have lost to cavemen in Afghanistan and Russia wouldn't have been stuck in the flat fields of Ukraine that has little to no natural defenses and China wouldn't have been attacking ships with a water gun... Not to mention in the Modern Warfare era a small operation to take out the satellites would turn all 3 militaries and their nukes you mentioned into unarmed militias at best; specially United State's since almost all US weapons depend on satellites.  Well, if the USA was eliminated, as you seem to be pining for, then the destruction would no longer be mutual, would it? The reason nukes haven't been used thus far is that there's a strategic balance between the US and the dictatorships of the world. If the USA is taken off the table, then nukes can and would be used because there would be no downside in doing so. The US didn't "lose" to the fighters in Afghanistan, approximately 1% of our military capabilities lost to the fighters in Afghanistan. Had we bumped that up to even 2%, we would have annihilated that fighting force in the same way we annihilated the original Iraqi army. The US lost there because of political will (which, to be clear, I personally share), not because we don't have the technical capabilities to do so. Begging for the end of the USA is the same as begging for continuous wars across the world. It's not fun like Red Dawn, it's really awful like The Last of Us.
Why end? When USSR fell apart, Russia didn't end. When US falls apart, America won't end either. America will still be a big country (maybe a couple of States declare independence) but a normal country not a rogue one. The millisecond the US is no longer a unified military system--and thus can no longer provide a strategic counter-threat to Russia and China--the world will be at the mercy of these nuclear powers since they will have no deterrent in using the full force of their respective militaries.
As for "continuous wars", you seem to have forgotten a couple of facts.
First is that wars have always been part and parcel of our world and there is no escaping them. For thousands of years people have fought each other for a lot of reasons! and they are not about to stop, with or without USA.
Yes, for thousands of years that is true. For the last 70, even with the wars we've had, this has been the most peaceful in all of human history. Again, you should really watch that streaming series, "The Last of Us" so see what you are asking for. The collapse of civilization is not fun. (And there sure as heck won't be anything resembling Bitcoin in that world! ). |
|
|
|
After the Cold War the world has been at the mercy of a single dictatorship that murdered over 30 million people across the world because it was the only "pole". The current multipolar world we are establishing once again is a much better and balanced world in comparison.
The only "poles" in the world that matter are the decisive strategic nuclear arsenals, of which there are currently three that matter: the US, China, and Russia. Take the USA out of that, and you are left with two "poles", e.g. Xi and Putin. Of course many people pine for the world before the post-WWII era we've been in for the last 70 years: the one where tens of millions of people died in wars every year. Yeah, that was so much fun, wasn't it? I don't see where you garner this faith that Xi and Putin will be "nice" and keep the world in order, but there's no evidence of that and tons of evidence to the contrary. Begging for the end of the USA is the same as begging for continuous wars across the world. It's not fun like Red Dawn, it's really awful like The Last of Us. |
|
|
|
In recent news, on May 31, President Biden also vetoed the SAB 121 bill. Do you think this is one of the many good things Biden is bringing to cryptocurrency?
Yes, putting more rules around Bitcoin investing--and making Bitcoin investments safer for everyday, mainstream investors--will help increase the price of Bitcoin. This is a very good thing for the market. I realize that lots of us "hardcores" here on Bitcointalk don't think that way, but we're not the ones responsible for Bitcoin being at the price level it is at, either. For Bitcoin to maintain these levels, the investment must be safe for average consumers. Unless you want another FTX fiasco--and look what that did to the price of Bitcoin!--you should support more oversight into the Bitcoin market. |
|
|
|
This is good news for both bitcoin and the world economy because that slow demise gives the world enough time to "decouple" from America and that has been happening over the past 10+ years, speeding up over the past 2...
This is exactly why for example China is slowly dumping the US dollar and US treasury bonds, or why capital is migrating elsewhere such as to India, or why BRICS was formed, etc...
Without the USA, the world would be at the mercy of the two remaining nuclear super powers, e.g. the dictatorships of Russia and China. Be careful what you wish for. And Bitcoin isn't going to help you if you live in a dictatorship. |
|
|
|
My gawd! TDS runs rampant in these forums!! Some folks seriously need to chill and see a doctor or something. Left or right is for me a neither/nor proposition. You nuts on the extreme ends of both parties are getting tiresome. Any sane political commentators on here?!
This entire thread started as TDS. Some people will snatch at any reason to glorify Trump. Probably a Russian troll farm or something. |
|
|
|
And yes, if a few of us entered the network with altered software, we'd be kicked out. Kicked out by whom? The majority. No, we wouldn't be part of their network. We would have established an independent network. If suddenly, an entity with 51% of the hashrate enforced a 21 trillion cap rule out of nowhere, they wouldn't be accepted by the network. They would be mining on their own blockchain. I genuinely wonder why this concept is so challenging to grasp. We wouldn't be kicked out. We would have created our own network. Not accepted BY WHOM??. You keep in saying the mysterious "they" will not "accept" these nodes. How would this happen? Who are "they"? Why do "they" get to kick nodes out of the network whereas the others don't? Again, you are inventing a central authority where there isn't one. It's an algorithm, that's all. It resolves conflicts in the network by the majority vote of the hashrate, that's all. The same reason why Americans haven't declared war on Greenland: because the majority doesn't want that. I don't see why this is so complicated. The majority of the miners don't want to earn billions of dollars worth of bitcoin. That's brilliant argument! Well, they don't. I would suspect the reason is that many of them are actually major holders of Bitcoin and don't want to denigrate their investment. Also, this would require coordinated collective action. If one miner did this unilaterally, they would lose money. They would need to convince the people running all of the other nodes to follow them, and even finding those people would be next to impossible, let alone convincing them to raise their rates. Once again, there is no central authority no matter how logically convenient it is to invent one. There is no "miner's union". There is no "spokesman for all f the miners". There is no "miners trust" that represents all of the miners, allowing them to collectively make decisions. Indeed, this is the beauty of the Bitcoin network: there is no central anything. And this is hard to wrap your head around since everything in our society had thus far been based on centralized power structures, such as tribe councils, governments, unions, community groups, and so on. Bitcoin doesn't work that way, and I think it's really, really hard for some to grasp the implications of that. No, it's the 49% that is no longer Bitcoin, and the 51% that is Bitcoin. That's not what I want, or what you want, but that's what the algorithm wants.
Okay, you refuse to understand the reality. Could you demonstrate the algorithm which allows the majority of the miners to enforce their own consensus rules? They don't "enforce their own consensus rules", they use the consensus rules to their advantage because, since they are the majority, they prevail. Here's another quote from the Bitcoin docs: "Only if you acquired a majority of the network’s hashing power could you reliably execute such a 51 percent attack against transaction history (although, it should be noted, that even less than 50% of the hashing power still has a good chance of performing such attacks)." https://developer.bitcoin.org/devguide/block_chain.htmlHere's another article talking about the "51% attack" on Bitcoin: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/1/51-attack.aspLook, if you don't want to read any of this, I think we're wasting our time here. This is going around in circles... |
|
|
|
Are you a fan of Biden and the Democratic Party? I think we are not on the same side so this debate will never stop and I think we are off-topic because it has nothing to do with bitcoin. So I think we should stop arguing.
Um, this entire thread is about how Trump is supposedly so awesome. That's the topic. And in order to promote Trump, the OP insinuated (falsely) that Trump would be better for the price of Bitcoin, even though there's every chance Trump could drive the price of Bitcoin to zero in favor of his own personal coin--or that his anti-abortion forces, needing to stop millions of people every year from doing what they want, would need to create a new kind of police state in order to enforce this, and police states don't like things like Bitcoin, which could pay for illegal abortions. |
|
|
|
The rules according to whom? You? Me? Sure. The actual algorithm that the Bitcoin network uses? Not so much.
The algorithm that the Bitcoin network uses was written by satoshi and remains unaltered. Me and you cannot modify it, while remaining in the network. While we have the freedom to alter it, such actions would promptly lead to their expulsion from the network, effectively creating another altcoin. Huh? You can alter whatever code you want to alter. There's nothing physically preventing you. And yes, if a few of us entered the network with altered software, we'd be kicked out. Kicked out by whom? The majority. I did explain, and the answer is simple: if 51% of miners agreed to the price increase, then that would be the price. This doesn't answer why they aren't doing it. The same reason why Americans haven't declared war on Greenland: because the majority doesn't want that. I don't see why this is so complicated. You simply cannot get off this idea that there's a central authority controlling Bitcoin.
I have NOWHERE stated the existence of a central authority that dictates rules. My argument supports the absence of such authority, it's just you who doesn't get it. People are free to write and employ software of their preference. If everybody on the network could simply use whatever authority they wanted, individually, then the network wouldn't work since everybody would use nodes that increase the value of their blocks for instance. The algorithm--the proof-of-work algorithm enforces a majority vote among nodes in the context of a dispute.
If 51% of the hashrate favors a significant change, such as modifying the 21 million rule, it merely results in the entity no longer being part of the Bitcoin network. This isn't an imposition by an authority; it's the organic consequence of decentralized nodes ceasing to interact among themselves.
No, it's the 49% that is no longer Bitcoin, and the 51% that is Bitcoin. That's not what I want, or what you want, but that's what the algorithm wants.
Your argument presents a completely different scenario. If Chinese nodes altered the 21 million rule to 21 trillion, opposition would arise from people like you and me, regardless of the hashrate. It would inevitably collapse on its own, as users would refuse to adopt it.
That's not what this scenario imagines. I very much doubt the Chinese or some other major attacker like that would increase the number of blocks, but rather they would do other things advantageous to themselves e.g. seizing Satoshi's blocks or perhaps simply holding the whole network hostage for geopolitical purposes. |
|
|
|
Like you, I partly believe that Trump will make cryptocurrency grow stronger and more popular, because he is a businessman and he will not give up any opportunity if it can bring US economic interests.
First of all, Trump is an extremely poor businessman who inherited his wealth and lost the majority of it because of his foolishness. Secondly, Trump is a criminal, not a "businessman", and criminals don't make "business decisions", the way real, honest businesses do. Are you a billionaire or are you a good politician? What achievements do you have that are superior to him and on what basis do you think you are better than him and have the right to speak ill of him? You should stop speaking ill of others and stop being jealous of others so that we can discuss more fairly. Wow, so you think anybody who happens to have a lot of money is "business genius" regardless of how they got that money? Really? So by that logic, all of the billionaires who have 10x more money than Donald Trump does and are against him must be 10x smarter than he is, right? So you should just go with the winner, right? If so, Trump is not the winner in this contest you've created here. As for my own achievements that far surpass Donald Trump, I was not born with $3 billion along with loan guarantees amounting to twice that and I didn't lose half of it. So I am, along with virtually anybody whose made any money in any kind of business, a far superior businessman than Donald Trump. You know the stuff you saw on Trump's TV show was fake, right? That's just a TV show. You know that, don't you? |
|
|
|
The attackers nodes are going to "run the original Bitcoin rules" as far as everybody is concerned. A node that imposes a 21 trillion coin cap is not running based on the original Bitcoin rules. The rules according to whom? You? Me? Sure. The actual algorithm that the Bitcoin network uses? Not so much. Again, how on earth would you know if the sever is "Chinese"? Based on the rules it enforces, just like how a Bitcoin node and a Bitcoin Cash node recognize they're operating on different protocols, even without explicit IP ports and flags, they would eventually blacklist each other. This occurs when they send each other transactions that violate the rules specific to each network. If the majority of the miners did this, then... their rewards would be inflated and that would be the new law of the land.
So, you CANNOT explain why miners aren't tampering with the consensus rules to increase their rewards, despite the fact that they have the capability to do so. Why would they invest billions of dollars in energy, when they could inflate their rewards at will? I did explain, and the answer is simple: if 51% of miners agreed to the price increase, then that would be the price. You simply cannot get off this idea that there's a central authority controlling Bitcoin. You keep inventing one [central authority] here out of thin air.
It's you who creates the notion of a central authority that compels users to adhere to a specific set of rules. I'm explaining the reality. People have the freedom to join or leave any network they choose, and the majority of hashrate cannot hinder this. Bitcoin Cash serves as a prime example. If things operated as you imagine, Bitcoin Cash wouldn't exist because there wasn't a 'majority rule' that led to its creation. Yes, people have the freedom to either hold Bitcoin or not hold Bitcoin. They, individually, do not have the ability to decide what servers are "good" and what servers are "evil". That is up to a consensus also known as a majority vote of hashrate. Bitcoin cash is not Bitcoin and never was Bitcoin. Satoshi's Bitcoin blocks were not affected by Bitcoin cash, nor were anybody else's. The Bitcoin network--51% of it--ensured that Bitcoin stayed Bitcoin. If the majority of miners decided that Bitcoin cash was the primary system and the "old" Bitcoin was the fork, then that would be the world we're now living in. But that didn't happen. |
|
|
|
I won't discuss politics here because we'll just try to say good things about the person we vote for and bad things about the other person. But what I see is that Mr. Trump was the first to speak out in favor of bitcoin and cryptocurrency, while the Biden administration is trying to imitate Mr. Trump after their crypto crackdown failed. Furthermore, in addition to being a politician, Mr. Trump is also a successful businessman, I believe he will do better in making our economy better.
No, before a few months ago Trump spoke negatively about Bitcoin. Read your history. He is only saying things about Bitcoin now because he thinks it can win him a few votes. Donald Trump is absolutely not a "successful businessman", he's a spoiled heir to several billion dollars who lost half of his inheritance because he'd be twice as rich as he is now if he simply put his inheritance in the bank when he got it. He drove several companies to bankruptcy, including--get this-- a casino! Trump couldn't even make a casino work! Trump pardoned several criminals for the crime of ripping off his own supporters and his followers still love him for it. Trump promises therefore to steal from all Americans because he clearly likes stealing and he will not suffer any political downside from doing so. Trump is promising, through his written policy documents, radical change to the US economy. If you've ever spent even a minute in a real business, you'd know that the last thing you want from the government when things are going well (e.g. Bitcoin going up 500% under Biden) is massive changes. Trump promises chaos. Biden promises more of the same bull run we've been on. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin went up 500% under President Biden.
Trump will bring massive change and chaos to the American economy. He has promised to deport 5% of American residents, which will wreak havoc on our labor markets and send our economy into a tailspin.
Trump's history involves overt, blatant criminality that his supporters don't care one whiff about. He used his last time in office to enrich himself and his family to the tune of billions of dollars (not penny-ante stuff like the "Hunter Biden" thing), and his taste in the stock market shows that simply outlawing Bitcoin so he could replace it with a currency of his own (not the US government's, his own) would be perfectly in character and met with strong applause by his core voting base. This could send the price of Bitcoin to zero or something close to it.
Go with the safe choice that has profited Bitcoin owners these past years: Biden. No politician is perfect, but Biden is absolutely the best choice for Bitcoin owners.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, absolutely.
Bitcoin's goal from the beginning was to create a means of online transacting for people who could not use an ordinary bank. Before Bitcoin there were credit cards, wire transfers, PayPal, and so forth. Bitcoin was not designed to replace those things, as it's design is necessarily more expensive, slower, and more cumbersome to use.
Instead Bitcoin was design for the very specific need of allowing transactions that could not be subpoenaed by a government, and/or modified or intercepted by a government.
That's it. That's all Bitcoin--and the blockchain architecture--was originally designed to solve.
Subsequently, people did three things:
1. They imagined Bitcoin would be used for other things, e.g. replacing mainstream transactions, which it has not and cannot.
2. They used Bitcoin as an investment instrument, which today is the primary use of Bitcoin.
3. They learned that Bitcoin by itself is a poor system for evading the government because of it's public ledger, and follow-on products like Monera have now filled that role.
Bitcoin and other blockchain-based cryptos will remain investment instruments, and the technology works perfectly fine for that.
Centralized, non-blockchain-based digital currencies will be the future of mainstream transactions, as this architecture will actually scale to the level necessary to replace worldwide everyday transactions.
|
|
|
|
Like you, I partly believe that Trump will make cryptocurrency grow stronger and more popular, because he is a businessman and he will not give up any opportunity if it can bring US economic interests.
First of all, Trump is an extremely poor businessman who inherited his wealth and lost the majority of it because of his foolishness. Secondly, Trump is a criminal, not a "businessman", and criminals don't make "business decisions", the way real, honest businesses do. Third, Trump does not care about you, me, or your Bitcoin. He has shown repeatedly that he will sacrifice the American people in order to enrich himself. That's why my assumption would be, were he to be president again, that Trump will kill Bitcoin so he could replace it with something he owns, instantly making him the richest person who ever lived. And his voters have shown that the don't care if he enriches himself or breaks the law. In fact they seem to actually like it when he does that. Bitcoin went up 500% under President Biden.Don't mess with success. Don't take a chance on somebody who could literally bring the price of Bitcoin to zero if it made him money. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
