|
Why do the bitcoin core developers keep on protecting bitcoin and its value?
As the months go on, they are doing nothing to make the price of bitcoin go down. What action can we do to make them change their ways so Bitcoin price will drop instead of going up? Why doesn't bitcoin core developers make bitcoin easily expendible and unprecious (like fiat cash that goes down in value).
Many are saying the bitcoin community wants scaling to convert Bitcoin from a store-of-value asset (like ultimate global digital gold) into easily expendible, plentiful cash fiat. I think if we get together as a community we can influence the developers to make Bitcoin price to go back down to below $1,000.
What reason do the developers have to maintain integrity of Bitcoin's store of value? Why not just destroy it? Banks and governments will be able to operate easier to control our money if bitcoin wasn't around.
There are so many other altcoins that are very plentiful and expendible, and valued MUCH lower - why won't Bitcoin developers strive to acheive this for bitcoin?
Are the developers doing bitcoin community any favors by letting bitcoin price go up and doubling every 5 years?
Can we let Banks and telecom companies better enter bitcoin space by centralizing some aspects of bitcoin protocol like make blocks larger (thus make investment in network/mining infrastructure a higher $ barrier to enter for smaller competition like us)?
Example for scaling:
Say we want to buy a notebook that is costing us $1,000USD equivalent and you can pay the merchant who would accept from you any of following options:
A) Fiat cash credit card payment (after payment you will have to pay this bill in fiat cash or pay interest with extra fiat cash later)
B) Leaves from bushes or trees green or dead backed credit card (after payment you will have to pay in leaves plus pay extra leaves in interest)
C) Gold oz. backed credit card payment (after payment you will have to pay this bill only in gold payment and interest paid in gold later)
D) Bitcoin backed credit card payment (after payment you will have to pay this bill only in bitcoin and interest paid in bitcoin later)
The problem now is too many people would choose to pay with worthless things like option A) and B) and lots of people would rather be hoarders of bitcoin and hold bitcoin as a store of value. Can the community band together and introduce scaling so Bitcoin can be more like option A) and B)??
To summarize: Action MUST be taken now otherwise people will hoard and keep on holding bitcoin. This will be a problem because bitcoin price will always be higher every 5 years for future. It will become too expensive and people who hold bitcoin will be able to buy too many things like houses and cars and airline tickets and company stocks.
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin IS NOT ANONYMOUS and is basically a dream-come-true for records available to police globally and agencies equivelent to FBI & IRS to have freely accessible bitcoin ledger data that will not change and can be used in a court against you. No need to subpoena private banks or for them to request you provide the records. its PUBLIC, just need to match some IP data/telecom/username/login/geographical pattern data.
|
|
|
|
|
In the next 10 years, the new all-time-high of bitcoin will be somewhere between $4,000 and $12,000USD.
In the next 15 years the new all-time-high of bitcoin will be between $6,000 and $18,000USD.
|
|
|
|
|
Today, you will need to consistently hold on to approximately 150 bitcoin for 10 years to be safely worth well over $1million-USD.
|
|
|
|
|
Do you think there would ever be a time the CIA or some central-authority-agency would in someway sponsor activities that would hurt Bitcoin's image in the world?
What do you think?
|
|
|
|
Scalability problems is the main problem that bitcoin will face if the community will decide to accept segwit. I am not against segwit but there are just some things that segwit needs to settle before they can start with bitcoin and that I say is the problem on scalability. Bitcoin unlimited on the other hand is nice but there are many errors and bugs and so it is much safer to stick with segwit as long as they can find a way to settle the problem on scalability.
Xester, thank you but it sounds to me that you are saying everything you mentioned has a problem? The proven option with least problems and the solution to the world's money/store of value problem is and has always been bitcoin. |
|
|
|
What you really have to do is compare this to the number of times SWIFT has been hacked.
The plumbing of today's financial world is extremely leaky. What you need is a new solution like Bitcoin, not patchy fixes.
So are you saying fiat systems are just too easy in comparison, therefore its more time-efficient to hack fiat SWIFT network and things like credit cards...and hackers have found it to be a waste of time/effort to get any success hacking Bitcoin's blockchain? |
|
|
|
|
@Wind_Fury would you not consider those who buy and hold to be considered use?
If people buy and hold stocks
or buy and hold gold
or buy and hold real estate
this should also not be considered use?
A question for anyone else; so if there are 950 individuals buy to simply hold bitcoin, represented by 950 transactions, but there were 50 individuals doing either dark market or spam transactions stuff with 10,000 transactions - in this scenario bitcoin's use is more for what?
|
|
|
|
|
Or is what was written above completely incorrect and resources can be provided of successful hacks of exploiting Bitcoin's blockchain rendering the Bitcoin network less valuable?
Please share thoughts?
|
|
|
|
So what you are saying is that, he potentially is a scam artist who tried to fool the non saavy. What a clown really, if true.
reason being is without ever having any PRIVATE keys. he simply copied a load of early PUBLIC KEYS which he knew would not move funds because they were the satoshi stash that had not moved in the couple years before he copied them. he got a friend to set up a trust. and notorise the PUBLIC keys as the "proof" of collateral (first fraud) he then insured that trust (second fraud) for a large valuation to 'legitimise' the trust. then he used that trust to get MILLIONS from the australian government (third fraud) then he used the new valuation of the trust + australian tax grants to grab further investments (fourth fraud(and now playing a shell / ponzi game)) .. in 2015 the auzzie government smelled a rat and chased him. he fled the country and ended up in england. he thought he can save himself by trying to convince media that he was satoshi to then use media stories as 'proof of identity' (fifth fraud) to hope it would make the auzzie government to back down.. it failed because within hours of showing: MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl13VT C3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4= people recognised it was old public accessible data now he is trying to create and apply for patents to try making new collateral to fill the void of old collateral(fraud1-2) hoping it will be enough to sell the new collateral to cover all the legal costs and debt/civil fines and reimbursments he will have to pay the aussie government if ever extradited back to australia .. now you should be upto date with all the drama +1. Everyone should read Franky's post here. Satoshi N. was in my opinion David K. who died in 2013. Is it kinda weird, that death spurned a big surge in price that month? No one knew that David K.'s death meant the destruction of supply of bitcoin because his death meant destruction of the private keys....right? ...I mean wouldn't htat mean almost 1million in less supply of bitcoin? |
|
|
|
I don't think it is correct to say so in respect to Bitcoin
If you mean low price volatility by being stagnant, of course. Stagnant prices typically mean there is no active trading or circulation of the coin. It is a completely different story when we see a dynamic equilibrium where plenty of supply gets balanced by plenty of demand. I guess you can hardly call such a coin a stagnant one. Other than that, these equilibriums are usually short-lived and they don't last long, and the longer they last the stronger will be the next price movement (a major rule of trading basics)
Very true, what happens to dynamic equilibrium over time when central banks globally are issuing more fiat credit/supply? More Philippino pesos, more US dollars, more Japanese Yen, more Russian Rubles, more Turkish Liras, more EU Euros... What does this mean for Bitcoin? |
|
|
|
All of these investments are great and can produce a lot of profits. I would suggest to invest in each one of them and you never know from where you will get more profit anytime.
What would be a suggested allocation? 20% bitcoin 20% real estate/house 20% stocks 20% government (fixed income) bonds 20% corporate (fixed income) bonds |
|
|
|
2012,2013,2014,2015,2016,2017... How can Bitcoin's blockchain be exploited? Anything we can do to help the hackerz? Can we perhaps make the blockchain more bloated so we have more central sources to attack? Can we change code to fatten the pipeline for a single block so we can cram more spam transactions? Why is the ledger still in tact and the system still secure despite Bitcoin being completely online and worth billions? Genius was spawned in 2009. For those curious beyond this post, here's more on bitcoin and its years of emergence as the ultimate store of value financial asset: Hacks & puppets & forks - how to destroy bitcoin: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1834310.0 |
|
|
|
I can't see a situation right now to see bitcoin die because instead of dying it will be on a progressive growth where each year there's a growth.
But let's give an example, if ever the whole world will make a total ban for bitcoin, the market will be keep on going but there is a chance that many investors and holders will let go.
And that will start bitcoin to be dead. But that's far to happen if we will think about it.
Exactly Bitcoin has been established (7+yrs), has vested interests globally (diverse places like Phillippines, Japan, Russia, Spain, China, USA, India), has an immutable transparent ledger, crypto-secured, decentralized system of checks with small blocks. It has destroyed spam attacks, daily hack attempts at some of the smartest hackers globally, and government attempts of bans. It has emerged as, (although volatile) the ultimate store of value. If curious, i detail the dynamics & reasons for this at this post: "Hacks & puppets & forks - how to destroy bitcoin" https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1834310.0 |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin has already defeated every regulation and government that tries to restrict it. And will automatically defeat all future attempts of regulation and governments.
Because by definition, since inception, through the future, defeats both.
|
|
|
|
Does anyone understand Bitcoin getting $50 billion market cap would still be largely trivial? Here you go see:  Image above is Visa vs Bitcoin vs Gold ETF vs S&P 500 stocks Bitcoin: +800+% Visa: +112% S&P 500 stocks: +50% Gold ETF: -(14%) I go into the dynamics of this and how money works in this post: "Hacks & puppets & forks - how to destroy bitcoin" https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1834310.0 |
|
|
|
1. (to address posts above) 30% of pools abstaining is really due to being smart and knowing nodes DO matter so no point flagging for something that a node wont fully validate/handle even if node can 'hotpotato game' a stripped block
solution: finally do a proper node+pool consensus and need 1 merkle. and while at it, go dynamic. = community happy
2. asicboost is not a harm its an efficiency gain. like ATI's openCL was. and the resulting hash is not fake but a valid hash that works and checks out. (ATI did not attack bitcoin in the GPU mining era, for analogy comparison)
3. mining hardware and asicboost predates segwit.. meaning miners didnt create an attack, segwit 'going soft' 2merkle tricks just isnt compatible
(a yet to be active bitcoin code failing due to ATI opencL incompatibility wouldnt of been blamed as a ATI openCL attack, for analogy comparison)
solution: segwit finally do a proper node+pool consensus and need 1 merkle. and while at it, go dynamic. = community happy
4. again miners hardware software efficiency 2015. segwit anyonecanspend backdoor exploit AFTER that. segwit code release october 2016. feb-march 2017 gmax finds a flaw in segwit and goes full wetard to blame miners(facepalm illogic).
today
rather than give in and do a better job with only 6 month old inactivated segwit software,
rather than give in and finally do a real full bitcoin network upgrade of 1merkle and keep all diverse nodes on level playingfield of a peer network
gmax wants to double down.
mandatory activation, remove pool efficiency but keep his 2 merkle TIER network control agenda
issue with gmax plan:
some outsider can start building a 600k blockheight chain privately using the asicboost. to get better chainwork.. then in a few years when bitcoin moves to a 1 merkle, they plop in their chain and take over, due to bitcoin being less efficient than the outsider during the 2merkle period.
solution. do a full proper node+pool consensus, go dynamic, keep the community happy and just let pools use the most efficient hashing methods ther are.
dont break the pools kneecaps just to force segwit tier network in.
P.S segwit using the anyonecanspend opcode backdoor exploit (AKA 'going soft') and suggesting that blockstream can add more backdoors (aka 'even easier to go soft') is allowing more risks of outsiders using those backdoors to slide in their own trojans undetectable to native nodes.
(if people take off their dev devotion hats, they will see it)
The last part that says: "P.S segwit using the anyonecanspend opcode backdoor exploit (AKA 'going soft') and suggesting that blockstream can add more backdoors (aka 'even easier to go soft') is allowing more risks of outsiders using those backdoors to slide in their own trojans undetectable to native nodes. (if people take off their dev devotion hats, they will see it)" Sounds like something that CIA, Ethereum foundation, elite hackers, and central banks would love to see. |
|
|
|
...The blocksize debate is a big issue...
Agree, maybe they should make blocksize smaller, maybe 750kb to strengthen Bitcoin's decentralization, reduce blockchain bloat and reduce capacity for transmission of spam. |
|
|
|
Agreed that both are valuable and both have their own unique features so the best thing would be to invest in both of them instead of depending only on one as gold will give good profits in long run and bitcoin can take care of short term profits depending on its price volatility.
More on bitcoin because the answer lay in this simple screenshot picture:  post-Christmas 2013 thru March 31, 2017: Breakdown of performance for that period (in USD terms): Bitcoin/USD: +80% S&P 500 Stocks: +30% Real Estate (REITs): +26% Gold: +3% Bonds: +1% I go into why this is and how fiat money around the world works in post: "Hacks & puppets & forks - how to destroy bitcoin" https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1834310.0 |
|
|
|
|
Sound about right? Thoughts?
Even those compensated to campaign against bitcoin on media, internet forums, conferences will be the ones that also buy bitcoin purely for survival.
For those compensated, they would be intelligent enough to see that such compensation paid by whomever to undermine bitcoin would shed light on the fact of how much funny fiat money there is and how expendible/unprecious it is. On the flip side, bitcoin is truly decentralized, immutable, scarce, and secured store of value and has been globally in use for many years. So much use already in all sorts of places including Sweden, Philippines, Russia, USA, India, Indonesia, China, Brazil.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
