Bitcoin was clearly designed to fail around 2033 or so when ...
The first problem for us here is what to consider failure to go further.
Or better what we 2
both would consider failure to be precise.
I don't think we would (obvious extremes excluded) agree on fail/win on many outcomes that could happen. Not many people in bitcoin here would agree with me on this either, but I don't arguing to win an argumentation or to change any opinions exept my own.
Myself, and most people outside bitcoin, don't see centralisation and gov controlled fiat as the devil. Once people make their first thoughts about fiat some begin to see just the nasty sides of it, but first impressions aren't always right. Someone smart can also spend his whole life thinking about economics and still get it worse and worse. That's the problem with economics as science, two people can devote their life to it and still won't end at the same viewpoint if they are just equally smart enough.
I like the dept system, fiat and capitalism, although I know their flaws all to well. IMHO they are NOT fundamentally fucked up (like communism is), but there are some parameters you are not supposed to mess with. Unfortunately we can't leave our fingers from exactly these parameters. Printing new money for no rational reason is one of them.
Bitcoin can't be abused by "generate 10MBTC because it's too expensive for exports now" or any other bullshit justification from a few hundred to make them even wealthier by screwing the rest. Miners don't generate new bitcoins, they are allowed to compete for ones already known by the market and exactly when . I think that's too restrictive than necessary, but far better than the current interpretation of fiat by central banks which will destroy USD,EUR,... and the wealth of billions of people.
I see crypto currencies as the first way mankind discoverd to prevent us to change our decisions made on how to handle these parameters. Real changes in a way that actually changes something to a cryptoprotocoll are extreme hard to make and every crypto is more likely to fail than to change. Once a set of rules has been agreed on we are most likely to stick to it since changes here are extreme expensive for an economy. It will be very extreme hard to decide on one valid set of rules to handle these parameters. The last time we faced a similiar decisition was capitalism vs communism. That was damm nasty back then and nearly ended in a draw. Both dead, or better said all dead.
Bitcoin has the first non changeable set of rules we could choose money to be. I belive it's among the most fucked up sets possible and it's (not technical or code whise) implementation sucks, f.e. rewarding early adopters like us all so extreme.
Wow, can't belive I got there just from the quote above.
Sorry for long post in wrong thread, but I don't want to start a new topic.
Btw, if you see a new altcoin that is being attacked with words by those who have a lot invested in Bitcoin, that should be an indication that the new altcoin is very good and a serious threat to Bitcoin. They won't bother to attack it otherwise. They will find all sorts of things to make you afraid to adopt it, such as how immature the implementation is, etc.. And everyone who doesn't adopt it, will be kicking themselves later.
It's wrong to conclude anything from the amount of negative feedback without considering quality of feedback at all.
People bashing altcoins because they are biased ("those who have a lot invested in Bitcoin") should be ignored only, they mislead.
Idiotic or biased feedback is sort of alike, but you wouldn't be whise to do always the oposite of an idiot. He could sometimes be right too.
Show Posts
