|
March 05, 2016, 03:14:06 AM |
|
my assumption in 2012: 1) decentralized, owned by no central party, controlled by no central party 2) everyone involved would find a shop/restaurant in their town to get it to adopt bitcoin, or atleast find other nearby bitcoiners to group up and swarm a retailer 3) changing the 21mill cap would never happen or proposed or even questioned 4) people would accept bitcoin as a non-government currency and the only protection needed was consumer protection (ability to sue fraudsters) 5) scaling debate started 2 years prior with hopes of scaling up results in 2013 and 2015 and every couple years their after. 6) large push on charity and helping those in need (seans outpost etc)
my assumptions 2016: 1) controlled and manipulated by blockstream, any outsider code vetoed by blockstream 2) people sat on their hands wanting other people from different countries to some how convince the local shop in the complainers town to adopt bitcoin 3) a few blockstream fanboys has thought about changing the 21m cap 4) fraudsters get away with it and people are not suing them. instead they are crying out for governments to regulate and tax bitcoin direct 5) scaling debate started in 2010, but no real scaling is proposed until 2017 6) close minded capitalists wanting selfish VC funding and to manipulate bitcoin for their selfish desires
|