Hacks & puppets & forks - how to destroy bitcoin

[centralbanksequalsbombs]

bitcoin 101: https://youtu.be/Bhe61JaNFLU
history of money/centralbanks: https://vimeo.com/8757743 or link2 https://youtu.be/UrJGlXEs8nI

To any intelligent observer, it has been apparent that bitcoin’s primary use has emerged to be store of value/investment. Yes, bitcoin’s decentralized/permissionless solution to creating an immutable cryptographically secured database brings a vast array of different potential revolutionary applications not seen since the advent of the internet but again, the primary use has emerged to be store of value/investment. And bitcoin has been so good at this store of value thing that it has become detrimentally successful - enter the (well-funded) hacks and puppets…this includes attacks from the outside and from 'within' - some of which includes spread of (FUD) tangent ideas with coders, media, investors, and within bitcoin community to maybe start an idea of even slight corrupted/inefficient change.

First, please realize no other tool in modern-day finance has been so successful at being an effective savings mechanism which unlike traditional ‘savings accounts’ this bitcoin actually keeps up in value for you to be able to afford higher cost of rent, education, healthcare, vacations, etc. over time due to the permanently broken central banks system in the world (combined this with the contrast of Bitcoin's beautiful combination of scarcity-a ceiling of 21mill coins, immutable, decentralized, permissionless->not controlled/influenced, opensource, most secure hashing power, and being established/developed & liquid). This effective savings tool of bitcoin is made accessible to the 99% of us and cuts to the core of exposing the flaw of the central bank fiat system with its funny-money creation out of thin air paper/credit-currencies benefiting the privileged institutions and then last to benefit would be the rest of us. Over time, bitcoin exposes the corrupt....It exposes the flaws of fraudulent funneling of extra credit/paper-currencies created by central banks (the yuan, us dollar, euro, indian ruppee etc)…now think, even those privy to any fraudulent funneling of funny-money (for example funds used to subvert/attack bitcoin), any of these individuals will see what’s going on and understand something like bitcoin as an alternative being effectively immune to games like creating fiat out of thin air (to fund attacks at whims of bankers)....even these individuals, these 'bad-actors' themselves would...buy bitcoin! Bitcoin changes the paradigm of central-bank funny-money (Bitcoin is the anti-funny-money warrior: open & fair)…and it has taken off…and in 2013 this caught the attention of the central banks who by definition, have nearly unlimited systemic resources and influence (think governments, centralized search engines / webcrawlers, monopolies on centralized telecoms ISP providers, hardware/chip manufacturers, software developers, "banking relationships", centralized social media platforms, exchange conartists).

Even if a protocol corruption of Bitcoin does not happen anytime in the next couple of years, it’s the threat that an attack on this pure beautiful store of value system to become slightly different raises the question…is it possible that someday that the groups influencing bitcoin (those controlling mining or those involved with coding development, or the rest users that buy/transacting in bitcoin) would (either out of ignorance/misunderstanding or out of vested-interest to undermine bitcoin) start demanding (even slight corrupted) changes that may contradict the store-of-value that bitcoin is???

That is the big question...that if the answer starts looking like yes…then value would plummet as bitcoin no longer be seen as a store of value but would eventually turn into another alt coin (i.e. Bcash, Dash, Ethereum) that can do many amazing things but not the primary one store-value that attracts a real market as it has these past few years. This scenario would cause the price to be zero-bound (compared to what we’ve been accustomed to with bitcoin today).

If the answer to that question is no (that you reading this, this community, software coders, mining operators, investors, everyday folk, work to stay educated on the above and act to keep the integrity of this bitcoin system and our computing access)…then even a $50 billion market cap would still be seen as trivial in the financial assets arena where one bitcoin can easily go multiples above $5,000 USD...as the years pack on and integrity remains intact, the price would be infinity-bound.

It is appropriate at this point to bring back some old-school sentiments: proudhon song: link1 (https://vid.me/Jvql) or link2 (https://youtu.be/A7TuFy0fcuw)

How can a $50 billion market cap be trivial or seen as under-the-radar?
see here: updated link (http://www.visualcapitalist.com/worlds-money-markets-one-visualization-2017/)
[old]link1 (http://i1.wp.com/money.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/all-the-worlds-money-and-markets.png?w=1346) or [old] link2 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/75/9b/63/759b63f98e8569498bee62738fda954b.jpg)

These ideas are kinda interesting (or i think you’re a paranoid idiot), can you point me to better presentable information about bitcoin i can share with others?
Bitcoin 101: link1 (https://youtu.be/Bhe61JaNFLU)

What about bigger block-size?
If there were attackers spamming transactions, it is a lot more digestible to withstand 1mb blocks, but bigger blocks could open door for bigger spam, larger bloat of the blockchain - hindering small folk and consolidate power to the well resourced.
Also, say if most the mining competition were to go-away for some reason, you or myself can take a standard mining hardware and internet connection and be able to mine-away with a 1mb block.
..if you were to multiply this to 8mb block, or even larger, this becomes a lot more difficult over time and our standard internet connections would begin to be much less adept for throughput required.
Such a move in block-size would again consolidate power to the well-resourced.
hack.

What about “scalability” doing many many fast-transactions/lightning network?
Lightning network on Bitcoin will address any complaints over scaling, it is slowly being rolled out beginning in 2018. Even aside from this, there are many options for 'scaling' and none of them have to involve changing bitcoin. With fiat you have outside counterparties assigning responsibility for fast coffee transactions, i.e. Visa network or MasterCard network. Come up with a counterparty solution or let another coin become a credit-card or have a startup either become a trusted solution or develop a sidechain or some trustless solution.
Last I checked, its been clear that many of us around the world have been able to send/receive bitcoin with no issue - as so many of our friends have been doing in Japan, India, Russia, Greece, America, China, Nigeria, various South American countries, the UK. all around the world bitcoin transactions have been happening for already for years and are happening even as i type this.
Fully On-chain scalability "solutions" forced upon bitcoin protocol code would destroy bitcoin’s primary use of store of value.
Myth: "Bitcoin doesn't scale" - LOL
hack.
(Segwit is okay but not Segwit2x or any other useless derivative forks)

A way to manipulate bitcoin price bids/demand would be to release and popularize services around the world that has users do the number one big NO-NO for Bitcoin, has users trust another entity to hold custody of their bitcoin. Today, you see many examples of that where users are keeping their Bitcoin in exchanges which exposes them to hacks, or many services that do not allow users transfer ability of the Bitcoin; examples:
Traded Bitcoin Futures (cash settled and they dont give bitcoin delivery!)
Revolut
Square Cash App
Circle Invest App
Robinhood
Many other 'custody' examples in developing countries
hack.
Stay away and secure/safely backup your own Bitcoin in your own wallet.
A bigger supply can be used to flood market for short selling supply if there's any degree of certainty of an amount of bitcoin that wont be touched at these custodial entities. Ever wonder how Gold and other commodity prices are manipulated?
DO NOT LEAVE YOUR BITCOIN ON COINBASE


Priceless info on how money and central banks work: the money masters: link1 (https://vimeo.com/8757743) or link2 (https://youtu.be/UrJGlXEs8nI)
Competition is good. centralized control/monopolies are bad.
One random tidbit from this was the last big country that successfully eliminated a central bank (and did this multiple times) has been…believe it or not, America. But the most recent establishment of a central bank in America, called the 'Federal Reserve' has sunk its claws in for now over 100 years.
If you want more, listen to lectures or read from the great Murray Rothbard (https://www.mises.org/profile/murray-n-rothbard)

What about ethereum with that ether?
ethereum is an amazing application/contract technology and funding tool for mainly scam ICOs which now in 2018 is being cracked down upon by the SEC, i'd suggest it not as a use for store of value like bitcoin. two different things. ethereum is permissioned allowing central-authority styled intervention at times by key stakeholders/groups…. but bitcoin is permissionless, decentralized control…pure to word immutable and doesn't have such key stakeholders groups that can hijack the network/protocol.

What about this other alt-coin or blockchain?
Most are scams - lookup discussions on altcoins/scamcoins. I’m seeing an article via google with title “99% of blockchain startups are bullshit”

WHERE ARE THE TRUSTLESS DECENTRALIZED EXCHANGES?
Any others picking up ground besides locabitcoins? talk about lack of options!
[edit] ...or is decentralized exchange almost here? https://cointelegraph.com/news/segwit-first-steps-to-ecosystem Cross-Chain Atomic Swaps (pick any two? LTC-DCR-VTC-BTC)

Who was Satoshi Nakamoto?
In my opinion the brains behind the team Satoshi Nakamoto lay in someone who was a very modest, gifted, and a generous handicapped man.
EVERYTHING makes sense if David Kleiman was Satoshi Nakamoto. Here’s why: (https://seebitcoin.com/2016/05/everything-makes-sense-if-david-kleiman-was-satoshi-nakamoto-heres-why/)


Never trust another person or company or exchange with your bitcoin. see mt. gox, cryptsy, shutdown China-exchanges, many other scams.


hacks (these people may have been well-meaning previously...but people change...):
Mike Hearn : “the "Bitcoin experiment" has "failed." goes on to Ethereum an app coin.
Hearn - Big Bank Bitcoin Bully - https://medium.com/@tradertimm/hearn-big-bank-bitcoin-bully-c61531c082e#.okh9viyze
Craig Wright - desperately claimed to be Satoshi & then flees fraud trying to file a bunch of IP patents! LOL!
Mark Karpeles
Paul Vernon
Josh Garza
Roger Ver
Jeff Garzik (2017 recent; hard forking BTC1 / segwit2x)
"Jeff Garzik wants you to connect to his Bitcoin transaction analytics (spy) company Skry, by default, in the SegWit2x fork. Jeff is a sneaky snake!":https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6n9grc/jeff_garzik_wants_you_to_connect_to_his_bitcoin/
Barry Silbert (and his DCG portfolio of companies-ie Coinbase, Bitpay, sponsoring ilk of Jeff Garzik characters)

Even if you never to touch a bitcoin, please consider keeping your deposits with a smaller community bank or credit union and NOT any of the larger banks in your country. a shift in deposits, go a long way in control and power.

BTC1HXUWBD28MgYs3iQzkbT5UkfteSrrYX7ng

Please feel free to copy/share this post in its entirety.

Bitcoin reached escape velocity 5-years ago in 2013 which means it cannot be stopped - cannot make it illegal or legal - governments/banks do not matter. Bitcoin cannot be controlled.

On the opposite end of the spectrum the global fiat system broke a couple of decades ago.
Fiat currencies around the world is heavily infested with (whether good or bad):
-inflating fiat to keep house-prices from collapsing
-inflating fiat to keep stock market rising
-financing conflicts, bombs, missiles/aircraft/embassies, and "aid"
-frivolous legal costs (systemic resources wasted on legal threats, settlements, lawsuits bogging down system)
-regulatory burden on fiat banks & system (incredibly costly, lots of labor for each $1 in circulation)
-backstopping insurance frauds
-costs of auditors and budgetors and accountants checking the same thing over in governments and businesses (& still suspect)
-big insurance loss-events
-unemployment & other welfare costs
-stabilize regions after natural disasters
-keeping monopolies with internet access and information centralized and search engine crawlers centralized
-officially sponsored "money laundering"
-backstopping credit chargebacks
-state-sponsored corruption and unofficial corruption (governments and gangs, banks and conartists)
-retirement obligations (debasement in value to keep up with payments from government or other retirement-obligations)
-fake credit (goods being transacted with credit-loss, replaced by inflation of monetary base rather than bringing perpetrators & source to justice)
-using enforcement labor to freeze accounts and assets and take away your money

Bitcoin, systemically, is free from these burdens.

(longtime reader, first time poster)
Hope is here
https://youtu.be/ip4Q1pbrYDg  - Avicii Broken Arrows

[1714770150]

1714770150

[centralbanksequalsbombs]

Worth adding to the above:
Why Bitcoin Will Get Scaling Without Segwit or Large Blocks: https://medium.com/@jimmysong/why-bitcoin-will-get-scaling-without-segwit-or-large-blocks-772799fab021#.loz3dwnlt

[centralbanksequalsbombs]

Also worth noting, in the past, or today, or in the future there always has been or will be the FUD spreaders saying things like "bitcoin is FLAWED or it needs to be fixed and something needs to be done now!"

hacks.
No, no, no. Bitcoin has worked (in the past, in the present as you read this, and in the future) more beautifully than any of the most optimistic expectations of it from years ago. Worldwide, the ledger has remained intact.

Those in the FUD camp realize the lack of holding-value strength if they were to go into altcoins (alternative cryptocurrencies)...as there's simply no better store of value/investment than Bitcoin. Thus they come knocking on Bitcoin's door, for whatever reason to undermine it, trying to slightly change it into something it isn't.

[HabBear]

Honest, TL:DR.

But the fork is not new news. If the fork is about providing bigger pipes to enable bigger transactions, what's the problem?

Everyone agains the fork feels like people that would rather continuing riding horses when the car was invented.

What am I missing?

[lordquanta]

as far as fork is concerned then there are some who are arguing that exchanges will treat fork will create two coins BTC and BTU. The BTU will be recognized as alt coin and NOT as bitcoin. However layman will not be able to understand the difference and might create confusion. This is will create FUD in consumer market ultimately  stopping people from using bitcoin altogether.

[centralbanksequalsbombs]

Honest, TL:DR.

But the fork is not new news. If the fork is about providing bigger pipes to enable bigger transactions, what's the problem?

Everyone agains the fork feels like people that would rather continuing riding horses when the car was invented.

What am I missing?

HabBear, thank you for posting but how in the world does what you write tie to the narrative I posted for this thread? Did you skip alot of the reading?

Maybe you can clear up your own question from what I wrote above? Please let me know if there's a point you want elaboration on.

[Hydrogen]

Excellent post, Central.

I have a few questions, if you don't mind answering them.

bitcoin actually keeps up in value for you to be able to afford higher cost of rent, education, healthcare, vacations, etc. (due to its beautiful combination of scarcity, a ceiling of 21mill coins, immutable, permissionless->not controlled/influenced, secure, and being established/developed).

is it possible that someday that the groups influencing bitcoin (those controlling mining or those involved with coding development, or the rest buy/transacting in bitcoin) would (either out of ignorance/misunderstanding or out of vested-interest to undermine bitcoin) start demanding (even slight) changes that may contradict the store-of-value that bitcoin is???

That is the big question that if the answer starts looking like yes…then value would plummet as bitcoin no longer be seen as a store of value but would eventually turn into another app coin (i.e. Ethereum) that can do many amazing things but not the one store-value amazing thing that it has done these past few years. the price would be zero-bound (compared to what we’ve been accustomed to with bitcoin today).

The price of litecoin has historically been low in comparison to Dash or Ethereum.

Could litecoin's lower price be attributed to its lack of scarcity? Litecoin's 84 million coin cap versus Dash 15 mill.

There's a youtube clip where Roger Ver of bitcoin unlimited says he wants to make bitcoin *more* available to everyone worldwide, to a point where its normal for people to use btc to buy coffee:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIA8w5tfr70

There are also some who support transforming btc into a global currency.

This might be interpreted to imply, their goal is to eventually uncap the btc hard limit on coins and increase supply, which would reduce scarcity.

Am I right in thinking, if reducing scarcity didn't work well for litecoin, it could be catastrophic for btc?

Am I incorrect in thinking a higher btc cap would be necessary for bitcoin to be a truly globalized currency?

The concept of btc globalization seems opposed to some of the points you made.

What about bigger block-size?
If there were attackers spamming transactions, it is a lot more digestible to withstand 1mb blocks, but bigger blocks could open door for bigger spam, larger bloat of the blockchain - hindering small folk and consolidate power to the well resourced.
Also, say if most the mining competition were to go-away for some reason, you or myself can take a standard computer and internet connection and be able to mine-away with a 1mb block.
..if you were to double this to 2mb block, or even larger, this becomes a lot more difficult over time and our standard internet connections would begin to be much less adept for throughput required.
such a move in block-size would again consolidate power to the well-resourced.

Very interesting points!

[Xester]

Excellent post, Central.

I have a few questions, if you don't mind answering them.

bitcoin actually keeps up in value for you to be able to afford higher cost of rent, education, healthcare, vacations, etc. (due to its beautiful combination of scarcity, a ceiling of 21mill coins, immutable, permissionless->not controlled/influenced, secure, and being established/developed).

is it possible that someday that the groups influencing bitcoin (those controlling mining or those involved with coding development, or the rest buy/transacting in bitcoin) would (either out of ignorance/misunderstanding or out of vested-interest to undermine bitcoin) start demanding (even slight) changes that may contradict the store-of-value that bitcoin is???

That is the big question that if the answer starts looking like yes…then value would plummet as bitcoin no longer be seen as a store of value but would eventually turn into another app coin (i.e. Ethereum) that can do many amazing things but not the one store-value amazing thing that it has done these past few years. the price would be zero-bound (compared to what we’ve been accustomed to with bitcoin today).

The price of litecoin has historically been low in comparison to Dash or Ethereum.

Could litecoin's lower price be attributed to its lack of scarcity? Litecoin's 84 million coin cap versus Dash 15 mill.

There's a youtube clip where Roger Ver of bitcoin unlimited says he wants to make bitcoin *more* available to everyone worldwide, to a point where its normal for people to use btc to buy coffee:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIA8w5tfr70

There are also some who support transforming btc into a global currency.

This might be interpreted to imply, their goal is to eventually uncap the btc hard limit on coins and increase supply, which would reduce scarcity.

Am I right in thinking, if reducing scarcity didn't work well for litecoin, it could be catastrophic for btc?

Am I incorrect in thinking a higher btc cap would be necessary for bitcoin to be a truly globalized currency?

The concept of btc globalization seems opposed to some of the points you made.

What about bigger block-size?
If there were attackers spamming transactions, it is a lot more digestible to withstand 1mb blocks, but bigger blocks could open door for bigger spam, larger bloat of the blockchain - hindering small folk and consolidate power to the well resourced.
Also, say if most the mining competition were to go-away for some reason, you or myself can take a standard computer and internet connection and be able to mine-away with a 1mb block.
..if you were to double this to 2mb block, or even larger, this becomes a lot more difficult over time and our standard internet connections would begin to be much less adept for throughput required.
such a move in block-size would again consolidate power to the well-resourced.

Very interesting points!

They are not going to increase the number of bitcoin in the circulation but without doing that we can still buy a cup of coffee using bitcoins. But that will only happen if the confirmation rate will be much faster than before and the miners fee will be lesser and reasonable. Anyway bitcoin is already a global currency since it can cross borders all around the world but it will never replace the fiat currency.

[Hydrogen]

They are not going to increase the number of bitcoin in the circulation but without doing that we can still buy a cup of coffee using bitcoins. But that will only happen if the confirmation rate will be much faster than before and the miners fee will be lesser and reasonable. Anyway bitcoin is already a global currency since it can cross borders all around the world but it will never replace the fiat currency.

I like what OP said on that, here:

What about “scalability” doing many many fast-transactions/lightning network?
there are many options and none of them have to involve changing bitcoin. with fiat you have outside counterparties assigning responsibility for fast coffee transactions, i.e. Visa network or MasterCard network. Come up with a counterparty solution or let another coin become a credit-card or have a startup either become a trusted solution or develop a sidechain or some trustless solution.
Last i checked, its been clear that many of us around the world have been able to send/receive bitcoin with no issue - as so many of our friends have been doing in Japan, India, Russia, Greece, America, China, Nigeria, various South American countries, the UK. all around the world bitcoin transactions have been happening for already for years and are happening even as i type this.
“scalability” forced upon bitcoin would destroy bitcoin’s primary use of store of value.
hack.

They make very good points about bitcoin primarily being a holder of value with stability being a key element of that and lightning transactions being better suited to alt coins or 3rd party solutions.

[centralbanksequalsbombs]

Excellent post, Central.

I have a few questions, if you don't mind answering them.
...
The price of litecoin has historically been low in comparison to Dash or Ethereum.

Could litecoin's lower price be attributed to its lack of scarcity? Litecoin's 84 million coin cap versus Dash 15 mill.

There's a youtube clip where Roger Ver of bitcoin unlimited says he wants to make bitcoin *more* available to everyone worldwide, to a point where its normal for people to use btc to buy coffee:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIA8w5tfr70

There are also some who support transforming btc into a global currency.

This might be interpreted to imply, their goal is to eventually uncap the btc hard limit on coins and increase supply, which would reduce scarcity.

Am I right in thinking, if reducing scarcity didn't work well for litecoin, it could be catastrophic for btc?

Am I incorrect in thinking a higher btc cap would be necessary for bitcoin to be a truly globalized currency?

The concept of btc globalization seems opposed to some of the points you made.
...

Hydrogen! Welcome, and thank you for your participation here.
Here goes:
-ding ding ding! YES! You found one of the special ways to destroy bitcoin, uncap coin-limit; you do this once, then current holders and would-of-been buyers would ask themselves what if there is another more substantial limit increase again in future, and they will all dump in time (not necessarily instantaneously). Bitcoin will be lost in the sea of altcoins and no longer be so unique and different.

Other points:
-Bitcoin has been globalized for years, and this 'globalization' is increasing (during this time BTC coin-limit cap didn't change)
-Bitcoin is divisible to very very small minute fractions. If one Bitcoin were $1 million, me and you can still trade goods in exchange for $10-worth (tiny fraction) of that "expensive" bitcoin 
-A currency: have we all been misled to believe that the money we hold and save is meant to buy less in the future? That is if we have money, we must buy stuff now because that stuff will be more expensive in the future?
-Bitcoin is a currency, it is a 'deflationary currency', limitied in supply so bitcoin goes up in value if there's monetary (fiat) inflation
-Can a sound, store-of-value, unmanipulated deflationary currency go down in value? Yes if the central banks dry up and contract the money supply (this is what they do, they create booms and busts, bubbles and pops), then money would be very scarce where prices would crash for stocks, real estate, commodities, and also deflationary currency (maybe) these things would go down in value and you will see the fiat, like the US Dollar be worth more instead of less. These events don't happen often. It is possible for these to be quick, or be very long, maybe surpass a decade.

[centralbanksequalsbombs]

Could litecoin's lower price be attributed to its lack of scarcity? Litecoin's 84 million coin cap versus Dash 15 mill.

@Hydrogen, yes, coin caps play a role. Litecoin, Dash, and also (someone correct me if Im wrong) Ehtereum actually has no set coin-cap (at some point in time in the future, it would lead me to believe that itll behave more like the Euro, US dollar, etc having monetary inflation and with time will biy less goods & services). Please let me know if this helps or not.

[Searing]

Well bitcoin core seems not to be worried...status quo...see article below

http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-on-developers-arent-worried-about-fork/

So if someone can pry bitcoin away from bitcoin core's dead hands fine.till then with only 30% of the market and a hostile
fork it looks to me like they are simply going to ignore the problem and putter along at 1mb blocks etc at their own pace
anyway...price is a non issue..

well cheap coins I guess...hell this kinda stalemate of future of btc this 'what is your bitcoin dev flavor' approach this could go on for 2 more years imho

yeck

[Hydrogen]

Hydrogen! Welcome, and thank you for your participation here.
Here goes:
-ding ding ding! YES! You found one of the special ways to destroy bitcoin, uncap coin-limit; you do this once, then current holders and would-of-been buyers would ask themselves what if there is another more substantial limit increase again in future, and they will all dump in time (not necessarily instantaneously). Bitcoin will be lost in the sea of altcoins and no longer be so unique and different.

Other points:
-Bitcoin has been globalized for years, and this 'globalization' is increasing (during this time BTC coin-limit cap didn't change)
-Bitcoin is divisible to very very small minute fractions. If one Bitcoin were $1 million, me and you can still trade goods in exchange for $10-worth (tiny fraction) of that "expensive" bitcoin 
-A currency: have we all been misled to believe that the money we hold and save is meant to buy less in the future? That is if we have money, we must buy stuff now because that stuff will be more expensive in the future?
-Bitcoin is a currency, it is a 'deflationary currency', limitied in supply so bitcoin goes up in value if there's monetary (fiat) inflation
-Can a sound, store-of-value, unmanipulated deflationary currency go down in value? Yes if the central banks dry up and contract the money supply (this is what they do, they create booms and busts, bubbles and pops), then money would be very scarce where prices would crash for stocks, real estate, commodities, and also deflationary currency (maybe) these things would go down in value and you will see the fiat, like the US Dollar be worth more instead of less. These events don't happen often. It is possible for these to be quick, or be very long, maybe surpass a decade.

I held off responding hoping others would reply to the thread.

You make a lot of excellent points. I wish I had something to contribute but not so much.

If I was to apply an economic model to this discussion, I would aim for a type of thermoeconomic context. I believe that's the future and the best model to use.

But to be honest, I'm an amateur when it comes to economics/markets/trading & I've been severely slacking off for a long time now.

[centralbanksequalsbombs]

I held off responding hoping others would reply to the thread.

You make a lot of excellent points. I wish I had something to contribute but not so much.

If I was to apply an economic model to this discussion, I would aim for a type of thermoeconomic context. I believe that's the future and the best model to use.

But to be honest, I'm an amateur when it comes to economics/markets/trading & I've been severely slacking off for a long time now.

To the point of economics/markets/trading, look at the practical use-case of Bitcoin; a global store of value asset that may be transmitted via a communications channel.

To illustrate how global, I asked which country people were from in this small forum, of those who spoke out, in two days the following tally;
9 responded from Phillippines
5 responded from Indonesia
3 responded from India
2 responded from USA
1 from Ukraine
1 from Bangladesh
1 from East Timor

the above was a count of posters from here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1853019.0

[dwieyani]

I just know menghasil something of bitcoin

[Hydrogen]

To the point of economics/markets/trading, look at the practical use-case of Bitcoin; a global store of value asset that may be transmitted via a communications channel.

To illustrate how global, I asked which country people were from in this small forum, of those who spoke out, in two days the following tally;
9 responded from Phillippines
5 responded from Indonesia
3 responded from India
2 responded from USA
1 from Ukraine
1 from Bangladesh
1 from East Timor

the above was a count of posters from here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1853019.0

Its awesome to see how bitcoin has gained a worldwide presence & is increasingly becoming a currency of the people.

Some say the golden days of crypto are far gone, but those results make me excited for cryptos future.

I don't think crypto is truly mainstream yet & don't know if it ever will be, but these results are exciting.

[Xester]

They are not going to increase the number of bitcoin in the circulation but without doing that we can still buy a cup of coffee using bitcoins. But that will only happen if the confirmation rate will be much faster than before and the miners fee will be lesser and reasonable. Anyway bitcoin is already a global currency since it can cross borders all around the world but it will never replace the fiat currency.

I like what OP said on that, here:

What about “scalability” doing many many fast-transactions/lightning network?
there are many options and none of them have to involve changing bitcoin. with fiat you have outside counterparties assigning responsibility for fast coffee transactions, i.e. Visa network or MasterCard network. Come up with a counterparty solution or let another coin become a credit-card or have a startup either become a trusted solution or develop a sidechain or some trustless solution.
Last i checked, its been clear that many of us around the world have been able to send/receive bitcoin with no issue - as so many of our friends have been doing in Japan, India, Russia, Greece, America, China, Nigeria, various South American countries, the UK. all around the world bitcoin transactions have been happening for already for years and are happening even as i type this.
“scalability” forced upon bitcoin would destroy bitcoin’s primary use of store of value.
hack.

They make very good points about bitcoin primarily being a holder of value with stability being a key element of that and lightning transactions being better suited to alt coins or 3rd party solutions.

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.

[centralbanksequalsbombs]

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.

[Xester]

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.

Though bitcoins has been facing many problems and almost all solutions being provided have also many loopholes but it will not stop bitcoin from striving and developing itself. Bitcoin will remain stronger than ever and the secret behind that is the support of the community and users. Without the support of people who patronize bitcoin over other cryptocurrencies it would already be dead by now.

[AGD]

Satoshi ... is it you?