is bitcoin being intentionally destroyed via divide and conquer tactics?

[jonald_fyookball]

Most Bitcoiners accept the fact that Bitcoin is a threat
to the 'banksters', the authoritarians, the statists, the
old establishment, traditional money transfer companies,
and it has many enemies, so it is not a huge leap of
the imagination to think some powerful group may
be trying to bring down Bitcoin.

Regardless of whether you support Core, or you support BU,
right now there is a situation where neither segwit or BU
is getting enough mining votes.

If this powerful (and well funded) outside group wanted to keep
us fighting with each other to cripple bitcoin, all they
would have to do is throw a little bit of money at some
cloud mining to ensure one side doesn't get too strong.
They'll keep us in a stalemate on purpose.

Even worse, they can continually re-invest the rewards
they make from mining, back into more mining.  They
will not make a profit, as cloud mining is rarely profitable,
but they can get close to a 100% ROI (break even).

So it almost costs nothing except tying up a few million
bucks for a little while.

If this is indeed what is happening,
we will never scale using the current approach.

The only way is if all the big players just meet and
have an agreement, like "we're activating segwit now"
or "we're going to 8mb now".

[unamis76]

I guess we will never know if there is a bigger power somehow pushing both sides in order to have a stalemate. Some say Blockstream is a big power for the Core side, and there might be or not be a big power on other sides.

However, in what regards users, I don't think there are divide and conquer tactics... We all know we'd lose with such tactics. I think that some people just don't want or can't broaden their knowledge and opinions, and only want to see their side... I assume most of them do this unintentionally. At least this is what I'd like to believe.

[manselr]

How else can TPTB kill bitcoin other than divide and conquer?

They buy the miners and make them fight against the majority of nodes.

This causes a lot of tensions which push us to a HF. A HF to inferior buggy software by a "chief scientist" that is approving of a 51% attack on the other network (of the team that they pretend to keep leching code from)

The whole thing is insanity. This HAS to be an attack. No rational actors would jeopardize the whole project like this (while blocking the solution). Notice how the biggest twitter idiots (Roger, Falkvinge or whatever the one eyed guy is called) are all crying about how they can no longer make "safe 0 conf transactions". Those guys don't understand anything.

[romero121]

The leading corporats of bitcoin might have tried the divide and conquer tactics to have a control on the network. But already bitcoin have overcome several such tactics. One of which is the statement revealed by the top management core developer who got out of bitcoin describing it an failed experiment and moved towards R3. At the same price fell in a short and soon after that price got recovered.

[jonald_fyookball]

The leading corporats of bitcoin might have tried the divide and conquer tactics to have a control on the network. But already bitcoin have overcome several such tactics. One of which is the statement revealed by the top management core developer who got out of bitcoin describing it an failed experiment and moved towards R3.

It is different this time because blocks got full, utility went down, companies are abandoning Bitcoin (Dell, Fiverr, etc) and people are leaving Bitcoin for alts.

[zimmah]

Ding ding ding, we have a winner.

This is exactly what is happening.

[QuestionAuthority]

Most Bitcoiners accept the fact that Bitcoin is a threat       
to the 'banksters', the authoritarians, the statists, the     
old establishment, traditional money transfer companies,       
and it has many enemies, so it is not a huge leap of                 
the imagination to think some powerful group may           
be trying to bring down Bitcoin.                                     

Regardless of whether you support Core, or you support BU,
right now there is a situation where neither segwit or BU
is getting enough mining votes.

If this powerful (and well funded) outside group wanted to keep
us fighting with each other to cripple bitcoin, all they
would have to do is throw a little bit of money at some
cloud mining to ensure one side doesn't get too strong.
They'll keep us in a stalemate on purpose.

Even worse, they can continually re-invest the rewards
they make from mining, back into more mining.  They
will not make a profit, as cloud mining is rarely profitable,
but they can get close to a 100% ROI (break even).

So it almost costs nothing except tying up a few million
bucks for a little while.

If this is indeed what is happening,
we will never scale using the current approach.

The only way is if all the big players just meet and
have an agreement, like "we're activating segwit now"
or "we're going to 8mb now".

What is this great threat? Circle can send money worldwide for less than bitcoin and uses the current banking establishment. Bitcoin has now proven it's completely incapable of handling even one - one thousandth of the transactions that flow through the ACH/EFT system every day. The New York BitLicense has proven governments can completely wipe bitcoin out of a market with the swift stroke of a pen. Transaction fees are now so high (and will go higher with every reward drop) that "traditional money transfer companies" are looking like a good deal again. Paperless contracts and data storage are looking like the best use of bitcoin (other than a day traders or scammers wet dream), why would the current banking establishment want to kill something that helps them out?

There's no evil outside influence attempting to kill bitcoin. All the little Nancy Mary liberal fucktards and bitcoin profiteers are doing a fine job of that all on their own.

[Kprawn]

People like Roger Ver will never side with the government < bankers & governments are working together > ... but I doubt if he even know how

he is being manipulated by the powers behind this. I can expect this from people like Mike Hearn and Gavin A.. but we will never know. You will

just have to go with your gut on this one. My gut is saying BTC core has been the driving force from the start and the hostility is coming from the

BU side. 

[thejaytiesto]

Bitcoin can never be a mainstream currency unless you want maximum regulations to be applied to it. Do we really want that?

If we don't, then we admit we are pirates, and we will need the network to be decentralized, which means that the nodes must be accessible for the average joe, which means if the blocksize is too big we are fucked.

[pbleak]

It's difficult to say whether this is actively or intentionally the case. Sometimes it reads more like people just being hella stubborn.

[jonald_fyookball]

Bitcoin can never be a mainstream currency unless you want maximum regulations to be applied to it. Do we really want that?

If we don't, then we admit we are pirates, and we will need the network to be decentralized, which means that the nodes must be accessible for the average joe, which means if the blocksize is too big we are fucked.

Then what's the fucking point of all this?  To just sit here and be cryptonerds?
How is Bitcoin going to be a great investment, or make the world a better place if its not going mainstream? 

[thejaytiesto]

Bitcoin can never be a mainstream currency unless you want maximum regulations to be applied to it. Do we really want that?

If we don't, then we admit we are pirates, and we will need the network to be decentralized, which means that the nodes must be accessible for the average joe, which means if the blocksize is too big we are fucked.

Then what's the fucking point of all this?  To just sit here and be cryptonerds?
How is Bitcoin going to be a great investment, or make the world a better place if its not going mainstream?  

Is gold mainstream (in terms of used as a currency?)
Does the fact that it isn't, make it a bad investment? (and with bitcoin, all things equal, the marketcap is so small that it's the same as getting in the gold rush at the beginning).
Is bitcoin insanely more convenient to use to move wealth in big distances than gold?

Please think.

[jonald_fyookball]

Bitcoin can never be a mainstream currency unless you want maximum regulations to be applied to it. Do we really want that?

If we don't, then we admit we are pirates, and we will need the network to be decentralized, which means that the nodes must be accessible for the average joe, which means if the blocksize is too big we are fucked.

Then what's the fucking point of all this?  To just sit here and be cryptonerds?
How is Bitcoin going to be a great investment, or make the world a better place if its not going mainstream?  

Is gold mainstream (in terms of used as a currency?)
Does the fact that it isn't, make it a bad investment? (and with bitcoin, all things equal, the marketcap is so small that it's the same as getting in the gold rush at the beginning).
Is bitcoin insanely more convenient to use to move wealth in big distances than gold?

Please think.

Gold was used as a currency for 4000 years.  Incomparable.  I'm going to stop arguing with you now because this is tangential to the thread and a distraction. thanks.

[rawbert]

I don't think bitcoin is a threat to banksters and the establishment.

I also don't think that bitcoin can or should be the best at everything.
Let bitcoin do the one thing that it's best at.
Other coins will compete and offer solutions for the rest.

[Ayers]

Ding ding ding, we have a winner.

This is exactly what is happening.

yeah and you think that who is making this strategy want his numbers of coins to lose value? lol, this sound stupid to me, nor miners nor dev from both side want this, bitcoin is on the contrary destroyed by greedy people, this is the real true

[hilariousandco]

I don't think it's being 'intentionally destroyed' but it's an obvious attempt at a power grab and I think the whole debacle could seriously damage bitcoin as a brand and put progress back several years. Money and greed ruin everything at the end of the day. Happens all the time in sports when businessmen get involved and they don't have the best interests of the team but want to maximise their power for their own profits. The block debate is just the same. The big businesses and miners obviously want whatever they think is going to give them more power to control bitcoin and they will make these decisions on not what is best for bitcoin but what will lead to more profits for them. Sad really but it's to be expected.

[ImHash]

Who says cloud mining is not profitable? if you invest a million in a legit cloud mining company you could profit a lot if the admins/owners stop stealing money from their clients, yes those legit services are stealing and I don't want to talk about that here.
I think increasing block size 250KB for time being would suffice to keep the fees down and whenever we have to pay a fee higher than $1 for a 225bytes  transaction and no one does anything to lower the fees is intentionally hurting the network.
I don't know where that 8MB blocks came from but for now 250KB is enough.

[jonald_fyookball]

You have to keep supply WELL in front of demand if you want to avoid artificial scarcity.
You want 1.25 MB?  You're even stingier than segwit. lol... unless of course you do
want artificial scarcity.

from /u/pyalot

And now you have to ask: How come those "entrusted" with Bitcoin stewardship:

    Are blind to Bitcoins killer app (sound money)
    Act to destroy its killer app (centrally planned block size cap)
    Seek no accomodation with the community to preserve and grow Bitcoins killer App (BS-core refusal to budge even the tiniest bit no matter what)

And when you ask the question how any rational person would long since have sought to remedy the ills that afflict Bitcoin today, you can only conclude that:

    They are not rational at all, not a single one of them
    Or that they are rational (at least some of them)

And when you conclude that option #2 (they are rational) is true, you have to ask: What rational is there to destroy bitcoin, and why would they go along with it?

And when you ask this question, you have to conclude:

    Something does not like Bitcoin and wants to destroy it
    Those stewards of Bitcoin acting rationally to destroy it have been corrupted by something offering them greater benefit than keeping bitcoin alive.

And when you have to conclude the above two things, you have to conclude that:

    Bitcoin is being attacked from the outside
    By corrupting people inside Bitcoin to destroy it

And when you arrive at that conclusion, you know Bitcoin is fucked if it gives up (because then it will lose this fight). But you will also realize that if Bitcoin fails, any other cryptocurrency is also fucked, because then it can just be threatened with "being bitcoined" and submit to any demands or be destroyed.

And that's why everybody (including all the Ethereum-tards) should take a stand around Bitcoin, and see it succeed. Because if they don't, the ensure their own downfall.

[beerlover]

Who says cloud mining is not profitable? if you invest a million in a legit cloud mining company you could profit a lot if the admins/owners stop stealing money from their clients, yes those legit services are stealing and I don't want to talk about that here.
I think increasing block size 250KB for time being would suffice to keep the fees down and whenever we have to pay a fee higher than $1 for a 225bytes  transaction and no one does anything to lower the fees is intentionally hurting the network.
I don't know where that 8MB blocks came from but for now 250KB is enough.

What actually makes cloud mining not profitable is the trust of people, apart from starting a mining is expensive because you have to buy a decent machine to actually do something considering how hard mining is and pay the electric bill, people have lost trust in the cloud mining industry after so many disappointments and scam fraud incidents, that took the community by storm, like hash ocean, people don’t want to take the risk ever again.