Redpill: Bitcoin is the only chance we have at a cryptographic wealth reserve

[cellard]

Looks like there's a bunch of idiots out there that still don't understand Bitcoin's unique property is about storing wealth outside of the system, not paying coffees with it.

This is good insight by Tone Vays:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Spm589JGcug&t=19m06s

The fact that they want to get rid of people being able to run full validating nodes with the excuse of paying lower fees kills the property of a real peer to peer currency/asset.

Those that are getting paid to kill Bitcoin's network effect want to end Bitcoin's #1 property: a decentralized crypto wealth reserve. No one will ever trust crypto as a store of value if Bitcoin fails, which is exactly what they want.

Wake the fuck up. Don't bring up satoshi said this or that, just think for once and look at the current state of things.

Listen from 19 minutes to 25 minutes+ for some good insight.

[pereira4]

Good points by Tone Vays. The people that think bitcoin is worth centralizing in order to pay coffees on the blockchain need to get their head checked and understand that without a solid, decentralized wealth reserve, the whole crypto thing is over, and bitcoin loses its gold type property without affordable full nodes.

[Nagadota]

Explain in reasonable terms why Litecoin would be worse as a cryptographic wealth reserve.

You can't, because it's the exact same thing except it's a halving behind and the coins are still being introduced more quickly relative to the current supply.

There's no serious reason why a currency can't be a store of value as well.  Most fiat holders regard their fiat to be a store of value even though it isn't.

[jonald_fyookball]

"Reserve currency status" stems from network effect.

There's nothing sacred about Bitcoin (unfortunately) other than perhaps the fact that it was the first cryptocurrency.

The network effect and adoption can and will be eroded if Bitcoin does not offer competitive benefits.

[OROBTC]

"Reserve currency status" stems from network effect.

There's nothing sacred about Bitcoin (unfortunately) other than perhaps the fact that it was the first cryptocurrency.

The network effect and adoption can and will be eroded if Bitcoin does not offer competitive benefits.

10-4.  I think of BTC as a Store of Value (similar to "Reserve currency status"), but with rapidly changing value...  (LOL?)

But, Bitcoin might LOSE all of this should the Miners and Developers not get their acts together.  They could kill Bitcoin.

And should that look like would happen, I will sell my BTC and just buy gold.

[25hashcoin]

"Reserve currency status" stems from network effect.

There's nothing sacred about Bitcoin (unfortunately) other than perhaps the fact that it was the first cryptocurrency.

The network effect and adoption can and will be eroded if Bitcoin does not offer competitive benefits.

Stupid argument. If bitcoin fails, no one will trust another crypto as store of value again and they will all run into the same political problems at bitcoins size. Same shit OP pointed out. This is the goal of shills like you. Too bad you shills are seriously completely out of arguments. It's pathetic.

#UASF = Make Bitcoin Great Again

[TheWallStreetCrew]

Explain in reasonable terms why Litecoin would be worse as a cryptographic wealth reserve.

You can't, because it's the exact same thing except it's a halving behind and the coins are still being introduced more quickly relative to the current supply.

There's no serious reason why a currency can't be a store of value as well.  Most fiat holders regard their fiat to be a store of value even though it isn't.

It would be no worse. However its prospects for going mainstream are the weakest of all the top  5 coins on CMC. Both factors contribut to value.

[jonald_fyookball]

"Reserve currency status" stems from network effect.

There's nothing sacred about Bitcoin (unfortunately) other than perhaps the fact that it was the first cryptocurrency.

The network effect and adoption can and will be eroded if Bitcoin does not offer competitive benefits.

Stupid argument. If bitcoin fails, no one will trust another crypto as store of value again and they will all run into the same political problems at bitcoins size. Same shit OP pointed out. This is the goal of shills like you. Too bad you shills are seriously completely out of arguments. It's pathetic.

#UASF = Make Bitcoin Great Again

Hopefully other cryptos will learn from Bitcoin's mistake to not have have scaling depend on forks.

UASF is a sybill attack in fancy packaging.  Go ahead, try it.

[25hashcoin]

"Reserve currency status" stems from network effect.

There's nothing sacred about Bitcoin (unfortunately) other than perhaps the fact that it was the first cryptocurrency.

The network effect and adoption can and will be eroded if Bitcoin does not offer competitive benefits.

Stupid argument. If bitcoin fails, no one will trust another crypto as store of value again and they will all run into the same political problems at bitcoins size. Same shit OP pointed out. This is the goal of shills like you. Too bad you shills are seriously completely out of arguments. It's pathetic.

#UASF = Make Bitcoin Great Again

Hopefully other cryptos will learn from Bitcoin's mistake to not have have scaling depend on forks.

UASF is a sybill attack in fancy packaging.  Go ahead, try it.

BS FUD

[davidmccoy]

Totally agree with the approach.

[MingLee]

This is something I've always been suspicious of, and I'm glad to see there are more people looking at Bitcoin as a way of storing value outside of the fiat system and not as a means of buying menial shit that holds little value beyond the instant it exists.
I enjoyed watching the video and I hope that there are more videos like it covering similar topics, but it definitely gives a very good explanation as to some of the bad shit that's happening and why it happens.
I guess it really is true that everything happens for a reason.

[Sonellion]

Stupid argument. If bitcoin fails, no one will trust another crypto as store of value again and they will all run into the same political problems at bitcoins size.

Bitcoin can't fail, falling in absolute value while some alt is taking the top spot, without compelling reasons.
Reason why this alt can be trusted and bitcoin not.

#UASF = Make Bitcoin Great Again

If 80% of all nodes will not accept non-SegWit blocks this is an inconvenience for Bitcoin Unlimited miners but nothing more. The 80% nodes can't force anything without miners joining in, and they wont.

[franky1]

blockstream:
kill of certain % of pools = centralise
rekt other brands of nodes = centralise.

non blockstream
allow open choice no deadlines = diverse peer network
..
if you get the reddit scripts of FUD out of your brains...  you will see that having the mainblock bigger than 1mb does NOT mean centralisation.
stop using the 2 year old fake FUD of gigabytes by midnight.

the min spec of 2009 (raspberry Pi 1 + average internet)
vs
the min spec of 2015/16 (raspberry Pi 3 + average internet)
are different.

even core admit that 8mb is safe and 4mb is more than safe..

so crying about "2mb is bad" or dynamics is bad is just wrong on so many levels because you fail thinking realistically

nodes will only grow if nodes can happily work
pools will only change if nodes exist to happily work

meaning nodes set the pace..!!!

stop reading the gigabytes by midnight FUD and be realistic

secondly if people move over to locking funds into LN permanently or sidechains(AKA altcoin) permanently then bitcoin has failed.

rarity/scarcity without utility is not enough to keep a bitcoin 'value'
there are scientists that see many things that are rare but no one wants or cares to buy them if they have no utility.
bitcoin also needs utility. otherwise its just like 42coin .. scarce but useless

so anyone saying destroy nodes, destroy utility, dont let the block size grow NATURALLY. and start shouting fud of gigabytes my midnight and UASF bomb pools and certain nodes. are the ones that want to turn bitcoin into 42coin.. whether they realise it or not

[BillyBobZorton]

blockstream:
kill of certain % of pools = centralise
rekt other brands of nodes = centralise.

non blockstream
allow open choice no deadlines = diverse peer network
..
if you get the reddit scripts of FUD out of your brains...  you will see that having the mainblock bigger than 1mb does NOT mean centralisation.
stop using the 2 year old fake FUD of gigabytes by midnight.

the min spec of 2009 (raspberry Pi 1 + average internet)
vs
the min spec of 2015/16 (raspberry Pi 3 + average internet)
are different.

even core admit that 8mb is safe and 4mb is more than safe..

so crying about "2mb is bad" or dynamics is bad is just wrong on so many levels because you fail thinking realistically

nodes will only grow if nodes can happily work
pools will only change if nodes exist to happily work

meaning nodes set the pace..!!!

stop reading the gigabytes by midnight FUD and be realistic

secondly if people move over to locking funds into LN permanently or sidechains(AKA altcoin) permanently then bitcoin has failed.

rarity/scarcity without utility is not enough to keep a bitcoin 'value'
there are scientists that see many things that are rare but no one wants or cares to buy them if they have no utility.
bitcoin also needs utility. otherwise its just like 42coin .. scarce but useless

so anyone saying destroy nodes, destroy utility, dont let the block size grow NATURALLY. and start shouting fud of gigabytes my midnight and UASF bomb pools and certain nodes. are the ones that want to turn bitcoin into 42coin.. whether they realise it or not

Segwit raises the blocksize without compromising the node decentralization %. Anyone not supporting segwit is actively blocking actual scaling of BTC.

Segwit is safe as seen on LTC. The FUD is over.

BTC's utility is to move money in a decentralized way aka being able to rull your own full validating node, your 42coin analogy is retarded.

[jonald_fyookball]

Segwit raises the blocksize without compromising the node decentralization %. Anyone not supporting segwit is actively blocking actual scaling of BTC.

Segwit is safe as seen on LTC. The FUD is over.

BTC's utility is to move money in a decentralized way aka being able to rull your own full validating node, your 42coin analogy is retarded.

I don't really care to convince you, but I'll explain anyway for everyone's benefit...  you can believe me or not:

The security of the bitcoin network doesn't depend on the majority of users to FULLY validate their own transactions.
SPV already provides essentially full security.  In fact, there's never been a single case of any losing coins because of SPV.

As Satoshi explained in the white paper, as the network gets large the only people who need to run full nodes are those
that create coins (miners).

One thing is becoming suddenly clear to a lot of people:

The reasons that Bitcoin has not been allowed to scale are not technical in nature.  The technical arguments have all been debunked.
The reasons Bitcoin hasn't scaled are purely business-related, strategic, and political.

[franky1]

Segwit raises the blocksize without compromising the node decentralization %. Anyone not supporting segwit is actively blocking actual scaling of BTC.

Segwit is safe as seen on LTC. The FUD is over.

BTC's utility is to move money in a decentralized way aka being able to rull your own full validating node, your 42coin analogy is retarded.

I don't really care to convince you, but I'll explain anyway for everyone's benefit...  you can believe me or not:

The security of the bitcoin network doesn't depend on the majority of users to FULLY validate their own transactions.
SPV already provides essentially full security.  In fact, there's never been a single case of any losing coins because of SPV.

As Satoshi explained in the white paper, as the network gets large the only people who need to run full nodes are those
that create coins (miners).

One thing is becoming suddenly clear to a lot of people:

The reasons that Bitcoin has not been allowed to scale are not technical in nature.  The technical arguments have all been debunked.
The reasons Bitcoin hasn't scaled are purely business-related, strategic, and political.

jonald your thinking one dimensionally about best case scenarios.. where miners know best
and relying on pools to be accurate. ethical to supply tx data to blind people. is just turning a decentralised symbiotic peer to peer currency into a trust system..(screw that!!)

there are critical needs for there to be nodes.

im not saying the current ~5mill+ population should all run full nodes. but playing dino's game of trying to convince 7000 nodes to shut down to give only 20 pools full validation archival and control is foolish beyond belief

if you want to API call tx data from a pool by going for SPV for your "remittance business" then you go turn your business model into something that is no different than the fiat system

other businesses and smart people will continue running full nodes for more practical, technical and real decentralised reasons

[iluvpie60]

"Reserve currency status" stems from network effect.

There's nothing sacred about Bitcoin (unfortunately) other than perhaps the fact that it was the first cryptocurrency.

The network effect and adoption can and will be eroded if Bitcoin does not offer competitive benefits.

10-4.  I think of BTC as a Store of Value (similar to "Reserve currency status"), but with rapidly changing value...  (LOL?)

But, Bitcoin might LOSE all of this should the Miners and Developers not get their acts together.  They could kill Bitcoin.

And should that look like would happen, I will sell my BTC and just buy gold.

It is not in their best interests to kill bitcoin though. They would lose out a ton on their equipment and their companies would be out of business for the most part.

If btc dies it doesn't mean crypto is dead though, that is the beauty of everything. We have other viable coins to go into.