[SHOCK] Core dev and Blockstream employee tells bitcoin users to use fiat!

[deisik]

though my btc hoard is much higher than most. telling anyone to just go back to fiat is like the 'whiteman' telling the native indian to head back up over the mountains through the northern passage and let the whiteman take over america

It may turn out that you don't know it better

As you claim, since I'm not telling you to go back to fiat. I'm just saying that it may be wise to convert some part (mind that) of your Bitcoin stash to fiat for a short period of time until the dust settles. Obviously, I'm not telling you to dump all your bitcoins for good. Apart from that, this is not what you were telling just a week ago when I told you that Litecoin may easily substitute Bitcoin as a means of payment for 500k merchants which are there, according to your own estimates

[1714783784]

1714783784

[1714783784]

1714783784

[franky1]

though my btc hoard is much higher than most. telling anyone to just go back to fiat is like the 'whiteman' telling the native indian to head back up over the mountains through the northern passage and let the whiteman take over america

It may turn out that you don't know it better

As you claim, since I'm not telling you to go back to fiat. I'm just saying that it may be wise to convert some part (mind that) of your Bitcoin stash to fiat for a short period of time until the dust settles. Obviously, I'm not telling you to dump all your bitcoins for good. Apart from that, this is not what you were telling just a week ago when I told you that Litecoin may easily substitute Bitcoin as a means of payment for 500k merchants which are there, according to your own estimates

until litecoin starts advertising that 500,000 merchants accept LTC (using coinbase/bitpay merchant shopping cart api tools). then LTC is not going no where, its just speculative hype

yep speculation hype. but out of all speculative hype LTC being the switch over currency of choice by the cartels, seems to be the most rational logical and easy to see possibility.. but until it happens .. its just speculation.

emphasis

but for me its make bitcoin great again or bust,.. im not playing Luke Jr and other peoples games of just hand over bitcoins and run off...
im not in it to be "fiat rich". otherwise i could cash out any time and retire... im in it for the reasons bitcoin was created in the first place

[Taki]

Stop to make panic. Yeas, those are people to whom we trust and about whom we think that they know the most about Bitcoin. But they are people. And by my opinion that answer was just only because that person was annoyed to the limit by all this questions about high fees and slow transactions. Like, if you don't like this terms go and use fiat.

[deisik]

emphasis

but for me its make bitcoin great again or bust,.. im not playing Luke Jr and other peoples games of just hand over bitcoins and run off...
im not in it to be "fiat rich". otherwise i could cash out any time and retire... im in it for the reasons bitcoin was created in the first place

I read that part

But when people say something to that tune (sort of "all or nothing"), they are more often than not just bragging how cool and die-hard they are until they actually go through that part which is about nothing. Most of them would sell out long before it really comes close to what can be loosely considered as a turning point from all to nothing. That said, for most of us it is nowhere near "make bitcoin great again or bust", it is more about making profits and preventing losses. Thus we have to be a little more "flexible" in this regard, so to speak

[franky1]

emphasis

but for me its make bitcoin great again or bust,.. im not playing Luke Jr and other peoples games of just hand over bitcoins and run off...
im not in it to be "fiat rich". otherwise i could cash out any time and retire... im in it for the reasons bitcoin was created in the first place

I read that part

But when people say something to that tune (sort of "all or nothing"), they are more often than not just bragging how cool and die-hard they are until they actually go through that part which is about nothing. Most of them would sell out long before it really comes close to what can be loosely considered as a turning point from all to nothing. That said, for most of us it is nowhere near "make bitcoin great again or bust", it is more about making profits and preventing losses. Thus we have to be a little more "flexible" in this regard, so to speak

i made my hoards back in 2012-2013.. i did not squirm when the $1200 tanked to $200.. nor did i squirm at any other price drama.
i see beyond the price drama. and keep my eye on the real infrastructure changes

if it was about 'profit' i would still day trade today. i would even do sig campaigns and other things.. i dont need income. i dont need extra bitcoin and i am certainly not going to panic and run off back to fiat at any moment.
thats what the cartels want people to do.  you se them scream it alot in their attempts  they shout "f**k off" alot...
ill leave you to decide if **= or/uc

[mindphuq]

Some altcoin will take the throne if bitcoin doesn't change. Things change... deal with it or be pushed out of the way.  Pigs get slaughtered.

And Litecoin will most likely be a new king of crypto

Regarding the noise raised by the OP, I have heard many people claiming here that miners have been screaming for years about the necessity of the blocksize increase. If it is really so (I don't know, but let's assume that) and the blocksize increase was (is) as urgent and pressing as they have been screaming, what prevents them from introducing this change on their own (given their hashing power monopoly)? Okay, some dudes would be quick to retort that they want consensus and all that but if there is no consensus may be the bigger blocks are not in fact so urgent as these miners are pretending them to be? As I see it, you can't possibly have it both ways

Litecoin is just shifting the issues of Bitcoin, it runs on the same technology, just with a different algorithm. The algorithm was once chosen because Litecoin-Developers saw the issue with centralized mining by farms running on ASIC. So they thought Scypt would be more ASIC resistant, which became untrue in 2014. Litecoin will cause the exact same mining farms once it becomes valuable enough.

As long as none of these coins switches to PoS, the issues will never be solved, and we continue wasting energy on artificial complicated math puzzle that do nothing but proof that someone who claims to have made a block wasted some energy to do so. And soon a few huge farms will control the blockchain and decide with their hashpower the politics of the coin.

The issue in PoW remains that the miners are not necessarily the users of the coin where PoS makes sure that these that create the block also actually own the coin and have put investment into it. PoW miners can mine, dump and then forget the coin and if everything crashes, they can still sell the hardware and move on, while attackers on a PoS-system jeopardize their own wealth.

And for the other theoretical attack, it's only a matter of the network hashrate how secure it is. To attack a PoS Bitcoin with the same marketcap of Bitcoin today, you would need more than 20 billion USD (probably even much more, since the mere attempt to buy 51% of the coins will increase the price astronomically). To attack a smaller coin that secures with PoW, you'd need a few million only, nothing someone like a secret service couldn't afford, especially when, as said, the attack doesn't directly attack the wealth you had to afford to gain enough power over the blockchain.

[Wind_FURY]

you also have Gmax saying that all bitcoin developers will move over to litecoin at 57m30s of video below
and how he is happy to help litecoin..
https://youtu.be/LHPYNZ8i1cU?t=57m01s

yet any software 'brand' that is not blockstream/DCG endorsed he wont touch

follow
coblee(litecoin inventor) ->coinbase->DCG
boblee(coblee's brother) ->BTCC->DCG
gmaxwell -> blockstream -> DCG
luke Jr -> blockstream -> DCG
RustyRuss(LN) -> blockstream -> DCG

and ofcourse
barry silbert(DCG)-> alansilbert(capitalone healthcare)->hyperledger

Then maybe it would be better to start supporting Monero because they are still holding on to the Bitcoin philosophy. Everyone in Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies have become greedy. I have noticed that some groups want to run a project like a company than what they really are. Open source projects.

[Decentradical]

And for the other theoretical attack, it's only a matter of the network hashrate how secure it is. To attack a PoS Bitcoin with the same marketcap of Bitcoin today, you would need more than 20 billion USD (probably even much more, since the mere attempt to buy 51% of the coins will increase the price astronomically). To attack a smaller coin that secures with PoW, you'd need a few million only, nothing someone like a secret service couldn't afford, especially when, as said, the attack doesn't directly attack the wealth you had to afford to gain enough power over the blockchain.

Exactly. Holding a stake means something. The attack may be cheaper but it's still a massive cost with no return and therefore a waste. What's so often left out of the picture is that someone looking to attack PoS would need to buy into a coin and secure an enormous amount of coins to achieve a 51% stake attack. That's expensive, all a successful attack would achieve is maybe set back the coin for a bit, but also create the panic that would immediately lower the value of the coins you used to attack.  

And that's what makes PoS so secure. Outsiders just have no say in it. Unlike PoW coins, where outsiders control everything, the PoS coins can only be attacked from inside to even put the slightest scratch on the blockchain (one that will immediately buffed out again anyway). It's not impossible. But the amount of money for petty vandalism would be astronomical.

The only scenario where I can see a successful stake attack is when the coin hasn't dispersed properly. Like when the launchers of the coin premined or ICO'd it. One where they hold the most coins and the rest are just a tiny minority. I wouldn't go anywhere near those coins, but even if people accept those conditions it would still mean that it's the originators, the developers of the coin that are the only people that are able to stake attack their own shitty coin. Which another exercise in futility.

[deisik]

Some altcoin will take the throne if bitcoin doesn't change. Things change... deal with it or be pushed out of the way.  Pigs get slaughtered.

And Litecoin will most likely be a new king of crypto

Regarding the noise raised by the OP, I have heard many people claiming here that miners have been screaming for years about the necessity of the blocksize increase. If it is really so (I don't know, but let's assume that) and the blocksize increase was (is) as urgent and pressing as they have been screaming, what prevents them from introducing this change on their own (given their hashing power monopoly)? Okay, some dudes would be quick to retort that they want consensus and all that but if there is no consensus may be the bigger blocks are not in fact so urgent as these miners are pretending them to be? As I see it, you can't possibly have it both ways

Litecoin is just shifting the issues of Bitcoin, it runs on the same technology, just with a different algorithm. The algorithm was once chosen because Litecoin-Developers saw the issue with centralized mining by farms running on ASIC. So they thought Scypt would be more ASIC resistant, which became untrue in 2014. Litecoin will cause the exact same mining farms once it becomes valuable enough

It won't have the same issues for obvious reasons

And these reasons are the same ones why Litecoin has Segwit and Lightning Network activated already while Bitcoin hasn't. Miners don't have much say in Litecoin, otherwise SW and LN wouldn't have been activated in the first place. I remember Jihan saying something against these updates, and he couldn't do anything in the end. So it is just a matter of time when Litecoin switches to the PoS paradigm when the time comes, and no Wu or Fu will stop it. Regarding buying up coins to kill the coin, that would be an exercise in futility and stupidity since when you buy the majority of coins (let's assume that), you will be left with nothing. People will just buy another coin with the dollars they sold their coins for

[mindphuq]

The only scenario where I can see a successful stake attack is when the coin hasn't dispersed properly. Like when the launchers of the coin premined or ICO'd it. One where they hold the most coins and the rest are just a tiny minority. I wouldn't go anywhere near those coins, but even if people accept those conditions it would still mean that it's the originators, the developers of the coin that are the only people that are able to stake attack their own shitty coin. Which another exercise in futility.

Yeah, especially as with in ICO you normally don't have to compete with a vivid market where each buy you do potentially increases the price. When the coin is premined and you buy them from the preminer (devs), you are paying a fixed price and huge investors instantly get huge amount of staking power. No one with the brain at their right place should buy into such a project, especially not with small amounts of money.

But then ICO is cancer anyhow, so it's not bad when this trend finally dies.

It won't have the same issues for obvious reasons

And these reasons are the same ones why Litecoin has Segwit and Lightning Network activated already while Bitcoin hasn't. Miners don't have much say in Litecoin, otherwise SW and LN wouldn't have been activated in this coin in the first place. I remember Jihan saying something against these updates, and he couldn't do anything in the end. So it is just a matter of time when Litecoin switches to the PoS paradigm when the time comes, and no Wu or Fu will stop it. Regarding buying up coins to kill the coin, that would be an exercise in futility and stupidity since when you buy the majority of coins (let's assume that), you will be left with nothing. People will just buy another coin with the dollars they sold their coins for

That's why I wrote "As long as none of these coins switches to PoS".

[deisik]

It won't have the same issues for obvious reasons

And these reasons are the same ones why Litecoin has Segwit and Lightning Network activated already while Bitcoin hasn't. Miners don't have much say in Litecoin, otherwise SW and LN wouldn't have been activated in this coin in the first place. I remember Jihan saying something against these updates, and he couldn't do anything in the end. So it is just a matter of time when Litecoin switches to the PoS paradigm when the time comes, and no Wu or Fu will stop it. Regarding buying up coins to kill the coin, that would be an exercise in futility and stupidity since when you buy the majority of coins (let's assume that), you will be left with nothing. People will just buy another coin with the dollars they sold their coins for

That's why I wrote "As long as none of these coins switches to PoS".

In fact, we don't even need that

The very threat of a coin switching to a PoS model will keep people from creating large mining farms and centralizing mining in their hands. Obviously, no one is going to lose millions in vain, so Litecoin might not even switch to this model at all. Ironically, this thought alone should make Bitcoin miners tremble with horror and terror, and this is yet another reason why they are not interested in activating anything (Big Blocks, SW, LN, whatever), no matter what they say or declare

[Decentradical]

The very threat of a coin switching to a PoS model will keep people from creating large mining farms and centralizing mining in their hand

It works the other way around as well. The very threat of a coin switching to a PoS model may cause the miners to wake up and avoid mining any block that will trigger the entry of PoS, which would mean the end of their business. Not something they can get back from. 

This will be very interesting to see happening. No PoW coin has ever changed into PoS without that PoS being already embedded in the blockchain from the start. I really wonder if the miners are stupid enough to make their own mining farms self-destruct by passing that PoS block.

[Variogam]

The problem with PoS is you must have private keys online to stake. It is a security nightmare for normal users, thats the reason PoS leads to centralization to the places which can ensure security of their staking computers.

[Decentradical]

That seems to be a misconception about Proof of Stake. A PoS coin can easily stake while encrypted. It gets even more secure with a two point verification that most coins, including bitcoin already have. Storing one key offline effectively gives you cold-staking.  

Such a hurdle really holds no candle to the industrial machines a PoW coin demands.

[mindphuq]

In fact, we don't even need that

The very threat of a coin switching to a PoS model will keep people from creating large mining farms and centralizing mining in their hands. Obviously, no one is going to lose millions in vain, so Litecoin might not even switch to this model at all. Ironically, this thought alone should make Bitcoin miners tremble in horror and terror, and this is yet another reason why they are not interested in activating anything (Big Blocks, SW, LN, whatever), no matter what they say or declare

So "don't support our network too eagerly, otherwise we will tell you to gtfo" is a good security concept?

Why not go PoS already when you don't want the hashingpower anyhow?

[deisik]

In fact, we don't even need that

The very threat of a coin switching to a PoS model will keep people from creating large mining farms and centralizing mining in their hands. Obviously, no one is going to lose millions in vain, so Litecoin might not even switch to this model at all. Ironically, this thought alone should make Bitcoin miners tremble in horror and terror, and this is yet another reason why they are not interested in activating anything (Big Blocks, SW, LN, whatever), no matter what they say or declare

So "don't support our network too eagerly, otherwise we will tell you to gtfo" is a good security concept?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions

Other than that, I don't see how centralizing hashing power in few hands can be a good security approach at all. If we assume that proper decentralization does contribute to higher security, then yes, "supporting" network which ends up with mining centralization should evidently be frowned upon and lead to exactly that (even if centralization was not a goal). But this has nothing to do with someone playing dirty but rather with PoW deficiencies as such. Regarding switching to PoS, there can be a host of reasons why that might not be an optimal strategy. In short, I don't know

[mindphuq]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions

Other than that, I don't see how centralizing mining can be a good security approach at all. If we assume that proper decentralization does contribute to higher security, then yes, "supporting" network which ends up with mining centralization should evidently be frowned up on and lead to exactly that (even if centralization was not a goal). But this has nothing to do with someone playing dirty but rather with PoW deficiencies as such. Regarding switching to PoS, there can be a host of reasons why that might not be an optimal strategy. In fact, I don't know

No, the point is that if a PoW coin becomes valuable enough, farms will centralize hashing power. With PoS this can not happen at all.

So, PoW: the more users the greater the danger for centralisation by farms because mining becomes more profitable.
PoS: The more users the better the security because the more people will stake their balances.

[deisik]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions

Other than that, I don't see how centralizing mining can be a good security approach at all. If we assume that proper decentralization does contribute to higher security, then yes, "supporting" network which ends up with mining centralization should evidently be frowned up on and lead to exactly that (even if centralization was not a goal). But this has nothing to do with someone playing dirty but rather with PoW deficiencies as such. Regarding switching to PoS, there can be a host of reasons why that might not be an optimal strategy. In fact, I don't know

No, the point is that if a PoW coin becomes valuable enough, farms will centralize hashing power. With PoS this can not happen at all

But you should not forget about risks involved

If mining becomes too centralized (say, coming close to what we see in Bitcoin now), the users may check the nuclear option and switch to a PoS paradigm. My point is that Litecoin, after successful activation of SW and LN, may still remain a PoW coin without being too centralized even if its value surges over time. How come? Because miners themselves will be self-limiting. It is the same with many parasites in nature, if they propagate without limit, they will kill both the host and themselves

[franky1]

you also have Gmax saying that all bitcoin developers will move over to litecoin at 57m30s of video below
and how he is happy to help litecoin..
https://youtu.be/LHPYNZ8i1cU?t=57m01s

yet any software 'brand' that is not blockstream/DCG endorsed he wont touch

follow
coblee(litecoin inventor) ->coinbase->DCG
boblee(coblee's brother) ->BTCC->DCG
gmaxwell -> blockstream -> DCG
luke Jr -> blockstream -> DCG
RustyRuss(LN) -> blockstream -> DCG

and ofcourse
barry silbert(DCG)-> alansilbert(capitalone healthcare)->hyperledger

Then maybe it would be better to start supporting Monero because they are still holding on to the Bitcoin philosophy. Everyone in Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies have become greedy. I have noticed that some groups want to run a project like a company than what they really are. Open source projects.

Litecoin is just shifting the issues of Bitcoin, it runs on the same technology, just with a different algorithm. The algorithm was once chosen because Litecoin-Developers saw the issue with centralized mining by farms running on ASIC. So they thought Scypt would be more ASIC resistant, which became untrue in 2014. Litecoin will cause the exact same mining farms once it becomes valuable enough.

the litecoin ASIC is in the barry silbert portfolio control.. just to add another layer to the list
LTCASIC -> DCG

my mindset is blockstream/barry silbert should move over to litecoin. after all then the asic control would be under their cartel control.
let them turn litecoin into the the corporate capitalist crap cartel driven currency..

then the rest of us can concentrate of moving bitcoin back to its original principles
independent diverse decentralised peer to peer network

[mindphuq]

If mining becomes too centralized (say, coming close to what we see in Bitcoin now), the users may check the nuclear option and switch to a PoS paradigm. My point is that Litecoin, after successful activation of SW and LN, may still remain a PoW coin without being too centralized even if its value surges over time. How come? Because miners themselves will be self-limiting. It is the same with many parasites in nature, if they propagate without limit, they will kill both the host and themselves

Yes but that's still the thing what also Decentradical mentioned: You're basically saying that you don't want your mining to become so profitable that large pools will want mine your network. Which leads into a paradox, on the one hand you want as much hashingpower as possible to have a secure coin and on the other hand you don't want that hashingpower since pools will centralize that power when its profitable enough for them. Which is awkward.

Every attempt so far to create ASIC proof algorithms has become void as soon as the algorithm was used in an accepted coin. It happened with Scrypt and later with X11 when Dash became valuable enouigh. Every other PoW-algo would follow when the demand is there. So you will always play a game of hunting the rabbit with the creators of ASICs and mining farms.

All that effort, that waste of energy and resources and dangers of centralization could be prevented with just going PoS.

Cool, but this does not completly solve the centralization problem because I would preffer to give the stake keys to a service for a small fee to avoid the requirement to have computer on 24/7.

So you better have a miner running 24/7?
Besides, you don't need to have it running 24/7, it's still staking when you have it on for some hours per day, just less than 24/7. And if the coin is used enough so that it actually has value, then there will be always enough people having their wallet on.

And there is literally no serious coin that can be mined solo anymore. You always need pools even with the GPU-algos because there are GPU-farms too. With PoS you are always mining solo.