What we all get wrong about Bitcoin

[Wind_FURY]

This commentary was really about what the big blockers got wrong on Bitcoin when they cite "Satoshi's Vision", but I believe the message also applies to most of us too. I know I am guilty of forgetting that Bitcoin is in fact a "social movement" and an instrument of freedom.

Read this and let it remind you what we are really here for.

http://bitcoinist.com/bitcoin-cash-wrong-max-keiser/

SATOSHI’S VISION? BITCOIN CASH GETS IT WRONG, SAYS MAX KEISER

Bitcoin Cash’s narrow focus on transactions ‘gets it wrong’ because money is only a ‘byproduct’ of a much bigger vision, according to Max Keiser.

Bitcoin was not created to compete with the likes of Visa or SWIFT in terms of speed, cost or even privacy, Keiser opines. Instead, Bitcoin’s ethos is rooted in the Free Software Movement (FSM), the beginnings of which can be traced back to the 1970’s.

Bitcoin is free open-source software that users all over the world choose to run on their computers, where the nodes of the network agree on the current state of the network without any central authority. This gives network participants the freedom to establish what is true, which can be a powerful tool against corruption, oppression, and censorship.

In other words, free transactions are not as important as the freedom to make any transaction, because the former can be turned off with the flip of a switch at any time by the central authority.

[FiiNALiZE]

This commentary was really about what the big blockers got wrong on Bitcoin when they cite "Satoshi's Vision", but I believe the message also applies to most of us too. I know I am guilty of forgetting that Bitcoin is in fact a "social movement" and an instrument of freedom.

Read this and let it remind you what we are really here for.

http://bitcoinist.com/bitcoin-cash-wrong-max-keiser/

SATOSHI’S VISION? BITCOIN CASH GETS IT WRONG, SAYS MAX KEISER

Bitcoin Cash’s narrow focus on transactions ‘gets it wrong’ because money is only a ‘byproduct’ of a much bigger vision, according to Max Keiser.

Bitcoin was not created to compete with the likes of Visa or SWIFT in terms of speed, cost or even privacy, Keiser opines. Instead, Bitcoin’s ethos is rooted in the Free Software Movement (FSM), the beginnings of which can be traced back to the 1970’s.

Bitcoin is free open-source software that users all over the world choose to run on their computers, where the nodes of the network agree on the current state of the network without any central authority. This gives network participants the freedom to establish what is true, which can be a powerful tool against corruption, oppression, and censorship.

In other words, free transactions are not as important as the freedom to make any transaction, because the former can be turned off with the flip of a switch at any time by the central authority.

The coin is gets dumped by the average investor. I would just keep it till the price fully recovers.

[jseverson]

I completely agree, but we can't ignore the importance of low fees either. This is an excerpt from Satoshi's white paper:

The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for nonreversible services.

I know this sentence talks more about the trusted third parties required for the current financial systems to work, but I feel like Satoshi wanted to address the flaws bolded as well. In this case, Bitcoin needs to have low enough transaction fees to at least be viable for "small casual transactions." Bitcoin is currently in line with this vision, with fees currently being as low as they are, and with the Lightning Network to address high fees associated with network congestion.

[Pursuer]

I disagree with Keiser as much as I disagree with bitcoin cash. they both are getting far from what bitcoin is supposed to be, or if you want to call it: "Satoshi's Vision".

all Keiser says is true apart from the "fee" part. unfortunately people seem to have forgotten that bitcoin is all Keiser said but also it is supposed to be a currency or a payment system. even the original bitcoin paper by Satoshi Nakamoto is mentioning this all over it. and a currency can not function with extremely high fees such as $100+ fee for a normal transaction!

bitcoin cash is not Satoshi's vision because it is getting farther and farther from a decentralized currency and it started the day they turned their backs on "consensus".
but the current "view" about bitcoin that is not supposed to be cheap to use is not Satoshi's vision either.

[Wind_FURY]

I completely agree, but we can't ignore the importance of low fees either. This is an excerpt from Satoshi's white paper:

The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for nonreversible services.

I know this sentence talks more about the trusted third parties required for the current financial systems to work, but I feel like Satoshi wanted to address the flaws bolded as well. In this case, Bitcoin needs to have low enough transaction fees to at least be viable for "small casual transactions." Bitcoin is currently in line with this vision, with fees currently being as low as they are, and with the Lightning Network to address high fees associated with network congestion.

But that is where the Bitcoin Cash people start to get it wrong by failing to look at the bigger picture. "How much" the transaction is in Bitcoin is not as important as the ability to make that censorship resistant transaction that cannot be taken down by any government.

It is also about the freedom to make that transaction and the freedom to run the software. The breakthrough made by Bitcoin is not only financial, it is also social and political.

I disagree with Keiser as much as I disagree with bitcoin cash. they both are getting far from what bitcoin is supposed to be, or if you want to call it: "Satoshi's Vision".

all Keiser says is true apart from the "fee" part. unfortunately people seem to have forgotten that bitcoin is all Keiser said but also it is supposed to be a currency or a payment system. even the original bitcoin paper by Satoshi Nakamoto is mentioning this all over it. and a currency can not function with extremely high fees such as $100+ fee for a normal transaction!

bitcoin cash is not Satoshi's vision because it is getting farther and farther from a decentralized currency and it started the day they turned their backs on "consensus".
but the current "view" about bitcoin that is not supposed to be cheap to use is not Satoshi's vision either.

I believe Bitcoin has now moved beyond "Satoshi's vision". Bitcoin is much more.

[wiser]

I think low transaction fees are an integral part of a good decentralized currency. When I first got into Bitcoin, it cost around 8 cents to send any amount of it anywhere in the world, in contrast to $40 for an international wire transfer (not counting recipient fees). Now it costs around $20 or $40 to send Bitcoin, which means why would anyone go through the trouble of using it as an alternative to an international wire transfer? Bitcoin's problem is that it doesn't have a built in way to reduce fees as value goes up, which means *someone* has to decide to do it and implement it, which means ultimately you can't completely get away from some amount of centralization. However, you still can approach it. NEM's recent statements concerning who can and cannot use its technology are a case in point. Some NEM holders do not like the fact that Maduro wants to use NEM for his Petro cryptocurrency. But NEM says the technology is free and open for all, even the people we don't like. That to me is more along the lines of what decentralization should look like. The NEM leadership still decides when to reduce NEM fees to keep the currency usable.

[audaciousbeing]

I have come to realized that a whole of the Satoshi's vision is being interpreted by people to suit their selfish needs and it can only be explained by Saotshi's himself without any ambiguity. Just like the constitution and the Holy books, its being interpreted to mean whatever the person in position of authority thinks it to be and that is why several doctrines abound all over the world.

While I wont agree with the position of Bitcoin cash, I would also not agree with the position that places much emphasis on freedom without considering the part of money because all of our activities is centered across financial independence and the moment that cannot be established, then the freedom that is being propounded will take forever to happen and that I believe is not the vision and mission of Satoshi.

[Wind_FURY]

I think low transaction fees are an integral part of a good decentralized currency.

That is true. But doing a hard fork to change the consensus rules only because you believe that low transaction fees is "Satoshi's vision" is short sighted. They forgot the importance of the ability itself of making that censorship resistant transaction.

 

Bitcoin's problem is that it doesn't have a built in way to reduce fees as value goes up, which means *someone* has to decide to do it and implement it, which means ultimately you can't completely get away from some amount of centralization.

I do not understand. What centralization? I believe we have a fee market.

[zenrol28]

Bitcoin was made by satoshi who we don't know the true identity. So i think there's no right or wrong. It's just us trying to understand what he's vision and mission through his paper. We have the freedom to choose whatever we like.

[Kakmakr]

What Max is saying is true, but most Bitcoin users live in countries where these freedoms has not come under attack. If you live in Greece and you were one of the thousands of people standing in front of a closed Bank, you might get this. A lot of Bitcoin adoption came as a direct response to the unethical actions from governments and Banks.

Ask yourself this question. Do you really control your wealth, if that wealth is in the hands of government controlled financial institutions? What happens when these institutions close their doors or block withdrawals?

If you have not been in these situations, you will totally miss the point with Bitcoin and what financial freedom really mean. ^hmmmmm^ 

[Wind_FURY]

I would also want to say that most of the people in Bitcoin forgot that this sociopolitical "movement" came from something deeper, not only because we needed to transact globally for a fee if a few cents.

Let this repository remind you of Bitcoin's connected history with cryptography and the Free Software Movement.

https://github.com/tombusby/cypherpunk-research#technical-sources

[pat4cryptoreal]

Most people do not understand the ideology of bitcoin that is why most people panic when there is a fall in price. Bitcoin is the best thing that has ever happen to the world financial system. Bitcoin is assurance of financial freedom to people of different class.