Bitcoin gave us something more than the protocol

[Wind_FURY]

It also gave all of us the "idea" of something like "Bitcoin", a form of "money" that is not controlled by the state, is achievable.

Bitcoin might fail, but the idea lives on to make a better "Bitcoin".

[davis196]

I agree with that,but sooner or later someone is going to take control over bitcoin,wether it's miners or whales.I can't imagine how the "better bitcoin" should look like.Is there anything to improve in the current bitcoin?The government fiat money system won't last forever.Actually, it's about to collapse in the next decade.

[Kakmakr]

Bitcoin is like a virus that mutates and adapt to the changing environment, so why would it fail? Yes, before Bitcoin we had other centralized money that failed miserably and Bitcoin broke that mold and opened the gateway to a new form of money that cannot be stopped.

We should applaud the accomplishment and support the freedom that it brought to the world, because we can now achieve much more financial privacy and a lot more freedom to protect our wealth.  

[nutildah]

This is all true -- critics want to harp on it for the blockchain being nothing more than a "slow database," but the point wasn't to create the blockchain; the blockchain is simply the means to the end of bitcoin being a decentralized currency, free from government interference.

I don't see a world where bitcoin will ever replace or even rival fiat -- along with the fall of a government would come the fall of not only the economy but potentially important infrastructure needed for bitcoin to operate (power and internet).

It does create competition for other forms of money and money processors to get their shit together, kind of like how Uber upset the taxi industry and what AirBnB did to hotels.

Hopefully bitcoin will mutate and adopt before it dies... seems to be doing reasonably well with that after 10 years. The #1 "bitcoin killer" (ETH, forget about BCH) is now a fraction of its price in terms of BTC...

[franky1]

It also gave all of us the "idea" of something like "Bitcoin", a form of "money" that is not controlled by the state, is achievable.

^ selective usage of words

"not controlled by the state" yet the upgrade proposals and new code is controlled by a group.
and if the community do not follow the group. the group wont care because the group bypasses the community with "compatibility" and if the community added code that makes the group unable to bypass using "compatibility" then the group simply mandate a "accept group rules or f**k off" method

bitcoins 2009-2013 true consensus mechanism has not been used as intended since

[anitaraymonds]

The concept of the proponent of Bitcoin is novel and first of its kind. Their main priority was poor and the unbanked to financially empower such through the P2P transaction where the third party and their fees are eliminated. This will lead to more money in the hand of the poor. The government will not have the control over bitcoin because of it being decentralized.

[franky1]

I agree with that,but sooner or later someone is going to take control over bitcoin,wether it's miners or whales.

bitcoin is code. so its developers you should be scrutinising

[Wind_FURY]

Bitcoin is like a virus that mutates and adapt to the changing environment, so why would it fail?

It's good to be optimistic, but that is a very dangerous kind of attitude. Bitcoin is still a software experiment that could fail. We have not even seen its final form yet in my opinion.

We should applaud the accomplishment and support the freedom that it brought to the world, because we can now achieve much more financial privacy and a lot more freedom to protect our wealth.  

Private key ownership of cryptocurrencies is the most sovereign and the most inviolable property rights of this generation. Use it.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

It's good to be optimistic, but that is a very dangerous kind of attitude. Bitcoin is still a software experiment that could fail. We have not even seen its final form yet in my opinion.

I don't know when we will see the final form or how it will look like but my gut feeling is that we are going to see another age like we have seen for the internet. Think about the internet in the early 90s.

[nutildah]

It also gave all of us the "idea" of something like "Bitcoin", a form of "money" that is not controlled by the state, is achievable.

^ selective usage of words

"not controlled by the state" yet the upgrade proposals and new code is controlled by a group.
and if the community do not follow the group. the group wont care because the group bypasses the community with "compatibility" and if the community added code that makes the group unable to bypass using "compatibility" then the group simply mandate a "accept group rules or f**k off" method

bitcoins 2009-2013 true consensus mechanism has not been used as intended since

So basically bitcoin is the worst cryptocurrency besides all others tried.
Its not perfect but its way ahead of anything else that is currently out there.
It can't be inflated, its code is open source, anybody is welcome to join, mine, run their own node, and be a part of the network.

If you have a better alternative, please feel free to let us know what it is.

[franky1]

So basically bitcoin is the worst cryptocurrency besides all others tried.
Its not perfect but its way ahead of anything else that is currently out there.
It can't be inflated, its code is open source, anybody is welcome to join, mine, run their own node, and be a part of the network.

If you have a better alternative, please feel free to let us know what it is.

1. cant be inflated? you might want to check on that.
there was in 2009 -2013 an idea of limiting bitcoin to 2.1quadrillion sharable units of value(satoshi's). plans are already being made to expand that to being 2.1quintillion sharable units. which will continue the mining reward/halving process well beyond 2140
(millisats)
imagine there were only 10 banana's in the world. then imagine there being 10billion slices of banana.
banana's are no longer rare and out of reach of people to buy.so they have lost their.. accuse the pun. appeal

2. running a node, is not the same as the decentralised power of consensus. it just ends up as you being an distributed data archive. not a decentralised community of consensus

3. many teams have tried to offer proposals. but ended up finding it easier to just make their own altcoin than try fighting the group roadmap

4. im not saying its the worse. im saying its no longer holding up to the same promises/ethos/initial idea as 2009-2013

[nutildah]

1. cant be inflated? you might want to check on that.
there was in 2009 -2013 an idea of limiting bitcoin to 2.1quadrillion sharable units of value(satoshi's). plans are already being made to expand that to being 2.1quintillion sharable units. which will continue the mining reward/halving process well beyond 2140
(millisats)
imagine there were only 10 banana's in the world. then imagine there being 10billion slices of banana.
banana's are no longer rare and out of reach of people to buy.so they have lost their.. accuse the pun. appeal

You know the set limit of coins is 21 million. Going with your analogy, no matter how many times you divide up a banana there's still only 10 bananas. A central source isn't harvesting new bananas and putting them into circulation. That's the difference.

[gesdan]

bitcoin is not a fail currency. bitcoin price is down and down it's normal because the currency has the correction time. but it's not a fail currency. we should wait for bitcoin rises

[Wind_FURY]

So basically bitcoin is the worst cryptocurrency besides all others tried.
Its not perfect but its way ahead of anything else that is currently out there.
It can't be inflated, its code is open source, anybody is welcome to join, mine, run their own node, and be a part of the network.

If you have a better alternative, please feel free to let us know what it is.

1. cant be inflated? you might want to check on that.
there was in 2009 -2013 an idea of limiting bitcoin to 2.1quadrillion sharable units of value(satoshi's). plans are already being made to expand that to being 2.1quintillion sharable units. which will continue the mining reward/halving process well beyond 2140
(millisats)
imagine there were only 10 banana's in the world. then imagine there being 10billion slices of banana.
banana's are no longer rare and out of reach of people to buy.so they have lost their.. accuse the pun. appeal

Anyone can propose anything, but "will it reach consensus" is the question.

2. running a node, is not the same as the decentralised power of consensus. it just ends up as you being an distributed data archive. not a decentralised community of consensus

Didn't the UASF, which began as the minority, teach you anything?

3. many teams have tried to offer proposals. but ended up finding it easier to just make their own altcoin than try fighting the group roadmap

Allowing anyone to propose any idea on Bitcoin would be stupid.

4. im not saying its the worse. im saying its no longer holding up to the same promises/ethos/initial idea as 2009-2013

What promises? On-chain scaling?

It also gave all of us the "idea" of something like "Bitcoin", a form of "money" that is not controlled by the state, is achievable.

^ selective usage of words

"not controlled by the state" yet the upgrade proposals and new code is controlled by a group.
and if the community do not follow the group. the group wont care because the group bypasses the community with "compatibility" and if the community added code that makes the group unable to bypass using "compatibility" then the group simply mandate a "accept group rules or f**k off" method

bitcoins 2009-2013 true consensus mechanism has not been used as intended since

Get the context of my post. Your "state" has mandated themselves as the authority, and the monopoly in money-printing, and issuance. Bitcoin changed that.

I agree with that,but sooner or later someone is going to take control over bitcoin,wether it's miners or whales.

bitcoin is code. so its developers you should be scrutinising

But not the signers of the NYA, or Bitmain?

[squatter]

It also gave all of us the "idea" of something like "Bitcoin", a form of "money" that is not controlled by the state, is achievable.

Bitcoin might fail, but the idea lives on to make a better "Bitcoin".

To be fair, gold sort of already showed us that. Gold bugs have been talking about decentralized, sound money for a long time. Bitcoin improved on that foundation by adding transferability over a communications channel, predictable scarcity, portability and divisibility.

bitcoin is code. so its developers you should be scrutinising

Shouldn't it be the code that's being scrutinized?

[LeGaulois]

Bitcoin isn't only a currency, it's an ideology, a protocol, a lifestyle but we still need to have a total change in mentalities. The challenges are bigger than what people may think even if we have already taken a big step forward since its creation.

Not all people have the interest to adopt Bitcoin or to see it adopted for multiple reasons (economic, political, geopolitical...)
To implement Bitcoin is more difficult than that also, not sure if it could be compared with but take as an example the EURO, it took over 10 years to see Europe adopting EUR, not even talking about the time spend to work on.

[franky1]

seeing as you admire the word "state" to refer to certain group of elitist authoritarians. i shall refer to certain dv team as "dev state" for your benefit

Anyone can propose anything, but "will it reach consensus" is the question.
.....
Allowing anyone to propose any idea on Bitcoin would be stupid.

first sentance i was beginning to think you were starting to understand the consensus mechanism of 2009-2013

second sentance you went full censorship-centralist authoritarian and it seems you prefer a central dev "state" in control
but atleast you confident enough to admit your preference.

in a consensus mechanism that existed 2009-2013 anyone could propose anything. code it, run nodes release the source and let anyone run it. with no fear of being thrown out the network. because proposals wont activate without high majority consensus. so it would cause no bad effects on the network, because proposals would not be active unless majority had run them.

funny thing is other full nodes such as xt, classic, bu and others never made mandates. they were happy to just run nodes and see and wait to find out if they got popular. they even adjusted and compromised down a few features to be more of what the community were looking for. but again never made mandates or coercions or threats. it was just run it and see what happens if nothing happens then they walk off with tail between their legs and come back with another proposal that appeals more to the community.

but these days the "dev state" would throw certain nodes off the network before the certain nodes even got majority support simply to make it appear that the "dev state" has 100% loyalty..... hense why altcoins are being made.
"the dev state" were losing with only 35% vote before their consensus bypass idea was implimented.

the "dev state" should have just went back to the drawing board and actually code something that would have NATURALLY and using the 2009-2013 mechanism got them an activation. without having to resort to threats of a mandated contentious fork("dev state" advocated buzzword "bilateral splits")

this is why developers not part of "dev state" are now just giving up on the "dev state" version of bitcoin and making alts. because of the "dev state" censorship and control over what proposals even make it into "the roadmap"

p.s the NYA signee's are part of the central "dev state" which you seem to adore as kings.

the segwit2x part of the NYA was just subterfuge to rally the sleeping sheep into accepting segwit. with a empty promise of 2x if and only if segwit1x got activated.

barry silbert DCG.co organised NYA
barry silbert pays pieter wuille, gregmaxwell, samson mows, luke Jr's wages
DCG.co/portfolio/#b   - notice blockstream, notice btcc

as for the jgarzig, gavin andressen implementation of NYA
DCG.co/portfolio/#b   - notice BLOQ

i already told you many times. it was a 3 card trick
well i should say a 3 hat trick. samson mow and core devs were very proud to wear their UASF hats

i still find is so strange how a year later. even when financial data, even when block data. even when code exists and even admissions by thee devs themselves has made the situation clear.. that you and certain chums of your are denying it all and pretending one minute that bitcoins consensus is as open as 2009-2013.. and then a few minutes later flip your opinion to that of defending the "dev state" actions.

there is no point in you trying to dismiss history. blockdata and code doesnt lie. and its all found in the blockdata that certain things did happen to fake the 100% "dev state" loyalty


now imagine this.
imagine a dev team that was not part of "dev state" done a mandated activation.. would you herold them as new kings. or would you be arguing that their approach and method of activation was wrong and not consensus

[Wind_FURY]

seeing as you admire the word "state" to refer to certain group of elitist authoritarians. i shall refer to certain dv team as "dev state" for your benefit

In the context of this topic. Does the "dev-state" monopolize the printing, and issuance of the currency in the network? Does it have a police system to administer their "laws"? Does it threaten our freedom?

The "dev-state" can go, and the network can fail, but the idea of Bitcoin can be passed on.

[capitan_rocotan]

Of course! Bitcoin has shown that a currency can be independent, free and anonymous! I think, this technology will be developed and will eventually be applied in other industries too.

[burky155]

Yes, ofcourse. The bitcoin has given us many many things, most of them good even great but there are some problems too. First of all the bitcoin and the cryptocurrency has changed my life, my work and my living. These all in good ways. But the uncertainty conditions making me nervous and making me feel uncoffortable. I believe that the BTC will live with us forever but i am not sure what will be the circumstances..