Bitcoin gave us something more than the protocol

[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.

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

Bitcoin was first created to become the future currency, but what is happening now is that Bitcoin has changed its function, becoming a traded commodity asset, so this is not a failure of Bitcoin, but a setback in digital currency technology, because if this happens then the function from bitcoin only as a digital asset, bitcoin should be returned to its original function as a payment tool, because bitcoin has the potential to become the world's single currency.

FTFY: a commodity is a raw material used to create products.. bitcoin is a asset currency.

what i view as occuring was 2009-2013 bitcoin was a open free choice asset currency to be the opposite of what fiat is.
what i view as occuring of 2013-2018 bitcoin is closing off as a free choice asset currency to become just another "new state" fiat.

[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.

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

Bitcoin was first created to become the future currency, but what is happening now is that Bitcoin has changed its function, becoming a traded commodity asset, so this is not a failure of Bitcoin, but a setback in digital currency technology, because if this happens then the function from bitcoin only as a digital asset, bitcoin should be returned to its original function as a payment tool, because bitcoin has the potential to become the world's single currency.

FTFY: a commodity is a raw material used to create products.. bitcoin is a asset currency.

Actually its both currency and commodity -- to claim that its not will only confuse people (in the US) that are considering paying taxes on it:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/07/cryptocurrencies-like-bitcoin-are-commodities-us-judge-rules.html
https://www.newsbtc.com/2018/09/29/bitcoin-price-analysis/
https://www.danielstrading.com/2017/12/12/bitcoin-commodity-currency

what i view as occuring was 2009-2013 bitcoin was a open free choice asset currency to be the opposite of what fiat is.
what i view as occuring of 2013-2018 bitcoin is closing off as a free choice asset currency to become just another "new state" fiat.

So basically you're saying that the Bitcoin Core devs are a "state"? You're welcome to have your own opinions but I'd rather go with the reality of the situation, which is that bitcoin is highly decentralized in comparison to actual state currencies, and most other cryptocurrencies. If you look at the dispersion of mining and nodes in BTC compared to "other bitcoins" like BCH and SV, there's no comparison -- BTC is far more decentralized.

[squatter]

your using the consensus as designed 2009-2013 to explain xt, classic, unlimited... and how core didnt get the vote early on

There was never a  "designed" consensus. You either agree or you don't -- it's the dictionary definition of consensus. If you agree, you run a node and thus join the network. If you disagree, you don't run a node...

but you again seem to want to pretend the non consensus mandated august 1st 2017 bypass (dev state buzzword bilateral split) ever occured.
kind of funny because "dev state" were and still are proud that it occured

the fact that you admit in another post that core didnt get segwit in using the 2009-2013 consensus (the november 2016-spring 2017) shows it wasnt high majority. it only had 35% vote.

Segwit never violated any consensus rules. That literally means that anyone running Bitcoin already implicitly agreed to Segwit (assuming it was enforced by miners and therefore backward compatible). There's absolutely no reason why 100% of the network needed to agree to anything since there was no violation of the consensus.

There are alternative implementations. People are free to run them or to code their own. The fact that the vast majority of users choose to run Core instead speaks volumes about what the market wants.

those that did run other nodes that are not compatible. were rlegated off network, diluting out the 65% objections. or relegated them as non voter 'compatible' (downstream/filtered/not full node/stripped)
purely to fake a 95% loyalty

Legacy nodes were and are fully compatible. That's why the chain never split. Satoshi explains:

Future versions can add templates for more transaction types and nodes running that version or higher will be able to receive them.  All versions of nodes in the network can verify and process any new transactions into blocks, even though they may not know how to read them.

[Wind_FURY]

but you again seem to want to pretend the non consensus mandated august 1st 2017 bypass (dev state buzzword bilateral split) ever occured.
kind of funny because "dev state" were and still are proud that it occured

Hold on. You were the person agreeing with Roger Ver, and debating that "Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash bilaterally split". How is it that now you are saying that it is a "dev-state" buzzword. Hahaha.

the fact that you admit in another post that core didnt get segwit in using the 2009-2013 consensus (the november 2016-spring 2017) shows it wasnt high majority. it only had 35% vote.

The community wanted Segwit, your "35% vote" were not really "votes", but miners signalling their readiness to the soft fork, which they politically used to make drama.

[franky1]

but you again seem to want to pretend the non consensus mandated august 1st 2017 bypass (dev state buzzword bilateral split) ever occured.
kind of funny because "dev state" were and still are proud that it occured

Hold on. You were the person agreeing with Roger Ver, and debating that "Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash bilaterally split". How is it that now you are saying that it is a "dev-state" buzzword. Hahaha.

1. greg maxwell termed it before august 2017.. he actually was openly saying in that conversation in ~october 2016 how he tried to convince opposers to f**k off and the opposers declined his offer.
2. saying it happened is different than advocating the desire of bilateral forks/split/contentious dilution of the community/mandated threats
3. i didnt agree with ver. i independently mentioned that a moment in history occured.
4. you have on many times subtly worded things to suggest i advocate and i want Y. when im actually mentioning the opposite of advocating/insisting on it happening. you seem to do this so that you can then foolishly have the mindset that i am pushing for things which i am not pushing for, just so you can ignore the real context of the message/topic i am discussing

the fact that you admit in another post that core didnt get segwit in using the 2009-2013 consensus (the november 2016-spring 2017) shows it wasnt high majority. it only had 35% vote.

The community wanted Segwit, your "35% vote" were not really "votes", but miners signalling their readiness to the soft fork, which they politically used to make drama.

the community includes miners. but got threatened to accept segwit or find themselves off the network
if they continued to oppose on august 1st they would have had their blocks rejected.
that is NOT community wanting segwit. thats the community forced into segwit.

learn what actually happened on august first to fake a majority. stop denying nothing happened
blockchains dont lie. the block data proves what actually happened, no matter what social yammer you may script out. the blockchain immutable data can refute you

[jake zyrus]

btc gave us the future

I agree with you, in bitcoin you have brighter future and gives you opportunity to learn and to earned more profit, and there are so many lives changing it become more better now and more people become interested to learn and wanted to join in investing in cryptocurrency. Joining in bitcoin you have brighter future .

[rosepetals]

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".

Yes the idea of having bitcoin is what leaves on the heart of every bitcoiner.The freedom that we have on our money is somewhat like an endless happiness.We control our own money without worrying about the government being tax.Thats more than enough.

[gesdan]

yes I believe on that, bitcoin is the good digital currency right now and I think when the bitcoin price is failing and bitcoin lost their popularity, maybe in the future we can see that the platform and digital currency that have a more good purpose and great benefit than bitcoin do

[Wind_FURY]

but you again seem to want to pretend the non consensus mandated august 1st 2017 bypass (dev state buzzword bilateral split) ever occured.
kind of funny because "dev state" were and still are proud that it occured

Hold on. You were the person agreeing with Roger Ver, and debating that "Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash bilaterally split". How is it that now you are saying that it is a "dev-state" buzzword. Hahaha.

1. greg maxwell termed it before august 2017.. he actually was openly saying in that conversation in ~october 2016 how he tried to convince opposers to f**k off and the opposers declined his offer.
2. saying it happened is different than advocating the desire of bilateral forks/split/contentious dilution of the community/mandated threats
3. i didnt agree with ver. i independently mentioned that a moment in history occured.
4. you have on many times subtly worded things to suggest i advocate and i want Y. when im actually mentioning the opposite of advocating/insisting on it happening. you seem to do this so that you can then foolishly have the mindset that i am pushing for things which i am not pushing for, just so you can ignore the real context of the message/topic i am discussing

But did the network "bilaterally split", or did Roger Ver and Bitcoin Cash changed the consesus rules, did a hard fork, and split away from Bitcoin?

There was no bilateral split that Roger Ver wants us to believe.

the fact that you admit in another post that core didnt get segwit in using the 2009-2013 consensus (the november 2016-spring 2017) shows it wasnt high majority. it only had 35% vote.

The community wanted Segwit, your "35% vote" were not really "votes", but miners signalling their readiness to the soft fork, which they politically used to make drama.

the community includes miners. but got threatened to accept segwit or find themselves off the network
if they continued to oppose on august 1st they would have had their blocks rejected.
that is NOT community wanting segwit. thats the community forced into segwit.

learn what actually happened on august first to fake a majority. stop denying nothing happened
blockchains dont lie. the block data proves what actually happened, no matter what social yammer you may script out. the blockchain immutable data can refute you

Ok let me rephrase. The economic majority wanted Segwit. It was Bitmain, who also co-opted other miners in their cause, that did not want it as a soft fork because it would kill covert ASICBOOST.

The miners are a cartel and act by their own self-interest, not the interest of the community as a whole.