A Community With No Libra, Bakkt, ETFs and Institutions

[Darooghe]

I get mixed feelings about it. I'm not a fan of Libra, however I do think it will help mass adoption of Crypto Currencies in a whole, and help drive up the price of bitcoin. the biggest problem with the Crypto space is the on-boarding process. Its very hard for someone new to get into Crypto, that is what is holding back mass adoption. If Facebook can make this easier, they can bring millions of new users into the space. When they have their Libra tokens which is basically a stable coins, and then they look at BTC increasing in value, they will definitely sell Libra for BTC.

Libra uses a few nice qualities of Crypto to solve some long-standing problems in Swift and credit-card push-transactions, but otherwise does nothing revolutionary, and sooner or later people realize that Bitcoin is unstoppable, then BTC becomes a price stability coin at market what the Libra wants to offer people. Personally, i would like Libra to start up but then fails, because after that, the real value of Bitcoin and the blockchain will became known.

[Kyraishi]

The kicker is, we need centralized services like Bakkt and some of these ETFs to push adoption on a institutional level, because that is where the big bucks is. The institutional investors will help to improve Bitcoin's store of value, but not it's currency feature. 

People are normally lazy and they like the convenience of pre-packaged investment tools like ETFs and it also provides a regulated environment where they feel safe. So every piece of the puzzle has it's place.. we should just complete the puzzle. 

What if we lose the community and the idea of decentralization? Change is hard, when it is about something that most of the people don't know, it is harder. I mean decentralization. When we have etf and libra or something that has regulations, we may lose the community. They may prefer libra or grams instead of bitcoin because these provide regulations etc.

I don't think there's ever a possibility of that happening, look at the current market where we have so many altcoins, but Bitcoin dominance is still at a pretty high level, even when there are so many options out there.

I get mixed feelings about it. I'm not a fan of Libra, however I do think it will help mass adoption of Crypto Currencies in a whole, and help drive up the price of bitcoin. the biggest problem with the Crypto space is the on-boarding process. Its very hard for someone new to get into Crypto, that is what is holding back mass adoption. If Facebook can make this easier, they can bring millions of new users into the space. When they have their Libra tokens which is basically a stable coins, and then they look at BTC increasing in value, they will definitely sell Libra for BTC.

Libra uses a few nice qualities of Crypto to solve some long-standing problems in Swift and credit-card push-transactions, but otherwise does nothing revolutionary, and sooner or later people realize that Bitcoin is unstoppable, then BTC becomes a price stability coin at market what the Libra wants to offer people. Personally, i would like Libra to start up but then fails, because after that, the real value of Bitcoin and the blockchain will became known.

Libra could have worked very well if they did things better, but unfortunately they made mistakes and it ended up in their partners dropping out and then things just kept getting worse there.

I think we can all respect their effort, but it just didn't pan out well.

[1Referee]

Now, Libra, that thing can fuck off!

That's not fair. If you're expecting governments to be open minded enough to tolerate Bitcoin, then why don't you do the same and allow other entities to create their own money? People blame governments for not tolerating anything other than their own currency, but a lot people here do the same. In a free market money should be able to compete.

Governments force you to use their hot air fiat currencies, and alternatives such as Bitcoin and Libra counter that. It provides a welcome bit of choice in the type of money you can use. Facebook doesn't force you to use Libra. Bitcoin doesn't force you to use Bitcoin. It's you who makes the decision to use one or the other, or both.

[micalith]

Now, Libra, that thing can fuck off!

That's not fair. If you're expecting governments to be open minded enough to tolerate Bitcoin, then why don't you do the same and allow other entities to create their own money? People blame governments for not tolerating anything other than their own currency, but a lot people here do the same. In a free market money should be able to compete.

Governments force you to use their hot air fiat currencies, and alternatives such as Bitcoin and Libra counter that. It provides a welcome bit of choice in the type of money you can use. Facebook doesn't force you to use Libra. Bitcoin doesn't force you to use Bitcoin. It's you who makes the decision to use one or the other, or both.

We are open minded but we should inform the community about what decentralization truly means. We should do this before the goverments and other big companies create alternative centralized coins. Facebook may not be forcing us to use Libra but they have a huge power to make advertisements of their coin. This doesn't seem fair to me. On the contrary, we should act as a whole and spread the decentralized coins.

[Baofeng]

Now, Libra, that thing can fuck off!

That's not fair. If you're expecting governments to be open minded enough to tolerate Bitcoin, then why don't you do the same and allow other entities to create their own money? People blame governments for not tolerating anything other than their own currency, but a lot people here do the same. In a free market money should be able to compete.

Governments force you to use their hot air fiat currencies, and alternatives such as Bitcoin and Libra counter that. It provides a welcome bit of choice in the type of money you can use. Facebook doesn't force you to use Libra. Bitcoin doesn't force you to use Bitcoin. It's you who makes the decision to use one or the other, or both.

We are open minded but we should inform the community about what decentralization truly means. We should do this before the goverments and other big companies create alternative centralized coins. Facebook may not be forcing us to use Libra but they have a huge power to make advertisements of their coin. This doesn't seem fair to me. On the contrary, we should act as a whole and spread the decentralized coins.

I guess he is talking about Libra going into the space and testing it for themselves it's not about who has the power behind or what. We all know that entities can wield their power here because it's a free and open market to say the least. I truly wanted bitcoin to be decentralised but with so many actors coming into picture, it will be tested many times and I don't know if we are going to remain on top for many years because there's so much pressure now from governments around the world.

[blckhawk]

The topic describes the issue for us. For us to become a decentralized, we should focus more on mass adoption. I know these may provide some mass adoption but with centralized adoption, it is useless and contradiction for bitcoin itself.

The good thing about these new projects is that they educate people regarding to what is crypto, what can it do, how does it work, etc. The bad thing is, they educate those same people in the wrong way. If these projects would be successful, the non-crypto people would only know that these systems are still governed by a centralized system, which is wrong. They should know the foundations of blockchain.

[ardentvolcanoes]

The topic describes the issue for us. For us to become a decentralized, we should focus more on mass adoption. I know these may provide some mass adoption but with centralized adoption, it is useless and contradiction for bitcoin itself.

The good thing about these new projects is that they educate people regarding to what is crypto, what can it do, how does it work, etc. The bad thing is, they educate those same people in the wrong way. If these projects would be successful, the non-crypto people would only know that these systems are still governed by a centralized system, which is wrong. They should know the foundations of blockchain.

A good side of it indeed, People will learn blockchain system and probably adopt but the real intensions for being anonymous already been forgotten, those know projects that being popularized around this market has nothing to do with decentralizations. They wanted to ride with the popularity of cryptocurrency but with the govern system of centralized facilities.
It have good effects in anyhow but if we still considering the main goals of being free it will contradict everything.

[CryptoBry]

Decentralization is one of the best feature that Bitcoin is offering to all of us...this is the gift and contribution that Satoshi Nakamoto wanted for us to see, experience and appreciate. However, market realities can be different from the ideals. There is now a big concern that Bitcoin mining is getting to be centralized as it is controlled by a few and not democratized or spread well as getting into this enterprise can be requiring a lot of investment on mining equipment and not all locations are suitable for mining due to high cost of inputs especially electricity. With cryptocurrency exchanges, it is still centralized platforms that commands the biggest part of the market. For now, I see no solid solutions to these concerns except if we users and enthusiasts of cryptocurrency will be demanding for more decentralization. One aspect that can b a big factor for centralization is of course, business and the pursuit of profits.

[pooya87]

there is no such thing as "centralized adoption", it is plan adoption. you can not put restriction on who adopts bitcoin and that's what being decentralized means. besides things like Bakkt, ETFs,... are good for bitcoin. it is not all about people getting on board, it is about the whole world with different views getting on board and just like any other currency a "trading market" is expected.
by the way Libra has nothing to do with bitcoin.

[eaLiTy]

The topic describes the issue for us. For us to become a decentralized, we should focus more on mass adoption. I know these may provide some mass adoption but with centralized adoption, it is useless and contradiction for bitcoin itself.

BTCitcoin created a new market and the list of new coins and tokens will flow along with derivative market and other institutions starting their business and creating new projects is good and now we will see centralized coins now, all the tokens were centralized and you cannot call them decentralized as per the real essence and hence you cannot blame anyone, people have the right to choice what they want and if regulation allows we will see more centralized coins in the market like Libra. Adoption will not happen in ten years time, it will take a much longer time and throughout history any new market will take centuries to get massive adoption but we are living in a tech world and hence we might achieve that in the next 20 years.

[nasipadang]

The topic describes the issue for us. For us to become a decentralized, we should focus more on mass adoption. I know these may provide some mass adoption but with centralized adoption, it is useless and contradiction for bitcoin itself.

I also want a decentralized system with no institutions behind it, but on the other hand we need mass adoption where institutions play a slightly bigger role. In 2019 the value will go down and many users want BAKKT to change the market, in my opinion users prefer the digital market to move towards green despite the role of other institutions. Actually here the digital market does not have rules on who adopted it, BAKKT or institutions have the right to adopt digital currency, so there is nothing wrong here.

[Wintersoldier]

The topic describes the issue for us. For us to become a decentralized, we should focus more on mass adoption. I know these may provide some mass adoption but with centralized adoption, it is useless and contradiction for bitcoin itself.

As long as there's a market adoption of crypto, other crypto will be affected, massive adoption of libra and other centralized coins will mainly have influence on how people will treat bitcoin as well. The idea is, people will be exposed to cryptocurrency, and that will enable the world to change its phase from fiat to crypto. When it comes to worrying whenever people will choose centralized over decentralized, the actions needed is let them know the difference of these two so they will decide what best fits the world.

[BitHodler]

When it comes to worrying whenever people will choose centralized over decentralized, the actions needed is let them know the difference of these two so they will decide what best fits the world.

While knowing the difference between centralized and decentralized networks, it still doesn't make decentralized networks any more useful because in most cases you don't need censorship resistant payments.

People are too paranoid here---who's going to block your local grocery shopping payments? I have never had any of my local payments blocked. I value convenience, which is something I enjoy with fiat, not with any crypto.

Crypto is overhyped as means of payment. It's a store of value and then it pretty much stops. The legacy banking system improves too---I already enjoy free and instant bank to bank trasfers 24/7/365. Business hours are something of the past

[hatshepsut93]

The topic describes the issue for us. For us to become a decentralized, we should focus more on mass adoption. I know these may provide some mass adoption but with centralized adoption, it is useless and contradiction for bitcoin itself.

You should try to expand on your thoughts, "focus on" is a very general statement. What precisely do you want from Bitcoin community - to stop discussing news about Libra, ETF's and other institutions? To vow to never use them? Forbid any discussions about trading on this forum? Change the protocol to somehow cut out centralized companies?

Bitcoin's main goal is to give people freedom to use their money however they like, even if it means giving them to some centralized entities. Telling other people what to do with their coins is more against the spirit of Bitcoin then having some centralized players in this ecosystem.

[timerland]

Now, Libra, that thing can fuck off!

That's not fair. If you're expecting governments to be open minded enough to tolerate Bitcoin, then why don't you do the same and allow other entities to create their own money? People blame governments for not tolerating anything other than their own currency, but a lot people here do the same. In a free market money should be able to compete.

Governments force you to use their hot air fiat currencies, and alternatives such as Bitcoin and Libra counter that. It provides a welcome bit of choice in the type of money you can use. Facebook doesn't force you to use Libra. Bitcoin doesn't force you to use Bitcoin. It's you who makes the decision to use one or the other, or both.

We are open minded but we should inform the community about what decentralization truly means. We should do this before the goverments and other big companies create alternative centralized coins. Facebook may not be forcing us to use Libra but they have a huge power to make advertisements of their coin. This doesn't seem fair to me. On the contrary, we should act as a whole and spread the decentralized coins.

Libra wasn't that bad - it went under the same microscope bitcoin went under and since it was a centralized operation and relied on it's partners to help and they also had a reputation, it was easily shatterable.

They brought up issues with money laundering, which the same issue has been brought up for BTC, and instead of them just moving on (because no one controls BTC), they had all their partners pull out. It's actually quite sad to see.

[micalith]

The topic describes the issue for us. For us to become a decentralized, we should focus more on mass adoption. I know these may provide some mass adoption but with centralized adoption, it is useless and contradiction for bitcoin itself.

You should try to expand on your thoughts, "focus on" is a very general statement. What precisely do you want from Bitcoin community - to stop discussing news about Libra, ETF's and other institutions? To vow to never use them? Forbid any discussions about trading on this forum? Change the protocol to somehow cut out centralized companies?

Bitcoin's main goal is to give people freedom to use their money however they like, even if it means giving them to some centralized entities. Telling other people what to do with their coins is more against the spirit of Bitcoin then having some centralized players in this ecosystem.

Let me explain myself a little bit more. Surely with a decentralized community, we can, should discuss anything including regulations, bakkt, etfs, libra etc. Focusing more on mass adoption is with decentralization. Bitcoin is created against the governments' printing money. Well, look now, governments are trying to 'code' money and using their power to influence people, they can achieve this. Some of the people in the community haven't met the decentralization idea. We should spread our ideas to them and be in front of the eyes more than the governments.

[JohnBitCo]

The topic describes the issue for us. For us to become a decentralized, we should focus more on mass adoption. I know these may provide some mass adoption but with centralized adoption, it is useless and contradiction for bitcoin itself.

I agree, there needs to be a lot more adoption from bigger companies, some good examples would be when Samsung started including crypto hardware in their phones, more of that is needed.

There is going to be adoption by centralised companies and we can't stop that from happening, but most of the world lives in a centralised world and we can't just change that for everyone.

Samsung gained a lot of hype when they introduced crypto wallet within their phones but those didn't get much attention later. However I do hope that all the big companies will become affiliated with bitcoin and crypto and those who will not adopt to this technology will remain behind in the industry.

[NathanJB]

The topic describes the issue for us. For us to become a decentralized, we should focus more on mass adoption. I know these may provide some mass adoption but with centralized adoption, it is useless and contradiction for bitcoin itself.

This is attractive. This is like inciting a revolution. For a while I was already buying the idea that Bitcoin has to somehow embrace the regulations offered by the very system it tries to replace with a much better alternative. But instead of yielding to the traditional powerful system as if Bitcoin has to give up its precious ideas, why not resist instead? Bitcoin is the resistance!

[qiman]

There are pros and cons of all the above institutions and regulatory bodies. We need to regulate in order to get rid of most of the scammers and thieves plaguing this niche market, but on the other hand we need enough leeway and freedom to have  a more democratized way of dealing with our money and more fiscal choices, other than the ones that central banks and governments give us. So where do we draw the line and were do we also compromise, to have the best of both worlds and to attract more and more people into this type of economic revolution. I do believe mobile banking for the Unbanked will be a great leap forward in the after event of the Blockchain's humble beginnings, and harnessing the power of over two Billion People might be just what we need, even more powerful than a handful of institutions and foundations.

[alexforneus]

Community without libra may be much more healthy in my opinion. But yes, we need institutionals for big financical flows