I feel, Bitcoin is torn in a cold war between two kinds of people!

[Lethn]

It's hardly idealism, the simple fact is if we give ground and change the source code [...words]

It doesn't matter if you change bitcoin's sourcecode. If the changes aren't desirable to most people, adoption of that update won't occur and people will stick with the old version. A natural self-interested democracy solves the problem.

That's what I'm hoping will be the case, it's a good thing it's been released open source so far, but it would be a shame to see Satoshi's creation ruined by internal politics.

[DiamondCardz]

The OP raises some good points but the "anarchocapitalists" exist both in Bitcoin and USD. If Bitcoin does become large the government will find a way to crack down on people who use Bitcoin for illegal purposes. Silk Road 1.0 & 2.0 both prove this.

[oda.krell]

Not a bad post, OP.

I think the solution, whether intended/desired or not, will be that Bitcoin (or another cryptocurrency, if Bitcoin is ever to be replaced as the "default" crypto) will turn out similar to the Internet as a whole: easy to use for the average consumer, but an absolute nightmare from a privacy standpoint. With substantial effort and technical knowledge on the other hand, you can mask your activity on the Internet and prevent eavesdropping on your sensitive information: Tor/I2P, VPNs, strong end-to-end encryption, sufficient knowledge of your own system to make attacks via vulnerabilities unlikely.

I can see something similar for cryptos then: Bitcoin will be monitored and nothing like what the early nerds were hoping for. It will also be the crypto used by 95% of the population. Another privacy centered crypto will take the niche role of (near) anonymous transactions, and it'll be a constant battle between developers aiming to secure it against privacy invasion and and governments trying break into it.

[El Emperador]

I think one of the many strenghts of Bitcoin and Cryptocoins in general is that users aren't flagged by just one political and philosophical thought, but there are people with different ideas who use Bitcoin anyway.

[turvarya]

They can't force either to be legal or illegal, and even if they did, it wouldn't be enforceable anyway.

What they can do is make/commission changes to Bitcoin that suit them and create a fork themselves, which implements all of the measures they want in place.  Then endorse THAT Bitcoin fork to the public at large, its still "Bitcoin" in principle, so it can be marketed as such (plus who's going to sue them?  The foundation?)

Aside from the fact that the public would have no idea technically whats going on, I'd imagine that members of the public, including ones that were/are skeptical, would be more likely to use this Bitcoin derivative as it has the backing of the state (hell, they could go as far as secure deposits against loss as per the regular financial system).  

What you possibly end up with is a mass exodus of new users into the system, as they now feel safe.  Miners will follow the money, more users = more fees to collect, thus more profitable.  Before you know it, the original BTC fork is suffering, and the new one is blooming.  

Then you'll get the scenario that Holliday suggests, along with some dishonest users spending BTC on both forks that they had before the split.

I would definitely use both forks. I don't see, what is dishonest about that

[Soros Shorts]

I am not interested in details, based on what doesn't matter, I am just saying this can be easily done if Bitcoin becomes large enough to be a threat.

Just because it can be done doesn't mean that it will be done. And it doesn't mean that the regulators will get everything they want when they try. The fact is that it is difficult for a single government to regulate a distributed peer to peer currency. I am keen to watch them try and see how the whole thing plays out. We will need to fight it out and the outcome will depend on where the rubber meets the road, not on hypothetical possibilities.

Are you are suggesting that we just bail out now and sell our coins because of a potential threat? Or are you going to propose countermeasures?

[cbeast]

You are saying that regulators are going to force a particular fork to be legal and others to be illegal based purely on what? If that happened and I were a miner, I would sell my equipment and get out of mining before it happens again.

I am not interested in details, based on what doesn't matter, I am just saying this can be easily done if Bitcoin becomes large enough to be a threat.

This can be done with anything in a dictatorship. They could make your blood type currency. You should be careful what you wish for.

You sound like you're in denial. Every time someone tells people what has a high likelihood to happen based on history and they don't like the bitterness of facts, they start blaming the messenger, sticking their collective heads in the sand, that's denial at its best. Do I need to remind you how many times democracies have turned into dictatorships when they were economically devastated?

How does it feel to always live in fear? Many democracies do fail. Does that mean they are not worth fighting for?

[devphp]

Are you are suggesting that we just bail out now and sell our coins because of a potential threat? Or are you going to propose countermeasures?

Yes, look for a more secure and intervention-proof crypto technology, Bitcoin is too vulnerable and easy to strike at its core.

How does it feel to always live in fear? Many democracies do fail. Does that mean they are not worth fighting for?

Wtf are you talking about? Either you know what will happen and act to put countermeasures against it or you simply are scared and hope it doesn't happen. What I am talking about is really that simple. Bitcoin is PoW = vulnerable and flawed and can be taken down easily if there is a political will to take it down. Period.

[cbeast]

Bitcoin is PoW = vulnerable and flawed and can be taken down easily if there is a political will to take it down. Period.

Who's political will do you fear?

[devphp]

Bitcoin is PoW = vulnerable and flawed and can be taken down easily if there is a political will to take it down. Period.

Who's political will do you fear?

I don't. But holders of Bitcoin should.

[cbeast]

Bitcoin is PoW = vulnerable and flawed and can be taken down easily if there is a political will to take it down. Period.

Who's political will do you fear?

I don't. But holders of Bitcoin should.

Neither do we.

[J3VVL]

Not a bad post, OP.

I think the solution, whether intended/desired or not, will be that Bitcoin (or another cryptocurrency, if Bitcoin is ever to be replaced as the "default" crypto) will turn out similar to the Internet as a whole: easy to use for the average consumer, but an absolute nightmare from a privacy standpoint. With substantial effort and technical knowledge on the other hand, you can mask your activity on the Internet and prevent eavesdropping on your sensitive information: Tor/I2P, VPNs, strong end-to-end encryption, sufficient knowledge of your own system to make attacks via vulnerabilities unlikely.

I can see something similar for cryptos then: Bitcoin will be monitored and nothing like what the early nerds were hoping for. It will also be the crypto used by 95% of the population. Another privacy centered crypto will take the niche role of (near) anonymous transactions, and it'll be a constant battle between developers aiming to secure it against privacy invasion and and governments trying break into it.

ya sure ~ until an EMP or solar flares start messing up the grid! :-D lol

[TippingPoint]

The first are some  Anarchocapitalist, anarchist and some techno libertarians who want bitcoin to be away from banks and government regulations and be  a product of the Darknet

The second kind is the Venture capitalist and industrialist who want to make bitcoin an Apolitical instrument or neutral technology thereby making it consumer friendly for grandma and kids.

Both categories of users benefit from the presence and growth of the other catagory.  But they might not want to admit it.

[J3VVL]

The first are some  Anarchocapitalist, anarchist and some techno libertarians who want bitcoin to be away from banks and government regulations and be  a product of the Darknet

The second kind is the Venture capitalist and industrialist who want to make bitcoin an Apolitical instrument or neutral technology thereby making it consumer friendly for grandma and kids.

Both categories of users benefit from the presence and growth of the other catagory.  But they might not want to admit it.

bitcoin was created to disrupt the current system ... shit got real and the creator disappeared! lol go figure!!! :-D

[cuddaloreappu]

The first are some  Anarchocapitalist, anarchist and some techno libertarians who want bitcoin to be away from banks and government regulations and be  a product of the Darknet

The second kind is the Venture capitalist and industrialist who want to make bitcoin an Apolitical instrument or neutral technology thereby making it consumer friendly for grandma and kids.

Both categories of users benefit from the presence and growth of the other catagory.  But they might not want to admit it.

I think this requires some deep thinking, its ultimately a tussle between idealism and money..

[QuestionAuthority]

The first are some  Anarchocapitalist, anarchist and some techno libertarians who want bitcoin to be away from banks and government regulations and be  a product of the Darknet

The second kind is the Venture capitalist and industrialist who want to make bitcoin an Apolitical instrument or neutral technology thereby making it consumer friendly for grandma and kids.

Both categories of users benefit from the presence and growth of the other catagory.  But they might not want to admit it.

bitcoin was created to disrupt the current system ... shit got real and the creator disappeared! lol go figure!!! :-D

That wouldn't matter to the creator (that word makes me think of Satoshi carrying a cross wearing a crown of thorns lol). They don't prosecute the CEO of Colt Firearms when someone commits murder with a Colt.

[blumangroup]

The first are some  Anarchocapitalist, anarchist and some techno libertarians who want bitcoin to be away from banks and government regulations and be  a product of the Darknet

The second kind is the Venture capitalist and industrialist who want to make bitcoin an Apolitical instrument or neutral technology thereby making it consumer friendly for grandma and kids.

Both categories of users benefit from the presence and growth of the other catagory.  But they might not want to admit it.

bitcoin was created to disrupt the current system ... shit got real and the creator disappeared! lol go figure!!! :-D

The creator (aka satoshi) disappeared because the amount of attention Bitcoin was receiving would amount to him getting doxxed which he did not want.

To respond to the OP, I really do not think it matters what ideology is of anyone who uses, works on (improves), invests in (or even attempts to attack) Bitcoin is. People have the freedom to believe in whatever they want and there is no rule that everyone must follow the same cult.

[scarsbergholden]

The first are some  Anarchocapitalist, anarchist and some techno libertarians who want bitcoin to be away from banks and government regulations and be  a product of the Darknet

The second kind is the Venture capitalist and industrialist who want to make bitcoin an Apolitical instrument or neutral technology thereby making it consumer friendly for grandma and kids.

Both categories of users benefit from the presence and growth of the other catagory.  But they might not want to admit it.

I agree with this (however I don't agree that both categories of people are so stubborn that they would not want to admit that Bitcoin benefits (and can continue to benefit) both groups of people. I would say that Bitcoin can and will benefit both groups of people and both groups will each be a large set of Bitcoin's userbase.

[yayayo]

I agree that there are different kinds of people involved in the bitcoin sphere with a part of them being more libertarian and another part being more of the opportunistic investor type.

However I'm not sure that these two groups will necessarily have to be in a state of war. I think both con coexist. Being libertarian and pro-anonymity does not rule out endorsing profitability - and vice versa.

In my opinion Bitcoin is designed as a decentralized, pseudonymous, trustless system which will automatically lead to a shift towards more libertarian values, because controlling such a system is expensive and will have adverse effects on the system's efficiency. Opportunistic investors will certainly not support governmental control of Bitcoin if it hurts the system's efficiency and profitability.

Ultimately all parties will realize that there is much more to gain than to loose from the decentralization and full fungibility of Bitcoin. The wind of change that stems from Bitcoin is much too strong to build walls...

ya.ya.yo!

[J3VVL]

The first are some  Anarchocapitalist, anarchist and some techno libertarians who want bitcoin to be away from banks and government regulations and be  a product of the Darknet

The second kind is the Venture capitalist and industrialist who want to make bitcoin an Apolitical instrument or neutral technology thereby making it consumer friendly for grandma and kids.

Both categories of users benefit from the presence and growth of the other catagory.  But they might not want to admit it.

bitcoin was created to disrupt the current system ... shit got real and the creator disappeared! lol go figure!!! :-D

The creator (aka satoshi) disappeared because the amount of attention Bitcoin was receiving would amount to him getting doxxed which he did not want.

To respond to the OP, I really do not think it matters what ideology is of anyone who uses, works on (improves), invests in (or even attempts to attack) Bitcoin is. People have the freedom to believe in whatever they want and there is no rule that everyone must follow the same cult.

who knows what happened to satoshi?

either he shut up on his own or was shut up by someone else?

i believe bitcoin was created as a revolutionary alternative to the current system not just another cybertool to be exploited by the wall street vampires! =\