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

[cuddaloreappu]

From my almost an year old observation and experience I feel there is a sort of cold war being waged between 2 kinds of people!


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 and be used for buying drugs, childporn and whistle blowing and care much about anonymity.

No matter how hard you try you cannot hide the fact Satoshi is political and bitcoin came into existence as a political tool hence satoshi wrote

"Yes, [we will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography,] but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years."



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.

They have to take this positions since they have invested millions into the ecosystem and are waiting for the network effects to unfold big and they least care about anonymity or the principles of how and why bitcoin came in first place.

There is a  silent cold war happening and a clash is imminent!

TLDR: For every app like Circle  there will be a Darkwallet...

The future in this path could be dangerous! may even compromise the security and foundations of bitcoin in the fight!

[BTCIndia]

Techie saying to capitalist- This is our move--Ukhaad lo!

and

Developed countries saying to under developed countries--Ukhaad lo!

and

Advanced government saying to under-advance governments-Ukhaad lo!

[cbeast]

You are on the right track, but it isn't yet a war. It is a paradigm shift where idealists and opportunists must learn that they are looking at different halves of the same coin. They must realize they have a common enemy and that Bitcoin needs them both to work together to defeat that enemy.

[cuddaloreappu]

You are on the right track, but it isn't yet a war. It is a paradigm shift where idealists and opportunists must learn that they are looking at different halves of the same coin. They must realize they have a common enemy and that Bitcoin needs them both to work together to defeat that enemy.

Thanks for telling me I am on right track..nice to get +1 from legendary...

Can you please tell me who the enemy is..

 State or FED  or Greed or what?

[cbeast]

The common enemy is ignorance and fear of progress.

[cbeast]

Thanks for letting me know that I have to pick one of these two very specific choices. Here I thought all along that anyone could use Bitcoin for any reason they like. Gosh... silly me.

Bitcoin is a game with rules. They are very broad, but absolute. You don't have to play the game, but you do have to follow the rules if you do play. That's the whole idea of transparency. The OP probably didn't intend to form a dichotomy, but was trying to be broad and inclusive regarding general interests in Bitcoin. You don't have to pick sides, but it behooves you to see the nuances of blockchain assets.

[Alonzo Ewing]

This market anarchist wants financial privacy, predictable money supply, and free trade among all people of the world. 

Why would anyone want to buy coffee with Bitcoin?  We already have centralized systems that work well for that kind of thing.

[cbeast]

This market anarchist wants financial privacy, predictable money supply, and free trade among all people of the world. 

Why would anyone want to buy coffee with Bitcoin?  We already have centralized systems that work well for that kind of thing.

Good for you, mate. When you say *We* who exactly are you speaking for?

[cuddaloreappu]

Thanks for letting me know that I have to pick one of these two very specific choices. Here I thought all along that anyone could use Bitcoin for any reason they like. Gosh... silly me.

Bitcoin is a game with rules. They are very broad, but absolute. You don't have to play the game, but you do have to follow the rules if you do play. That's the whole idea of transparency. The OP probably didn't intend to form a dichotomy, but was trying to be broad and inclusive regarding general interests in Bitcoin. You don't have to pick sides, but it behooves you to see the nuances of blockchain assets.

there it is... you clearly said my intentions...

[Lethn]

This market anarchist wants financial privacy, predictable money supply, and free trade among all people of the world.  

Why would anyone want to buy coffee with Bitcoin?  We already have centralized systems that work well for that kind of thing.

As an Anarchist I resent these statements that have been made about Anarchists, not just you in particular because the OP did it as well, I don't necessarily want/need anonymity but that's a nice feature, what I want is a currency that is free from the state and central banks and can be traded freely without restrictions and there are people who are actively trying to prevent that through groups like the Bitcoin foundation. Thankfully though, it's seems that there are currencies like Darkcoin etc. that are stepping in to fill that kind of gap that Bitcoin seems to be leaving, I haven't seen any moves yet by Gavin to take away the freedom Bitcoin gives but I'm not holding my breath.

So long as we're free to exchange our Bitcoins anywhere in the world and not have anyone interfere with transactions based on our I.P address etc. I at least am happy, though obviously I can't speak for all Anarchists since they all have very different opinions.

[QuestionAuthority]

This market anarchist wants financial privacy, predictable money supply, and free trade among all people of the world.  

Why would anyone want to buy coffee with Bitcoin?  We already have centralized systems that work well for that kind of thing.

As an Anarchist I resent these statements that have been made about Anarchists, not just you in particular because the OP did it as well, I don't necessarily want/need anonymity but that's a nice feature, what I want is a currency that is free from the state and central banks and can be traded freely without restrictions and there are people who are actively trying to prevent that through groups like the Bitcoin foundation. Thankfully though, it's seems that there are currencies like Darkcoin etc. that are stepping in to fill that kind of gap that Bitcoin seems to be leaving, I haven't seen any moves yet by Gavin to take away the freedom Bitcoin gives but I'm not holding my breath.

So long as we're free to exchange our Bitcoins anywhere in the world and not have anyone interfere with transactions based on our I.P address etc. I at least am happy, though obviously I can't speak for all Anarchists since they all have very different opinions.

The profit mongers are going to be disappointed when they finally get Bitcoin fully regulated, institutionalized, mainstream, blacklisted and ready for the average John Q Public. John doesn't want or need a difficult to use Western Union replacement. Cash already works for him for small and anonymous purchases (ask any street corner drug dealer or prostitute) and he understands cash. Credit/debit cards fill in the rest. No, the fringe element in society is keeping Bitcoin alive and we'll stop using it in favor of something the profit mongers haven't destroyed.

[Lethn]

We're all in this for profit, but the point is that a decentralised and unregulated currency is going to be far more profitable than another digital dollar, once you take away the decentralised and open source nature of Bitcoin that's it's value gone, it was specifically created to get round the banking system and if the banks take over it then it's pointless as a currency.

We've all seen the dollar and we all understand how it works, what interests people about Bitcoin is the fact that you only to download some software onto your PC in order to use it and that's it.

[Fuserleer]

I think if you want to break it down into 2 halves then you are close, but you can simplify further

One half of the camp is a bunch of idealists.  The other half of the camp is a bunch of realists.

The problem is that the realists know what need to be done, and try to do it, yet get beaten down constantly by the idealists because it doesn't meet their opinion.   The idealists just sit around all day, preaching about unachievable ideals, ramming opinions down every throat they can, with absolutely no grasp on reality regarding how to get there (if they did, they would also be realists) so then never actually get up and do anything.

You have a tiny 3rd camp which are people with both attributes, but between them they can never get enough momentum to affect an change and recruit realists that do, nor can they be heard over the ever vocal idealists.

Stalemate...which is where we are at with very little forward momentum IMO.

[Lethn]

It's hardly idealism, the simple fact is if we give ground and change the source code to suit the needs of regulators that's when Bitcoin will end up failing, you can insitute what kind of tax rules are to be placed on it all you like, just don't go saying things like "Yes we'll change the way the public ledger works" and so on because the first time I see a "Full Name" or "Country" field on my Bitcoin wallet I'm transferring everything.

[Fuserleer]

It's hardly idealism, the simple fact is if we give ground and change the source code to suit the needs of regulators that's when Bitcoin will end up failing, you can insitute what kind of tax rules are to be placed on it all you like, just don't go saying things like "Yes we'll change the way the public ledger works" and so on because the first time I see a "Full Name" field on my Bitcoin wallet I'm transferring everything.

I don't think that argument even comes into play.

I think its more to do with that fact that at the beginning, the 3rd camp (i just edited above) was a lot larger, and that is what got us here because being both they know how to compromise.

Now we are in a position, where the 2 majorities constantly squabble, and its all or nothing for both...so we end up stuck.

If we could get back in the position where the 3rd camp is the majority, then we could do a fine job of working with various bodies to push forward, instead of having to speculate on extremes like you present above.

[turvarya]

It's hardly idealism, the simple fact is if we give ground and change the source code to suit the needs of regulators that's when Bitcoin will end up failing, you can insitute what kind of tax rules are to be placed on it all you like, just don't go saying things like "Yes we'll change the way the public ledger works" and so on because the first time I see a "Full Name" or "Country" field on my Bitcoin wallet I'm transferring everything.

What the fuck are you talking about?
Who wants to change the source code to suit the needs of regulators?

[devphp]

Who wants to change the source code to suit the needs of regulators?

Wouldn't large miners (who basically control the network) have to comply with any provision issued to them (including modified code with whatever rules regulators think of to code in there)? Regulators don't bother with this just yet, as they see that Bitcoin is too small and fading away by itself to become irrelevant due to its flaws, and it's cheaper for them socially to just wait it out. But if it didn't fade away and began to grow to threaten the fiat system, be sure, they'd issue this license in a heart beat.

[Jybrael]

Well the war hasn't started yet and hopefully won't for some time but in the end I do agree it is inevitable.

[Bagatell]

This thread reminds me of the committee of blind men inspecting an elephant. 

[turvarya]

Who wants to change the source code to suit the needs of regulators?

Wouldn't large miners (who basically control the network) have to comply with any provision issued to them (including modified code with whatever rules regulators think of to code in there)? Regulators don't bother with this just yet, as they see that Bitcoin is too small and fading away by itself to become irrelevant due to its flaws, and it's cheaper for them socially to just wait it out. But if it didn't fade away and began to grow to threaten the fiat system, be sure, they'd issue this license in a heart beat.

When it is a change, that changes how the blockchain works, you would need a hard fork. Users/miners would just have to stay on their old version to not accept it.