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

[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.

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.

Alright, users and small miners would stay on their old fork, but large miners that control the network would have to comply with the regulations or shut down operations. Eventually users would have to either sell their Bitcoins (sell them on the old or new fork) or switch to and stay on the new regulated fork as well. What's wrong/impossible with this picture I just drew?

[Fuserleer]

The real concern with what you suggest there is that users that had Bitcoin on the pre-fork chain can spend them on both the new & old forked chains.

If the majority migrate to the new hard-fork, then it's not really an issue, because the old protocol dies, but if we end up with 2 large sets of users on each, then you can double spend previous BTC on both.

Obvious way around that is of course to have everyone run both the old and new chains and cross reference between each, but then that adds a whole new level of technical complexity to an already tricky non-technical problem.

[devphp]

Either way sooner or later Bitcoin is f*cked. Large miners are the weak point. Centralization and regulation is inevitable in PoW if it ever grows big enough.

[turvarya]

The real concern with what you suggest there is that users that had Bitcoin on the pre-fork chain can spend them on both the new & old forked chains.

If the majority migrate to the new hard-fork, then it's not really an issue, because the old protocol dies, but if we end up with 2 large sets of users on each, then you can double spend previous BTC on both.

Obvious way around that is of course to have everyone run both the old and new chains and cross reference between each, but then that adds a whole new level of technical complexity to an already tricky non-technical problem.

Nobody will cross-reference two chains. That just doesn't make sense.

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.

Alright, users and small miners would stay on their old fork, but large miners that control the network would have to comply with the regulations or shut down operations. Eventually users would have to either sell their Bitcoins (sell them on the old or new fork) or switch to and stay on the new regulated fork as well. What's wrong/impossible with this picture I just drew?

Why would a miner in Siberia care about a regulation made in the US?
Is there a statistic about, where most miners are? I don't think, they are in US.

Btw. that's exactly why some many people hates US-citiziens. A lot of them just don't realize that there is also an economy that is not controlled by your government, which is especially stupid, when you are talking about bitcoin.

[Soros Shorts]

Alright, users and small miners would stay on their old fork, but large miners that control the network would have to comply with the regulations or shut down operations. Eventually users would have to either sell their Bitcoins (sell them on the old or new fork) or switch to and stay on the new regulated fork as well. What's wrong/impossible with this picture I just drew?

I could be wrong, but I would imagine that the coins in the new fork would have lesser value than the old fork. For example, if I have relatives living in a "terrorist" country and the new fork does not allow me to remit them money, why would I even use the new fork?

[devphp]

Alright, users and small miners would stay on their old fork, but large miners that control the network would have to comply with the regulations or shut down operations. Eventually users would have to either sell their Bitcoins (sell them on the old or new fork) or switch to and stay on the new regulated fork as well. What's wrong/impossible with this picture I just drew?

I could be wrong, but I would imagine that the coins in the new fork would have lesser value than the old fork. For example, if I have relatives living in a "terrorist" country and the new fork does not allow me to remit them money, why would I even use the new fork?

Well, for starters, let's imagine that 90% of the hashing power (large miners) switches to the new fork to comply with regulations, where would that leave the old fork? It would make each new block arrive in 2-hour intervals, the difficulty retarget would arrive in 2016 blocks in the worst case, that would be 5 months to wait for normal 10-min blocks or even longer (can't remember how much the max retarget downwards in Bitcoin is allowed). Where would that put the credibility of Bitcoin? In short, it would be a total mess.

[countryfree]

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 a product of the Darknet and be used for buying drugs, childporn and whistle blowing and care much about anonymity.

Your description of anarchists is wrong.

I'm possibly a true anarchist, and as an anarchist I can't speak for others, otherwise I wouldn't be an anarchist, but I've burned my social security card in 1991, and few people can make such a claim.

I support BTC because I favor a currency which can keep my business out of the sight, and out of the knowledge, of all governments (I travel a lot), with all its tax men and various regulators who tell people how to do things.

[cuddaloreappu]

Updated post with some pictures and edits based on comments by anarchists here

[spooderman]

Shit thread is shit.

Thanks for sticking to the rule of always mentioning anonymity and child porn, drugs and darknet in the same sentence.

They must never not be associated! Freedom (privacy) is dangerous!

I think you may like this OP:

http://www.torcriminalbrowser.com/

[QuestionAuthority]

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.

We're not all in this for profit. There are much better high risk investments out there if profit is your main concern. Profit will happen eventually as more and more users enter the system. Many use Bitcoin because it empowers them. Bitcoin could slowly take the funding away from governments worldwide and place it in the hands of the people creating a very gradual bloodless revolution. At first Bitcoin should be kept small and made strong. All of the bugs need to be worked out. Then gradually over decades Bitcoin is used to barter between parties for all goods and services. Of course that won't happen because profit whores are handing it over to their beloved governments to regulate and control. This will work against them eventually because there's already a fully controlled electronic transfer system in place. Why create just another type of ACH/EFT system? There's nothing special about that. Who will use it? I will use something else and invest in real estate.

[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.

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.

Alright, users and small miners would stay on their old fork, but large miners that control the network would have to comply with the regulations or shut down operations. Eventually users would have to either sell their Bitcoins (sell them on the old or new fork) or switch to and stay on the new regulated fork as well. What's wrong/impossible with this picture I just drew?

You have the incentives wrong. Your mistake is starting with the premise that miners control the network. They don't. The economic majority controls the network. If the economic majority doesn't agree with a change, it won't happen (or last for long).

Let's imagine a scenario where a large percentage of the global hash rate wants to implement a change which a large percentage of the economic interests do not want.

This group of miners forks Bitcoin. Everyone who has bitcoins at this point now have coins on two chains. They don't want the new forked coins, so they immediately start selling them. The price of the coins on the fork starts to plummet (a majority is selling). If those sellers happen to find buyers for their forked coins, they will now have additional funds which they might use to purchase actual bitcoins. There will be massive (we are assuming an economic majority here) downward pressure on the price of the forked coins, and possible upward pressure on the price of actual bitcoins.

You are a miner. You have costs. You may even be in debt for hardware. Are you going to mine the forked coins which are rapidly decreasing in value or bitcoins which are at worst holding at the same value and possibly even increasing in value?

This scenario can of course go the opposite way, if the economic majority wants the change, they will liquidate their actual bitcoins and possibly use the proceeds to purchase additional newly forked coins.

The point is, the miners are at the whim of those who value the coin. If they try to force changes on the economic majority, they will quickly find themselves mining worthless coins. Prohibition can not stop economic forces (typically quite the opposite). If mining is outlawed, then outlaws will mine. If a coin is valued, people will find a way to mine it, regardless of any legal hurdles.

If you're a large mining farm, you're going to mine whatever fork the regulations dictate, if regulations force you to go bankrupt, well, then you will go bankrupt. That's the nature of large businesses, they are easily targeted and regulated. Bitcoin is just too small now, so they don't bother, the whole market cap of Bitcoin is pocket change to them at this point, it's politically not worth raising hell about. The economic majority may as well support the new regulated fork, and the network will keep humming along. But will this new fork be any different from fiat?

[J3VVL]

~ Pranksters vs. da Banksters!!! :-D muuhahaha

[Meuh6879]

hobbyist ----------> industrial application ------------> people

simple.

[cbeast]

You have the incentives wrong. Your mistake is starting with the premise that miners control the network. They don't. The economic majority controls the network. If the economic majority doesn't agree with a change, it won't happen (or last for long).

Let's imagine a scenario where a large percentage of the global hash rate wants to implement a change which a large percentage of the economic interests do not want.

This group of miners forks Bitcoin. Everyone who has bitcoins at this point now have coins on two chains. They don't want the new forked coins, so they immediately start selling them. The price of the coins on the fork starts to plummet (a majority is selling). If those sellers happen to find buyers for their forked coins, they will now have additional funds which they might use to purchase actual bitcoins. There will be massive (we are assuming an economic majority here) downward pressure on the price of the forked coins, and possible upward pressure on the price of actual bitcoins.

You are a miner. You have costs. You may even be in debt for hardware. Are you going to mine the forked coins which are rapidly decreasing in value or bitcoins which are at worst holding at the same value and possibly even increasing in value?

This scenario can of course go the opposite way, if the economic majority wants the change, they will liquidate their actual bitcoins and possibly use the proceeds to purchase additional newly forked coins.

The point is, the miners are at the whim of those who value the coin. If they try to force changes on the economic majority, they will quickly find themselves mining worthless coins. Prohibition can not stop economic forces (typically quite the opposite). If mining is outlawed, then outlaws will mine. If a coin is valued, people will find a way to mine it, regardless of any legal hurdles.

If you're a large mining farm, you're going to mine whatever fork the regulations dictate, if regulations force you to go bankrupt, well, then you will go bankrupt. That's the nature of large businesses, they are easily targeted and regulated.

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.

Bitcoin is just too small now, so they don't bother, the whole market cap of Bitcoin is pocket change to them at this point, it's politically not worth raising hell about. The economic majority may as well support the new regulated fork, and the network will keep humming along. But will this new fork be any different from fiat?

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

[Fuserleer]

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.

[Monica80]

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.

And the above needs to be posted as a sticky

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

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.

And the above needs to be posted as a sticky

He's giving out pearls here for sure

[Monica80]

 

[Beliathon]

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.

[devphp]

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?