Topic: . (Read 3273 times)

The banks already have taken over bitcoin... why do you think blockstream and bitcoin core want to implement such an overly complex solution to scailing that oddly enough makes it extremely easy to centralize bitcoin via lightning network nodes? is that a coincidence? no. WAKE UP SHEEPLE.

people want to complain about roger ver and jihan wu trying to assault bitcoin with the bitcoin cash fork but really it's blockstream through bitcoin core that are harming bitcoin with all the financial institutions funding the take over through blockstream.

the fact that the average person investing in bitcoin (btc) are extremely lazy and simply looking to become wealthy is a huge problem... these lazy investors aren't doing the leg work to actually look into lightning network and the effect it will have on bitcoin... they are literally handing the banks the power over bitcoin because they are ignorant and greedy. they would rather take the words of blockstream funded shills like all the dipshits at World Crypto Network and Tone Vays and Richard Heart (Richard Schueler)

sure... i agree. the name bitcoin cash is stupid. but they couldn't simply take the name bitcoin and have two coins with the same name. so bitcoin cash had to be used... but if you look beyond the stupid name they were more or less forced to use, you'll see that bitcoin cash is the original bitcoin chain...

trust me, i fell for the "btc is the real bitcoin" bullshit, too. but eventually, i had to objectively look at the entire situation, all the players invovled and logically come to my own conclusion... which is that bch/bcc is bitcoin. i felt stupid, but got over it. i'm sure plenty of shills will disagree with my sentiment but do the research... you'll see.

don't trust blockstream.
don't trust lightning network.
make sure you know what is going on here.
the banks have taken over btc....

Experts call for caution about digital currencies, such as bitcoin and Ethereum, but financial firms are considering adopting them or even establishing their own. News of the 23-year-old, Russian-born programmer’s demise was soon proved false – but not before 20%, or roughly $4bn, had been wiped from Ethereum’s soaring market value. That's certainly worrying..But they will have many disadvantages as well.Banks are regulated entity. so they can't create a decentralized currency. They will have to employ proper accounting system for that. They will have to keep track of every single transaction. So they will never have the anonymity what bitcoin enjoys. So a lot of people will simple not indulge in to this.
But the most worrying part is that, if the banks are started using blockchain technology to create their own currency...we will soon see an influx of fiat currency in to the organized and regulated market which will decrease the value of traditional currency which will in turn make the people poorer, especially those who have never experienced the crypto world.

What banks are trying to create is a single standard for information sharing. Currently each bank has its own database, and they have a lot of trouble synchronizing data between them. Now they want a single shared db that everyone will use. They call it "blockchain", for whatever reason. Nothing in common with bitcoin.

Bitcoin will only be the reserve currency if every other coin is interested in allowing it to be the reserve currency. There is the potential for the USD becoming a cryptocurrency and it just remains in the same position.

Bitcoin and other cryptos can co-exist, it all depends on if the government wants to allow for them to or not. And even then, there isn't much they can do about it.

Why does any bank need to take over Bitcoin? The way it works simply won't ever fit with how those guys operate. They'll take some ideas from it and make something that makes normal banking better but it won't solve any of the deep rooted problems.

If bitcoin is not declared by governments, it will coexist with other government coins peacefully. But bitcoin will be the reserve currency.

It depends on what you mean by the word "peacefully". Will there come a day when central banks won't want to "control and own" everything, including bitcoin? No.

The blockchain technology is great and everyone wants to develop their own versions to use in their networks. I am wondering what will happen if down the line we have competing blockchains and services. Can the banks and Bitcoin co-exist peacefully?

Maybe after their hard work on the blockchain technology, they found bitcoin is the best to adopt for their business. They might provide services based on bitcoin.

Whether such syndicates being organized seem a threat, I would still say that this had always been a winning innovation and will always be...
The devs here ain't stupid to just let their superb technology be spoiled by so-called "Banks" so to allow them to just ruin the opportunity of an average joe to live on his own without showing his finances to government...

It's Over

Toomim Coin REKT

Many banks have invested in Bitcoin startups or want to use blockchain technology
themsleves, possibly Bitcoin.  Nasdaq is already doing so.

Your theory of the "banking establishment" out to divide or attack Bitcoin is
unsubstantiated, let alone that they are taking notes about Classic.
 
Ok maybe Jamie Dimon is plotting something.  He's obsessed with Bitcoin.
But he's one guy.

You are wrong.


You are so stupid that further discussion is completely unnecessary. I've just Ignored you.

Walking it back. Duly noted. Was 'Bitcoin Classic was created by the banksters as a tool to kill crypto', now changed to an unverifiable speculation that 'banksters think they can subvert Bitcoin Classic trivially, while subverting Bitcoin Core presents an insurmountable obstacle'.

I call bullshit. Again.


Encouraging division? They? Who? The banksters? Care to point out where the banksters are sowing this discord? Let alone the obvious grey area as to who is the divided and who is the dividee. Core has been getting a clear signal for months that at least a non-negligible minority -- and perhaps a clear majority -- is not buying into their so-called scaling plan. It could be argued that it is Core that is the source of the discord.


Umm Humm. Classic, which is planned as legacy with a changed value of one constant, is an altcoin, while Core, which is legacy plus RBF plus SegWit, plus... and totally changes the validity protocol, is not an altcoin. Do you even listen yo yourself?

I apologize for the vitriol, but not for the underlying sentiment. Your opening salvo was clearly designed to create in the mind of those that do not know better that Bitcoin Classic was created merely as a tool to be used to wrest (in some yet to be revealed manner) control over cryptocurrecy by the banking establishment. Which is, as anyone with a brain can tell, absolute twaddle.

does tgis bank even work pls reply 

OP, thank you for nice bullshit opening post.

So far , I haven't seen a single article clearly explain how
banks could actually use a distributed ledger for fiat.

Banks already have ledgers and balances with each
other and no one can be forced to pay except in
court.

I guess it might be easier for a bank to sue another
bank if there's public record of what was owed?

But even that seems like a kind of weak argument
as there would be records.

So, whats the point of a distributed ledger
between banks?

This does not mean in any way, shape or form that they will be successful. Honestly, I don't believe they will. Wall Street has almost no credibility amongst many in the crypto community.