Topic: [2016-12-13]Bitcoin Economics in One Lesson (Read 556 times)

If you can't be bothered to format the article headline correctly -- then I can't be bothered to read it on the first pass. Now that you've fixed it -- all I can say is its more whining about how Core is doing its job. If people really hate the pace of development, then fork the code and shut up.

At least reformed the title to match the format:

POST FORMAT: YYYY-MM-DD SITE - HEADLINE

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/post-format-yyyy-mm-dd-site-headline-246823

Are you blind? The thread is moved to press, which is clearly the place where the discussion needs to be. It is not in general section anymore. Stop crying to mods and realize that it is in the correct spot please. And actually read the article and add something constructive to the discussion next time.

Thoughts on Bitcoin belong in the forums elsewhere.

THIS IS A NEWS ARTICLE FORUM -- PLEASE MOVE THIS THREAD, MODS.

Thanks.

The Bitcoin system was centrally planned with rules, restrictions, and limitations.
The way to remove those rules, restrictions, and limitations is by Decree or Consensus.
Pure Consensus came about in 2013-2014 after Gavin stepped down, ending the Decree era.
Prior to 2013-2014 the central planning was run by divine right and a line of succession.

Now the network/community decides what the future brings from public proposals.
If the network/community has majority of Consensus for a proposal, then so be it.
If the network/community does not have majority of Consensus, then so be it.

The devs who worked on SegWit are only attempting to provide one answer to a group of
problems by using the softfork method. If SegWit never gains majority of Consensus,
for whatever reason, then it is controversial. If other devs wish to provide their proposal in
a softforkable method, they are free to do so and the network will evaluate. If they choose
to go down the hardfork route, then they accept that it will be considered controversial and
chances of acceptance is low. SegWit devs attempted to think outside the box with what
they had to work with.

For the article to say that Bitcoin devs are now acting as central planners is a deceptive tactic that
ignores how Bitcoin functions. It is written to beat the drum and ensnare the economic ideological
users into thinking that Bitcoin "only now is being centrally planned" and "that is wrong".

Bitcoin's whole existence and its future will be centrally planned and it will be done so by Consensus.

Moved it, I have to say that bitcoin is still very volatile and unpredictable. Just because it is growing recently does not mean it is getting stabler, if it was getting stabler that means it would stay at the same price all the time. Ultimately, I think a new coin will be made in the future, a coin that will be ultimate and be superior to every other coin, if that never happens then bitcoin will be the main cryptocurrency.

Bitcoin is not just experiment at this point. Every major investor in the world is watching what is going on with BTC. Of course that it is not this same what was in 2013 - there it was bubble. Now it is natural and stable growing of something BIG.

yep but the devs have got paid millions of dollars and now think they are 'market experts' their latest code is about pushing fee's and offering discounts to bribe people to use it. rather than using real code to reduce risk of abuse and issues.

things have changed since 2013-2014, and not for the good

I feel like a thunderbolt hit me! Do you all are crazy, or you smoke something unhealthy?

Ok .. maybe you found hole in blockchain technology? Tell me that NOW! I will sell all my BTC!

I think everything about Bitcoin is centrally planned by Satoshi and the early devs.

For example,
 - 21 million coins cap
 - 10 minute block time
 - 4 year coin halving
 - difficulty adjustments
 - miners fees taking over in the future
 - etc.

Bitcoin is not an experiment in free market money, but an experiment in permissionless money.

The goal is to survive and prosper, not to determine whether theoretical economic principals hold true.
If you wish to determine whether the free market truly exists, I suggest making a new coin.

devs need to stop pushing an agenda and instead just stick to utility and expansion.

they pretend its a 'free market' yet their code is swayed to push the price up. even during low demand

In my opinion article maybe is good, but place of forum not exactly..

You should move this thread in correct form to the 'Press' section: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=77.0

I found this bitcoin article on a website that I enjoy reading articles at. Here is the url : https://fee.org/articles/bitcoin-economics-in-one-lesson/

Read the article for yourself to find out what it is getting at, but to summarize the article, it states that if the bitcoin core developers continue to centrally plan bitcoin development that bitcoin will become irrelevant in the future and that the community would move to another cryptocurrency.

Thoughts and opinion?