Topic: A Question for Bitcoin Maximalist - page 2. (Read 1307 times)

As in the thread smells like last week's fish.

In this thread? No I'm not here to refute anyones expertise, just came here for a logical discussion but since you asked lol you actually just restated my point with real world examples "Chinese mining cartels" "Segwit" etc. But umm 70 MIllion dollars from "the powers-that-be" isn't that much actually. Certainly isn't enough to monopolize bitcoin.

I've been studying Cryptocurrencies since 2013, I don't know who you are and i honestly don't care that much lol i did check your references though. With such "Technical superiority" your modesty is astounding.

and last but not least...NOPE, i never claimed to be qualified. Just presenting a casual observation.

A collapse of the fiat banking system would definitely be a blow to the governments, but if they were to play it out correctly there would be less total collapse and more authoritarian government until something was fixed. The wouldn't let their power and countries collapse, so a lot of countries would get aggressive against their own people and make sure there was next to no dissent, or at least not on the surface.

It would be a blow to the confidence of the people though, and would likely make a lot of them question the legitimacy of fiat dollars.

I dont believe it happens in our lives, but complete collapse of the banking system and Bitcoin replacement probably mean collapse of centralized forms of governments as well. Afterall, one of the function of current governments is issue currency and keep monopoly on this. Because fiat currency is not backed by gold but just government protection, it makes sence Bitcoin can become  "the" global currency replacing all fiat currencies only after current forms of governments are transformed to ones with less power thus no control over currency anymore (so your argument "shut down by a governing body" might not apply as well if future governments dont have much actual power at all).

In what way are they 'rancid'?

And how would you refute the post I've made in this thread?

How long have you been studying Bitcoin, because I don't think you realize who I am and how much I know. Here are just few examples to raise your awareness of my technical superiority:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15143765

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15138357

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15111595


Do you claim you are any where near as qualified as I am 

I certainly wasn't inspired by either of those.Those threads are rancid, i just go there to post memes

Thanks for the input

I think the OP was reading my posts in another thread:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15136683

Also TPTB_need_war's posts in the  "Bitcoin IS destroyed" thread.


How do you calculate that Blockstream is for small blocks  

Blockstream is for making sure they and the Chinese mining cartel control how fast the block size increases, so they can squeeze maximum transactions fees that the market will bear. You could read the Reddit discussion between Professor Jorge Stolfi and TPTB_need_war, which explained this.

And SegWit is all about centralization of validation, so that we get a 666 enslavement system. Do you think the powers-that-be invested $70 million in Blockstream for no reason. Come on. You don't think (Mr. ZIRP and Russian oligarchy maker) Larry Summers (who is on the board of 21 Inc.), Peter Thiel (BitPay, gifted $100k to Vitalik @ Ethereum, etc), and other banksters elite are in on that. Come on.

There is only one possible way you defeat those bastards. And that is to make something so popular, that can't be centralized. Once it is very popular, they will have a difficult time taking it away from the people.

Even the French presidential candidate Le Pen, is advocating banning Bitcoin because she has realized AnonyMint was correct in 2013 when he wrote Bitcoin : The Digital Kill Switch:

http://www.coindesk.com/french-presidential-hopeful-bitcoin-ban/

Some people are starting to realize that Bitcoin is a Trojan Horse planted to force nation-states off of cash and into a digital enslavement.

When facing a potential adversary with trillions of defense $ at its disposal (and nuclear weapons). You have two options:

1. Security through Ubiquity   (So widely used in the world economy as to be important for its continued function.)

2. Security through Obscurity   (Small enough that state actors won't bother with it.)

The network is secured by warehouses full of gear burning MW's of electricity, their locations are known. Nodes publicly broadcast their IPs. PoW protects us from certain attackers, but not from state level actors.

We're going to stick with 1MB blocks and keep on rollin' with option 2.

Nakamoto's ideals were actually option 1, but we can thank Gregory Maxwell for demonstrating Satoshi was wrong and changing course back to 2.

*I've been up for 30 Hours, Please forgive grammar mistakes and small scuffs in my logic.*

So im sitting here and I'm listening to all of these Bitcoin advocates, a few being Roger Ver, Erik Voorhees, etc etc and they are preaching about the inevitability of bitcoin becoming "the" global currency in the face of widespread collapse of the banking system (paraphrasing).
While at first that made sense to me, if fiat fails why wouldn't people convert to bitcoin. Thats where that B.S for the $1 Million dollar btc comes from. BEST CASE SCENARIO for btc adoption right? Well not quite.
We know that Bitcoin is not truly decentralized, it's the closest thing we have but lets face it, the fact that one country(a few pools) controls the  most of the ENTIRE network's hash rate is a failure of decentralization. I will call it "Geographic Centralization". My only issue with geographic centralization is that a bitcoin revolution could easily be shut down by a governing body, and if that does occur the network would be crippled after losing 70% of the hash rate.

So with that being said. I present two scenarios

A:IF Mass adoption* occurs then the centralized systems (or players) will consolidate their position "reducing incentive for other nodes" thus the centralized system would become more centralized and 1-3 pools would be responsible for securing a network ~300x bigger than today. Not to mention the adoption would raise the price of a bitcoin and thus the incentive for an attack (51% or otherwise) on the centralized system.

B: If Bitcoin were to "remain" true to Nakamoto's ideals, mass adoption could not occur. The sole reason bitcoin has grown in such a way is because miners constantly have incentive to secure the network(a comparatively small network). When the incentive disappears ("Halving") coupled with the consistent growth of ASICs, only the biggest miners will be able to continue securing the network, leading to the geographic centralization we spoke of. In the face of a crashing economy do you really think the government would allow an anonymous P2P system that completely undermines their control to be secured on it's soil?


I would dress this up and make it look pretty but im tired and just want opinions. My question is how can bitcoin sensible avoid these two scenarios? Soooo guys and gals fire away

*Mass adoption = Use by 20-30% of the globe.