Topic: Bitcoin feels like a Western-type Democracy... (Read 416 times)
"Hey! I get what you're saying about Bitcoin feeling like a Western-type democracy with its decentralized vibe. It's kinda like everyone having a say, right? But, let's not forget it's more about money and tech than running a country. Still, interesting parallels for sure! 🚀💸 #CryptoDemocracy"
I'm afraid some people might be right that there's a conspiracy going on (BlackRock might be trying to flood the network before ETF's approval with ORDI/NFTs raising the fees to absurd levels).
Even if this was true, how would BlackRock benefit from large fees, immediately after doing this? They are not miners, they are asset managers.
In fact I strongly think that most people in BlackRock do not even know how to make an Ordinal.
Although you said there is a risk of it becoming a "settlement network for banks", to be honest, is there any bank interested in using Bitcoin for that? Jamie Dimon just said he would like to close Bitcoin down if he could.
Back in May I had written a FB post about how in the future you will have to pay $1000* for an on-chain transaction. BTC mainnet will basically become a settlement network for banks. The Average Joe will be forced to use CEX or Lightning (if he's lucky enough to have a channel already).
BlackRock can hire BTC/blockchain experts to flood the network with NFTs, it's not that hard... then they can sell BTC IOU on their own CEX platform with KYC requirements.Regarding Jamie Dimon, don't believe him, he's playing reverse psychology to buy cheap BTC.
I'm afraid some people might be right that there's a conspiracy going on (BlackRock might be trying to flood the network before ETF's approval with ORDI/NFTs raising the fees to absurd levels).
Even if this was true, how would BlackRock benefit from large fees, immediately after doing this? They are not miners, they are asset managers.
In fact I strongly think that most people in BlackRock do not even know how to make an Ordinal.
Although you said there is a risk of it becoming a "settlement network for banks", to be honest, is there any bank interested in using Bitcoin for that? Jamie Dimon just said he would like to close Bitcoin down if he could.
i dont think ordinals is a black rock conspiracy..
if anything its the corporations of subnetwork adoration conspiracy.. all those sponsors into developers to make gateways to subnetworks.. so that middlemen/payment processors(routers) of subnetworks can get fee's is where the sponsors will get their ROI
so pushing bitcoins fee's up is a promotion of subnetworks
those corporations know they cant get middle men fee's from bitcoin network so they have to make bitcoin network a headache for users. to get fee's elsewhere
they didnt afterall sponsor devs out of altruistic charity
and yes ordinals inventor was a chaincodelabs guy and we can all follow the money back and look at the 'inventions' they made to see the path they intend
other funding of the other 'blockstream' devs and following their roadmap shows the path they intend
I'm afraid some people might be right that there's a conspiracy going on (BlackRock might be trying to flood the network before ETF's approval with ORDI/NFTs raising the fees to absurd levels).
Even if this was true, how would BlackRock benefit from large fees, immediately after doing this? They are not miners, they are asset managers.
In fact I strongly think that most people in BlackRock do not even know how to make an Ordinal.
Although you said there is a risk of it becoming a "settlement network for banks", to be honest, is there any bank interested in using Bitcoin for that? Jamie Dimon just said he would like to close Bitcoin down if he could.
and anyone promoting a non core node that offers new features not offered by core, get treated as an opposition and REKT campaigns begin(unless endorsed by core dev group)
There is a difference between an implementation of Bitcoin protocol and another implementation trying a hostile takeover that is trying to force a major change like a hard fork to arbitrarily change block size at any time as the miner wished (eg. bitcoin unlimited, bitcoin classic, bitcoin cash, ...).theres a big difference between non core dev people (the community) proposing not yet activated features.. vs whats actually activated as the current ruleset
core treat even proposing non activated stuff outside of cores moderation. as a oppositional attack
core however want to add new feature as current ruleset without needing users(the community) becoming ready in majority for it
notice the differences in the paradigms
..
core want to change the network parameters before user nodes have upgraded to comply to understand the new rules
but core dont want people even using other brands before even other brands have activated their features that could in future change the network away from the core roadmap
within a week of bitcoin(genesis block) actually being released people were using their own node on their own computer, adding lines of code and compiling their node on their computer and when if didnt break or stall they then published the bug fix or feature, which others could then add into their own node.. this occured alot even into 2010
All contributing to the same project hosted on Sourceforge not separate ones.and anyone promoting a non core node that offers new features not offered by core, get treated as an opposition and REKT campaigns begin(unless endorsed by core dev group)
There is a difference between an implementation of Bitcoin protocol and another implementation trying a hostile takeover that is trying to force a major change like a hard fork to arbitrarily change block size at any time as the miner wished (eg. bitcoin unlimited, bitcoin classic, bitcoin cash, ...). you can more then just suggest it.. its a known fact since the REKT days that core are the defacto only source reference client.. they chose the name Core for a reason
That's what Satoshi did himself by not providing a detailed documentation of the protocol in a paper like other protocols. He created a client and a source code that defined the protocol hence it became the "reference implementation".It is not necessarily a bad thing either. The problem is when they don't or won't implement certain "features" (like option to reject Ordinals or option to sign a message from SegWit address) and there is nobody else doing it either.
nooo
within a week of bitcoin(genesis block) actually being released people were using their own node on their own computer, adding lines of code and compiling their node on their computer and when if didnt break or stall they then published the bug fix or feature, which others could then add into their own node.. this occured alot even into 2010
these days core devs want stuff they like added to core then release core to the community.. a whole different paradigm
core wanted people to play with their own code/node edits on testnets and forked chains(altcoins) and see how things work or who shows interest before getting into cores code.. heck they even done it themselves in their blockstream stuff
they didnt want lots of random nodes with different codebases on the bitcoin network used by parts of the bitcoin community, as they said (inferring they are the gods) they dont want to be reviewing other peoples nodes to ensure they were fit to run on the bitcoin network
and anyone promoting a non core node that offers new features not offered by core, get treated as an opposition and REKT campaigns begin(unless endorsed by core dev group)
If Bitcoin is called democracy, I totally agree. Because bitcoin does have an element of freedom for whoever owns it (decentralized). However, if bitcoin is mentioned or equated with western democracy, I think I would disagree more. The reason is, the democratic systems that exist in countries like the West are still not as free as Bitcoin's decentralized system. So I think your opinion is a little inaccurate.
All the scenarios you put forward for Bitcoin scalability problem are far from the realistic scenario. It is true that Bitcoin transaction fees are currently high, but the blocks are almost full and confirmation times are instantaneous for large transactions. If you want to send $1,000 or more, Bitcoin fees are low (unless the number of inputs are Extremely large)
There are many suggestions for solutions to this problem and for small transactions, in which case you may not have to pay a lot of fees, such as the lightning network and side networks.
It is possible to transfer bitcoins from one exchange account to another exchange account with a relatively low fee, but for those of us who use mobile wallets, there is no such opportunity. Transferring BTC from mobile wallet to exchange wallet will cost me $50 per transfer for each transfer. If I am transferring $100 to $200 and if I have to pay $50 fee to transfer $100 to $200 then how do I transfer my BTC with this extra transaction fee. While not a problem for big traders, it is a big problem for small members like us. There are many suggestions for solutions to this problem and for small transactions, in which case you may not have to pay a lot of fees, such as the lightning network and side networks.
Yes the concept is pretty similar if we see the context. Bitcoins provide you complete access to your finances and here you can invest it without relying on any third party. Hence investing in Bitcoins have many benefits and advantages that is being provided by the western sides. Hence, the countries which don’t follow these types of policies are banning Bitcoins, or not legalising it. Nevertheless, we should not compare these valuable Bitcoins with anything else. Let’s enjoy this awesome creation.
hero member
Activity: 1036
Merit: 933
Find your Digital Services at- cryptolibrary.pro
The funny thing is that the Western democracies you are calling liberalism, They are the ones who are going to start here and bring Bitcoin under the control of the a central. Which you have already mentioned, be it blackrock or ETF approval process. They want to control Bitcoin ultimately, but from my own point of view, it is a funny thing because ultimately they cannot control Bitcoin they can only control Bitcoin users by pushing its users towards KYC verification. I hope this doesn't happen in the future even though they are working on it. But I think the clear-headed users may use Bitcoin that way the purpose for which Bitcoin was invented.
I would also like to say that these activities show how western democratic liberalism is, their democracy is only a showoff, and there is nothing to say about their democracy inside.
I would also like to say that these activities show how western democratic liberalism is, their democracy is only a showoff, and there is nothing to say about their democracy inside.
The Western Democracy is always a liberal democracy in which citizens are free to practice the real democratic principles. And to some extent what you have said is the truth with Bitcoin, the Western Democracy has the element of decentralization which Bitcoin was build upon and with the liberality ordinals have the access to the Blockchain and congested the net and the transaction fee was very high and the best way to do and will make the transaction fee okay for small scale businesses and poor investors to access their funds. Many of the investors do not know how to use the lighting network.
You definitely cannot understand the point of this thread...
Hmm, I'm interested in knowing more, because it's rare when we discuss such topics, I can relate a few of the points but for the whole idea, I would like to know more, a more simple brief explanation.
For the point on the network fees and affordance of network for poor people, I've gone through some of the comments from a few seniors expressing that no one forcing you, if you want top-tier security you need to pay the top-tier fees, you cant expect the same level of security from the cheaper network. In the end, no one I forcing which directly proves there's really no perfect solution but still we have time, and maybe in the near future the whole story will take a 360 flip, who knows? This is the beginning not the interval haha.
you can more then just suggest it.. its a known fact since the REKT days that core are the defacto only source reference client.. they chose the name Core for a reason
That's what Satoshi did himself by not providing a detailed documentation of the protocol in a paper like other protocols. He created a client and a source code that defined the protocol hence it became the "reference implementation".It is not necessarily a bad thing either. The problem is when they don't or won't implement certain "features" (like option to reject Ordinals or option to sign a message from SegWit address) and there is nobody else doing it either.
proof core devs are politicians
I've seen one Bitcoin developer saying this. One who, put mildly, is often slightly out of kilter with what a majority of devs are thinking. Who are the other devs endorsing this? You're making it sound as though it's already a unanimous decision and I'm not sure that's accurate.
if doomad admits that changes to bitcoin need core dev decision then core are centralised
However the Bitcoin developers are now planning to remove ordinals permanently.
I've seen one Bitcoin developer saying this. One who, put mildly, is often slightly out of kilter with what a majority of devs are thinking. Who are the other devs endorsing this? You're making it sound as though it's already a unanimous decision and I'm not sure that's accurate.
if doomad admits that changes to bitcoin need core dev decision then core are centralised
I don't want to suggest that bitcoin core is centralized but there is definitely a flaw here.
I just said this in another topic, we know that part of the community wants to reject these spam transactions but they cannot do that simply because they are not developers and bitcoin core developers have refused to implement the option that would give them the choice to reject the "monkey jpgs".
you can more then just suggest it.. its a known fact since the REKT days that core are the defacto only source reference client.. they chose the name Core for a reason I just said this in another topic, we know that part of the community wants to reject these spam transactions but they cannot do that simply because they are not developers and bitcoin core developers have refused to implement the option that would give them the choice to reject the "monkey jpgs".
Bitcoin used to be a western like democracy where liberal values used to be valued. Now it's very different. Now people are seen the negative sides of the decentralized ecosystem. As you have correctly mentioned, anyone can flood the network with monkey jpgs and no one can do anything about it.
That is not negative side of decentralization, that is more like negative side of centralization.I don't want to suggest that bitcoin core is centralized but there is definitely a flaw here.
I just said this in another topic, we know that part of the community wants to reject these spam transactions but they cannot do that simply because they are not developers and bitcoin core developers have refused to implement the option that would give them the choice to reject the "monkey jpgs".
However the Bitcoin developers are now planning to remove ordinals permanently.
Removal requires roll back which is impossible and will never happen. Permanent invalidation (not removal) requires another fork to change consensus rules which is not even discussed as far as I can tell. The only thing discussed is their rejections through policy rules. 
However the Bitcoin developers are now planning to remove ordinals permanently.
I've seen one Bitcoin developer saying this. One who, put mildly, is often slightly out of kilter with what a majority of devs are thinking. Who are the other devs endorsing this? You're making it sound as though it's already a unanimous decision and I'm not sure that's accurate.
Bitcoin used to be a western like democracy where liberal values used to be valued. Now it's very different. Now people are seen the negative sides of the decentralized ecosystem. As you have correctly mentioned, anyone can flood the network with monkey jpgs and no one can do anything about it.
However the Bitcoin developers are now planning to remove ordinals permanently. So too much freedom is also not good. Somewhere a central control is also needed to remove the negativity from a certain thing.
The blackrock thing you said, may become a hot topic amongst the conspiracy theorerists.
However the Bitcoin developers are now planning to remove ordinals permanently. So too much freedom is also not good. Somewhere a central control is also needed to remove the negativity from a certain thing.
The blackrock thing you said, may become a hot topic amongst the conspiracy theorerists.
I am sure that Bitcoin will face many challenges and perhaps the conspiracy theorists are right (lol, that would be a first), but I am sure that Bitcoin will endure.
If anyone could manipulate Bitcoin as easily as conspiracy theorists claim, then we would have seen proof of successful attempts already. What exactly is the point in waiting and hoping that BTC reaches 1 million before people notice the exploitable flaw? We will just need to find a workaround and improve Bitcoin for any upcoming challenges.
Also, you claim that western democracies can be easily hijacked. Then tell me why most undemocratic countries are such shitholes while most democratic countries flourish? Sure, democracy is not perfect and it has its flaws, but I have yet to see evidence of a better system.
If anyone could manipulate Bitcoin as easily as conspiracy theorists claim, then we would have seen proof of successful attempts already. What exactly is the point in waiting and hoping that BTC reaches 1 million before people notice the exploitable flaw? We will just need to find a workaround and improve Bitcoin for any upcoming challenges.
Also, you claim that western democracies can be easily hijacked. Then tell me why most undemocratic countries are such shitholes while most democratic countries flourish? Sure, democracy is not perfect and it has its flaws, but I have yet to see evidence of a better system.
Perhaps a constitutional republic. Where the constitution is the code. A pure democracy is fiat where a majority of the people are free to enslave a portion (e.g. the democrats in the old US south), or to take a percentage of everyone's money via inflation.
You should fear an unlimited democracy.
You should fear an unlimited democracy.
Jump to: