Topic: Bitcoin gave us something more than the protocol - page 2. (Read 733 times)

Yes! That is why Bitcoin will not die, it will live! I can even say more. Bitcoin is the first in the history of cryptocurrency. Right now the story is shaping up. And all the people who participate in this, all those emotions that are experiencing, all this will remain in history. I'm sure many books will be written on all that was. This phenomenon can not just go out, and the idea of Bitcoin will be modernized and used in other areas.

Yea, bitcoin has succeeded in giving us exposures on the concept of wealth making any where in the world.
It has also helped in keeping so many lives busy with something of value, at least anyone who is a bitcoin user will not say he is idle and be constituting nuisance in the community.
Bitcoin has also helped the government in form of providing source of income to many with which they depend less on the government. And few others .

Bitcoin might fail? No way! it has no reason to fail.

If bitcoin already reach this point is because it was made to succeed... People believes in it, in the math behind it, and in the decentralised concept it give us, was what the world need and is imposible to go steps back.

Bitcoin adoption is adoption out of free will. You can choose to not adopt it and it's all fine, which means that the adoption taking place will automatically take way more time to grow. The Euro was forced upon people, and an added benefit for governments was that it burns through the wealth that we all managed to build up throughout the last decades.

The worst thing is that the Euro has shown signs of failure in the very early stage of the 'rollout' and I expect it to implode in the forthcoming years.

Back in 2013 I was buying Bitcoin at an exchange rate of €1 = ~$1.4 and it has fallen well below $1.10 more than once already. If that isn't a bad sign, then I don't know what is.

Before the coming of bitcoin there wasn't anything that people could use to transact online with other people and the people used to do bank transfers to make deals with people in some other country and that took a lot of time to confirm and wasn't at all trusted so the chances of being scammed was pretty high but bitcoin was liked by everyone as it holds value and in case of transacting online you can't get scammed now as escrow are possible, so for the people who have business online they can use bitcoin to get rid of many problems like charge backs and frauds.

Yes, bitcoin made us realize that it is possible for any individual to control our money without being handled to a third party, wake us up how banking system blinding us and manipulate us and who are the real scammers of your hard earned money. These are the reasons why many still believes in bitcoin's potential in the long run, the key for financial freedom and type of investment where you are fully in control. It is not failing, what happening today is a pure healthy price correction.

currently every block is limited to 1,250,000,000 sharable units of the reward.. you do know that they are going to be soon wanting to make the reward have 1,250,000,000,000 sharable units of reward. which will extend mining for reward well passed the year 2140
but yea as per usual they will hide it by saying that 1250,000,000,000 is the same as 1,250,000,000 by saying the extra sharable units are named at the bottom end not the top end... trying to totally sleeping pill the sheep to not realise more units of measure are still more units of measure (less scarcity)

does it have a police system. yep
moderation and only certain "police" with authority to ack/Nack new laws. and then when pushing it through the "state" they are instead of using the old 2013 consensus mechanism. they are using the 2017 mechanism to administrate their laws into passing.

Bitcoin gave us the beggining of completely different market, something that we never had before. And it will not stop to exist as mentioned. It will still be the first product that block chain brought.

The developers clearly don't have power or authority over anything.

That's why Segwit wasn't activated for so long -- they had no mandate to force anyone to upgrade. BIP148 and BIP91 were not part of the Core implementation. If users or miners chose to run them or comply with their rules, it had nothing to do with Core.

Miners made a simple, calculated decision. They could have forced the question and split the chain, but they figured it was more profitable to go the path of least resistance.

Yes, ofcourse. The bitcoin has given us many many things, most of them good even great but there are some problems too. First of all the bitcoin and the cryptocurrency has changed my life, my work and my living. These all in good ways. But the uncertainty conditions making me nervous and making me feel uncoffortable. I believe that the BTC will live with us forever but i am not sure what will be the circumstances..

Of course! Bitcoin has shown that a currency can be independent, free and anonymous! I think, this technology will be developed and will eventually be applied in other industries too.

In the context of this topic. Does the "dev-state" monopolize the printing, and issuance of the currency in the network? Does it have a police system to administer their "laws"? Does it threaten our freedom?

The "dev-state" can go, and the network can fail, but the idea of Bitcoin can be passed on.

seeing as you admire the word "state" to refer to certain group of elitist authoritarians. i shall refer to certain dv team as "dev state" for your benefit


first sentance i was beginning to think you were starting to understand the consensus mechanism of 2009-2013

second sentance you went full censorship-centralist authoritarian and it seems you prefer a central dev "state" in control
but atleast you confident enough to admit your preference.

in a consensus mechanism that existed 2009-2013 anyone could propose anything. code it, run nodes release the source and let anyone run it. with no fear of being thrown out the network. because proposals wont activate without high majority consensus. so it would cause no bad effects on the network, because proposals would not be active unless majority had run them.

funny thing is other full nodes such as xt, classic, bu and others never made mandates. they were happy to just run nodes and see and wait to find out if they got popular. they even adjusted and compromised down a few features to be more of what the community were looking for. but again never made mandates or coercions or threats. it was just run it and see what happens if nothing happens then they walk off with tail between their legs and come back with another proposal that appeals more to the community.

but these days the "dev state" would throw certain nodes off the network before the certain nodes even got majority support simply to make it appear that the "dev state" has 100% loyalty..... hense why altcoins are being made.
"the dev state" were losing with only 35% vote before their consensus bypass idea was implimented.

the "dev state" should have just went back to the drawing board and actually code something that would have NATURALLY and using the 2009-2013 mechanism got them an activation. without having to resort to threats of a mandated contentious fork("dev state" advocated buzzword "bilateral splits")

this is why developers not part of "dev state" are now just giving up on the "dev state" version of bitcoin and making alts. because of the "dev state" censorship and control over what proposals even make it into "the roadmap"

p.s the NYA signee's are part of the central "dev state" which you seem to adore as kings.

the segwit2x part of the NYA was just subterfuge to rally the sleeping sheep into accepting segwit. with a empty promise of 2x if and only if segwit1x got activated.

barry silbert DCG.co organised NYA
barry silbert pays pieter wuille, gregmaxwell, samson mows, luke Jr's wages
DCG.co/portfolio/#b   - notice blockstream, notice btcc

as for the jgarzig, gavin andressen implementation of NYA
DCG.co/portfolio/#b   - notice BLOQ

i already told you many times. it was a 3 card trick
well i should say a 3 hat trick. samson mow and core devs were very proud to wear their UASF hats

i still find is so strange how a year later. even when financial data, even when block data. even when code exists and even admissions by thee devs themselves has made the situation clear.. that you and certain chums of your are denying it all and pretending one minute that bitcoins consensus is as open as 2009-2013.. and then a few minutes later flip your opinion to that of defending the "dev state" actions.

there is no point in you trying to dismiss history. blockdata and code doesnt lie. and its all found in the blockdata that certain things did happen to fake the 100% "dev state" loyalty


now imagine this.
imagine a dev team that was not part of "dev state" done a mandated activation.. would you herold them as new kings. or would you be arguing that their approach and method of activation was wrong and not consensus

Bitcoin isn't only a currency, it's an ideology, a protocol, a lifestyle but we still need to have a total change in mentalities. The challenges are bigger than what people may think even if we have already taken a big step forward since its creation.

Not all people have the interest to adopt Bitcoin or to see it adopted for multiple reasons (economic, political, geopolitical...)
To implement Bitcoin is more difficult than that also, not sure if it could be compared with but take as an example the EURO, it took over 10 years to see Europe adopting EUR, not even talking about the time spend to work on.

To be fair, gold sort of already showed us that. Gold bugs have been talking about decentralized, sound money for a long time. Bitcoin improved on that foundation by adding transferability over a communications channel, predictable scarcity, portability and divisibility.


Shouldn't it be the code that's being scrutinized?

Anyone can propose anything, but "will it reach consensus" is the question.


Get the context of my post. Your "state" has mandated themselves as the authority, and the monopoly in money-printing, and issuance. Bitcoin changed that.


But not the signers of the NYA, or Bitmain?

bitcoin is not a fail currency. bitcoin price is down and down it's normal because the currency has the correction time. but it's not a fail currency. we should wait for bitcoin rises

You know the set limit of coins is 21 million. Going with your analogy, no matter how many times you divide up a banana there's still only 10 bananas. A central source isn't harvesting new bananas and putting them into circulation. That's the difference.

1. cant be inflated? you might want to check on that.
there was in 2009 -2013 an idea of limiting bitcoin to 2.1quadrillion sharable units of value(satoshi's). plans are already being made to expand that to being 2.1quintillion sharable units. which will continue the mining reward/halving process well beyond 2140
(millisats)
imagine there were only 10 banana's in the world. then imagine there being 10billion slices of banana.
banana's are no longer rare and out of reach of people to buy.so they have lost their.. accuse the pun. appeal

2. running a node, is not the same as the decentralised power of consensus. it just ends up as you being an distributed data archive. not a decentralised community of consensus

3. many teams have tried to offer proposals. but ended up finding it easier to just make their own altcoin than try fighting the group roadmap

4. im not saying its the worse. im saying its no longer holding up to the same promises/ethos/initial idea as 2009-2013

So basically bitcoin is the worst cryptocurrency besides all others tried.
Its not perfect but its way ahead of anything else that is currently out there.
It can't be inflated, its code is open source, anybody is welcome to join, mine, run their own node, and be a part of the network.

If you have a better alternative, please feel free to let us know what it is.