Bitcoin "innovators" arriving late to the party, i.e. the ones who didn't see bitcoin coming, will almost by design not see the next one coming either. They should forever be looking over their shoulders if they are heavily or fully invested.
Also, they can centralise as much as they like, in fact we invite they do. It will be instructive to know what upgrades the true bitgold needs to achieve the optimal solution.
Topic: Bitcoin getting bought out? (Read 3837 times)
History says they will eventually give it all up again.
I don't agree with that. Rarther history shows it has been taken from them. Given the ability "for the first time" to retain autonomy, political ,social and economically within each individual. They will I think choose to retain it. reg
I don't agree with that. Rarther history shows it has been taken from them. Given the ability "for the first time" to retain autonomy, political ,social and economically within each individual. They will I think choose to retain it. reg
The way bitcoin is structured, it reminds me of a 'poison pill', but built to take down legacy currencies. The edge exchanges show up, value is perceived and everyone starts converting their currencies. The end-game however is when complete supply chains end up having their services and products priced in BTC. Then the bitcoin user has no need to step outside the system anymore, and conventional currencies get left in the dust.
It's quite brilliant, because it leverages the greed of people to destroy their own flawed currency system.
It's quite brilliant, because it leverages the greed of people to destroy their own flawed currency system.
Thats what capitalism is all about. Except for the little fact that government enacted legislation to ensure that capitalism only applied to the non-financial private sector.
Certain players have no interest in bitcoin being something you can host on your own machine.
Drive space gets cheaper by the year as does a percentage of bitcoin users that will run a full node. I don't think this will be an issue.
Drive space is probably never going to be the primary constraint. I don't think that there will be much difficulty running the small fry out of the Bitcoin infrastructure biz if interest picks up and if there is a desire shared by development and relatively well capitalized players to do so.
Sometimes i think that the Bitcoin experiment was not so much so an experiment to see how crypto-currencies evolve and perform in the world but rather how people when given the means to fight back the status quo either use the means to fight back or give it all up.
History says they will eventually give it all up again.
Nobody within 100 miles, and nobody interested in more than about 1/5 the USD values I want to deal with. Hopefully time will change that.
There are lots of reasons to expect the positive change you described, and one of these reasons is "Bitcoin being bought out" by people with vision, experience, and the ability to innovate further.
I'll agree with that. I'd re-phase it as 'people flush with experience and proceeds gained in exploiting peons in other sectors.' But fine. Most of them will get in later than I did so they can be my bitch if they want my BTC.
In short, if bitcoin itself were somehow controlled by a central authority it would be worthless.
+ 1
I don't feel 'violently abused' by paying taxes
That's called conditioning. If you beat a dog or a woman in the right way, they grow to not mind it and sometimes even like it. Governments, kings and sadists have known this for generations.
I say that because the amount I pay in taxes is well under what I receive back in terms of being able to live in a functional society (and I probably pay more in taxes than a fair fraction of what the US population earns, BTW.) Ironically I am probably more capable than most in surviving in an environment where it is commonplace to kill other people to protect what I have (and to gain more) but it is worth a lot to me to not have to live such a life. Just not needing to see the lower third and the old people starving and suffering because they are the weak is worth a lot to me.
Now it is true that such things as the double-tap drone strikes, extraordinary rendition, security apparatus surveillance centers, etc, etc bother me greatly and I am very much against them. But cheating on my taxes is not going to make these problems go away and indeed is likely to bring a lot of grief to myself and halt my own progress in other areas. Funding and participating in efforts which expose and work against such abusive programs is a more productive use of my resources.
Taxation pays for very little % of the war machine. Most of it is financed through printing money. And as we all know its been a looong time since the people have had any control over that.
Certain players have no interest in bitcoin being something you can host on your own machine.
Drive space gets cheaper by the year as does a percentage of bitcoin users that will run a full node. I don't think this will be an issue.
Drive space is probably never going to be the primary constraint. I don't think that there will be much difficulty running the small fry out of the Bitcoin infrastructure biz if interest picks up and if there is a desire shared by development and relatively well capitalized players to do so.
Actually, if/when the small fry are dismissed it won't necessarily be malice or conspiracy on the part of dev and the well capitalized players. The simple truth is that the technical challenges of scaling the system are much simplified by shifting it out of the domain of the private citizenry. And it is probably the only practical way of meeting one set of (mostly mutually exclusive) promises made in marketing the Bitcoin solution.
It may only be a conspiracy but Mt Gox have a huge motive for the blockchain to become as bloated as possible as fast as possible so that "little guys" are forced out and can no longer host a bitcoin node on their own but need a centralised wallet.
I expect the "solution" to the block size issue will be the one that benefits larger services and leaves smaller players in the cold.
Certain players have no interest in bitcoin being something you can host on your own machine.
I expect the "solution" to the block size issue will be the one that benefits larger services and leaves smaller players in the cold.
Certain players have no interest in bitcoin being something you can host on your own machine.
If that were true, they'd deploy a few international editions of Satoshi Dice
As for taxes, I'd prefer things to evolve to a system where we pay for what we truly need - community policing, etc, and only voluntarily contribute to programs that we'll either use in the future or other special interests. It would take a complete overhaul, of course, so I'm not holding my breath.
I'm wary of the payment processing move, but I understand why they're distancing themselves from being the money-changers.
The way bitcoin is structured, it reminds me of a 'poison pill', but built to take down legacy currencies. The edge exchanges show up, value is perceived and everyone starts converting their currencies. The end-game however is when complete supply chains end up having their services and products priced in BTC. Then the bitcoin user has no need to step outside the system anymore, and conventional currencies get left in the dust.
It's quite brilliant, because it leverages the greed of people to destroy their own flawed currency system.
Certain players have no interest in bitcoin being something you can host on your own machine.
Drive space gets cheaper by the year as does a percentage of bitcoin users that will run a full node. I don't think this will be an issue.
But cheating on my taxes is not going to make these problems go away and indeed is likely to bring a lot of grief to myself and halt my own progress in other areas. Funding and participating in efforts which expose and work against such abusive programs is a more productive use of my resources.
That's an honorable position in the face of evil. My position (noncompliance) is different but works for the way I live. I doubt anyone will be talking either of us out of our precepts anytime soon.
Neither position is an easy one, either.
It may only be a conspiracy but Mt Gox have a huge motive for the blockchain to become as bloated as possible as fast as possible so that "little guys" are forced out and can no longer host a bitcoin node on their own but need a centralised wallet.
I expect the "solution" to the block size issue will be the one that benefits larger services and leaves smaller players in the cold.
Certain players have no interest in bitcoin being something you can host on your own machine.
I expect the "solution" to the block size issue will be the one that benefits larger services and leaves smaller players in the cold.
Certain players have no interest in bitcoin being something you can host on your own machine.
I don't feel 'violently abused' by paying taxes
That's called conditioning. If you beat a dog or a woman in the right way, they grow to not mind it and sometimes even like it. Governments, kings and sadists have known this for generations.
I say that because the amount I pay in taxes is well under what I receive back in terms of being able to live in a functional society (and I probably pay more in taxes than a fair fraction of what the US population earns, BTW.) Ironically I am probably more capable than most in surviving in an environment where it is commonplace to kill other people to protect what I have (and to gain more) but it is worth a lot to me to not have to live such a life. Just not needing to see the lower third and the old people starving and suffering because they are the weak is worth a lot to me.
Now it is true that such things as the double-tap drone strikes, extraordinary rendition, security apparatus surveillance centers, etc, etc bother me greatly and I am very much against them. But cheating on my taxes is not going to make these problems go away and indeed is likely to bring a lot of grief to myself and halt my own progress in other areas. Funding and participating in efforts which expose and work against such abusive programs is a more productive use of my resources.
Anti-bank dead-enders are going to end up as road-kill 100 miles back.
Like that embarrassing Satoshi guy?
Actually, from what I can see in the little bit of looking that I've done, yes.
Huh? Are you saying because he disappeared he is left behind?
Because otherwise, Satoshi invented Bitcoin...
I say that because of a conversation I happened upon once between several of the current primary devs who seemed confused an dismissive of Satoshi's fixation on keeping the system lean.
So long as a majority of mining power doesn't get centralized, Bitcoin cannot be centralized.
yes, I agree but there is a general concern that with asics mining will end up centralised! however I would point out an anecdote from forex- as soon as someone buys they become a seller!. so miners simply cannot just mine and hold or the market will disappear- they have to sell and distribute to survive thus decentralising btc holdings. reg
yes, I agree but there is a general concern that with asics mining will end up centralised! however I would point out an anecdote from forex- as soon as someone buys they become a seller!. so miners simply cannot just mine and hold or the market will disappear- they have to sell and distribute to survive thus decentralising btc holdings. reg
So long as a majority of mining power doesn't get centralized, Bitcoin cannot be centralized.
First Vessenes starts the Bitcoin Foundation, uniting the lead developers
One dev is paid by the Foundation. One.
Quote
It's a little worrying when the primary exchange and the lead developers are controlled by the same people.
Who controls me? Please be specific as to how, and what evidence of this you have.
My point is that in designing a "governmental" structure for bitcoin it is important to include checks and balances to limit the power of a few individuals. This would make bitcoin stronger and more resistant to various forms of subversion/attack.
First Vessenes starts the Bitcoin Foundation, uniting the lead developers
One dev is paid by the Foundation. One.
Quote
It's a little worrying when the primary exchange and the lead developers are controlled by the same people.
Who controls me? Please be specific as to how, and what evidence of this you have.
coming back on topic, the reasons are there for all to see why the price is rising. BTC is being bought out not by one or a few but many. In fact anyone who can get hold of some will try to do so. What I first read was "do the math" 21 million into 8 billion = a very high price for 1 BTC. so we will be trading ,buying and selling in fractions of btc before too long, in my opinion. reg
America/EU have to sustain social/welfare programs to prevent revolt from the masses.
This cannot happen. The welfare system is bankrupt and the "west" will fall-as all empires do!
The philosophy is sound in that there will be for the first time in human history a transfer of all autonomy to the individual. As the depression plays out only those invested in BTC will be able to survive in any meaningfull way. The "masses" will be harassed for their assets until nothing is left, then banks become defunct and government on a national scale will cease. Local city and towns will provide essential services by voluntary contributions "in BTC" from their inhabitants. In 50 years or even less the world will be unrecognisable in my opinion. reg
This cannot happen. The welfare system is bankrupt and the "west" will fall-as all empires do!
The philosophy is sound in that there will be for the first time in human history a transfer of all autonomy to the individual. As the depression plays out only those invested in BTC will be able to survive in any meaningfull way. The "masses" will be harassed for their assets until nothing is left, then banks become defunct and government on a national scale will cease. Local city and towns will provide essential services by voluntary contributions "in BTC" from their inhabitants. In 50 years or even less the world will be unrecognisable in my opinion. reg
Interesting.
This scenario is very similar to what was being predicted in The Sovereign Individual (in 1999)!
.
Anti-bank dead-enders are going to end up as road-kill 100 miles back.
Like that embarrassing Satoshi guy?
Actually, from what I can see in the little bit of looking that I've done, yes.
Huh? Are you saying because he disappeared he is left behind?
Because otherwise, Satoshi invented Bitcoin...
Jump to: