Topic: Bitcoin IS basically DESTROYED - page 17. (Read 47245 times)
虽然算力大多数集中在中国，但中国人多啊，总体来说还是很分散的
In my eyes its not destroyed it has its up and downs but I really do not think the bitcoin has a bad future a head and that its destroyed.
It even has a very good future a head in my eyes with all these events.
It even has a very good future a head in my eyes with all these events.
It is fine for the Block Stream to implement the SegWit. It is a good experiment. If that fails, we can use the Classic.
Bitcoin is destroyed because China owns it?
Does it matter if most miners are in the USA or now China?
Does it matter if most miners are in the USA or now China?
How long ago was there mass panic related to China banning Bitcoin use/mining/exchanges?
~2.5 or 3 years ago?
Now "Bitcoin IS basically DESTROYED", since China is successfully participating?
My how times have changed...
In all aspects of business the DESTROYER is always there. But in Bitcoin its given that destroyer is there but it doesn't mean destroyer can destroy bitcoin.
how can you say this. i think it is raising high and high. it is not destroying at all. you will see in future the rate and position of bitiocin
From the beginning, this has always been a possibility: A banker who can effectively create unlimited fiat money can easily acquire all the mining infrastructure and control the network hash power (Of course he don't need to do so through one single entity, it will look like that many people control the mining infrastructure, but when a vote happens people will discover that over 90% of hash power is controlled by a few entity and can go against majority of people's will)
PoW method is vulnerable to large capital taking over. This is the nature of PoW, so some people have suggested to use a PoW+PoS hybrid model for the future mining, but without major hash power, how do you implement this change into the network? Why miners should give up their dominance power today? It seems only a fork or re-design of a new coin can start afresh
PoW method is vulnerable to large capital taking over. This is the nature of PoW, so some people have suggested to use a PoW+PoS hybrid model for the future mining, but without major hash power, how do you implement this change into the network? Why miners should give up their dominance power today? It seems only a fork or re-design of a new coin can start afresh
It's real easy, but yes there will be a fork. You can't implement a PoS model without a fork. Forks are not scary, there were many Bitcoin forks in the past.
and once again, like I said a thousand times for many years, PoS is the only way Bitcoin can survive. Because PoW is NOT secure and will always end up in centralization. But people will not realize until it's too late, just like right now every block is 100% filled, transactions are taking days to confirm, and still no immediately action taken.
From the beginning, this has always been a possibility: A banker who can effectively create unlimited fiat money can easily acquire all the mining infrastructure and control the network hash power (Of course he don't need to do so through one single entity, it will look like that many people control the mining infrastructure, but when a vote happens people will discover that over 90% of hash power is controlled by a few entity and can go against majority of people's will)
PoW method is vulnerable to large capital taking over. This is the nature of PoW, so some people have suggested to use a PoW+PoS hybrid model for the future mining, but without major hash power, how do you implement this change into the network? Why miners should give up their dominance power today? It seems only a fork or re-design of a new coin can start afresh
PoW method is vulnerable to large capital taking over. This is the nature of PoW, so some people have suggested to use a PoW+PoS hybrid model for the future mining, but without major hash power, how do you implement this change into the network? Why miners should give up their dominance power today? It seems only a fork or re-design of a new coin can start afresh
how come that Bitcoins is being destroy?
if Bitcoins is already destroy why many bitcoin enthusiast become more growing,
patronizing and embracing what bitcoins is all about,...its because it has a better future
that he can give to the community,..
if Bitcoins is already destroy why many bitcoin enthusiast become more growing,
patronizing and embracing what bitcoins is all about,...its because it has a better future
that he can give to the community,..
Bitcoin already died 106 times according to https://99bitcoins.com/obituary-stats/
Yours is the 107th time bitcoin died.
Yours is the 107th time bitcoin died.
How come the price of Bitcoin is going up like crazy but Bitcoin isn't getting much attention any more? This sounds like a complete oxymoron to me and I think the media is coming up with a plethora of nonsensical articles about Bitcoin without understanding a thing about the crypto currency in the first place. These geniuses from WSJ proclaimed that Bitcoin was going to hit $5000 in 2014 and now they are saying that people's interest in Bitcoin is declining. What a complete joke the modern online press is 
For a newbie like me that's just starting, this topic is pretty scary. I feel like starting in the cryptocurrency world now could be a huge waste of time/efforts.
https://99bitcoins.com/obituary-stats/
...latest obituaries:
MARCH 26, 2016
“1,000 Bitcoin Wallets Won’t Replace One Financial Revolution” – Coindesk | $408.12
APRIL 19, 2016
‘Bitcoin is dead,’ says prominent fintech exec – Yahoo | $437.5
MAY 21, 2016
“Bitcoin May Be Failing, But The Technology Behind It Will Live On” – Forbes | $442.88
JUNE 3, 2016
We rather disagree with the estimation of Bitcoin – Adam Smith | $572.65
JUNE 7, 2016
“Bitcoin’s Rallying Again—But Isn’t Getting Much Attention Anymore” – WSJ | $577.14
Who are people having confidence in bitcoin and push up the price? The bitcoin community is very strong.
How is your 666 TrojanHorse ButtCON investment going to protect you in the upcoming nation-states collapse and 666 lurch to eliminate cash and institute expropriation?
Bend over my friends and prepare to take it deep.
Agreed. They are Rube Goldberg designs.
Of egregious note, is that SegWit delegates validation to centralized nodes who then have control over which transactions are accepted, thus very easy to implement the 666 ChainAnchor plan from MIT. And SegWit involves trust without verification of validation, thus puts Nash equilibrium on more shaky foundation wherein we trust centralization, i.e. Blockstream is moving Bitcoin towards a fiat system. It appears the Chinese mining cartel and Blockstream are in bed together because you can note that the Chinese cartel used the lame and technically incorrect excuse that the Great Firewall of China prevented them from approving larger block size increases of Bitcoin XT and Classic. But what is really going on, is as explained in my discussion with Professor Jorge Stolfi, that the Chinese cartel wants to be able to control the block size increase so as to maximize the equation for transaction fees.
Bend over my friends and prepare to take it deep.
Side chains are nasty hacks that add more problems than they solve, as is the lightning network, segwit and all the other "work arounds".
Agreed. They are Rube Goldberg designs.
Of egregious note, is that SegWit delegates validation to centralized nodes who then have control over which transactions are accepted, thus very easy to implement the 666 ChainAnchor plan from MIT. And SegWit involves trust without verification of validation, thus puts Nash equilibrium on more shaky foundation wherein we trust centralization, i.e. Blockstream is moving Bitcoin towards a fiat system. It appears the Chinese mining cartel and Blockstream are in bed together because you can note that the Chinese cartel used the lame and technically incorrect excuse that the Great Firewall of China prevented them from approving larger block size increases of Bitcoin XT and Classic. But what is really going on, is as explained in my discussion with Professor Jorge Stolfi, that the Chinese cartel wants to be able to control the block size increase so as to maximize the equation for transaction fees.
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.
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.
Bitcoin is not yet basically DESTROYED, thread topic like this should ignored.
Honestly bitcoin destroyed only for some people that scam about bitcoin. .we can not change it because many scammers in online..
Bitcoin is not yet basically DESTROYED, thread topic like this should ignored.
well they have accuired 80% of the mining around the total mining hash but are they ready to face problems lets see in this 2016 bitcoin halving that it is profitable for them ir not
As AnonyMint predicted back in 2013...
https://bitconnect.co/bitcoin-news/126/what-is-gavin-andresen-telling-china-chinese-ama-details-revealed
The one-time anointed king of Bitcoin by Satoshi Nakamoto himself ... When asked about his association with Blockstream, who some see as a force looking to centralize Bitcoin, he did not seem to be in alignment with their agenda...
In regards to the centralization of Bitcoin, he now works for the Media Lab at MIT, who has just come out with a controversial concept known as ChainAnchor... ChainAnchor would coerce miners to not allow transactions that do not have the identities of the users of Bitcoins tied to their transactions and wallets, defeating the peer-to-peer, identity-protecting foundation of Bitcoin itself. Andresen also is a paid technical advisor to leading Bitcoin companies like Coinbase, BitPay, and Xapo.
His commentary on the upcoming Lightning Network concept was less than glowing...
The centralized Bitcoin won't be 51% attacked bcz those controlling it will have the 666 control system they designed Bitcoin to accomplish. In the transitionary phase now, the Chinese miners will be handed lots of wealth as the process of centralizing mining proceeds. We can't say every Chinese miner today knows he is part of the ultimate plan. We can't even say the Blockstream devs know they are part of some diabolical plan. They are just trying to fix a design that can't be fixed without restarting from scratch. Compartmentalization is the modus operandi of the DEEP STATE. This is a process. The DEEP STATE that designed Bitcoin has a plan over years.
Our other hope is the system blows up technically. But that is why Blockstream is receiving so much funding, because they probably have the expertise to centralize Bitcoin sufficiently whil still being able to give some illusion of decentralization for sufficient time that Bitcoin maximalists fall into the trap, of which SegWit is a major step in that direction.
Our other hope is the system blows up technically. But that is why Blockstream is receiving so much funding, because they probably have the expertise to centralize Bitcoin sufficiently whil still being able to give some illusion of decentralization for sufficient time that Bitcoin maximalists fall into the trap, of which SegWit is a major step in that direction.
https://bitconnect.co/bitcoin-news/126/what-is-gavin-andresen-telling-china-chinese-ama-details-revealed
The one-time anointed king of Bitcoin by Satoshi Nakamoto himself ... When asked about his association with Blockstream, who some see as a force looking to centralize Bitcoin, he did not seem to be in alignment with their agenda...
In regards to the centralization of Bitcoin, he now works for the Media Lab at MIT, who has just come out with a controversial concept known as ChainAnchor... ChainAnchor would coerce miners to not allow transactions that do not have the identities of the users of Bitcoins tied to their transactions and wallets, defeating the peer-to-peer, identity-protecting foundation of Bitcoin itself. Andresen also is a paid technical advisor to leading Bitcoin companies like Coinbase, BitPay, and Xapo.
His commentary on the upcoming Lightning Network concept was less than glowing...
For a newbie like me that's just starting, this topic is pretty scary. I feel like starting in the cryptocurrency world now could be a huge waste of time/efforts.
https://99bitcoins.com/obituary-stats/
...latest obituaries:
MARCH 26, 2016
“1,000 Bitcoin Wallets Won’t Replace One Financial Revolution” – Coindesk | $408.12
APRIL 19, 2016
‘Bitcoin is dead,’ says prominent fintech exec – Yahoo | $437.5
MAY 21, 2016
“Bitcoin May Be Failing, But The Technology Behind It Will Live On” – Forbes | $442.88
JUNE 3, 2016
We rather disagree with the estimation of Bitcoin – Adam Smith | $572.65
JUNE 7, 2016
“Bitcoin’s Rallying Again—But Isn’t Getting Much Attention Anymore” – WSJ | $577.14
Hahaha, it's hilarious what lengths people can go to just to oppose something that is true. In my opinion, as long as these bears are there, and dumping their coins on the market, there will be even more bulls soaking up their dumps.
You made my day sir
For a newbie like me that's just starting, this topic is pretty scary. I feel like starting in the cryptocurrency world now could be a huge waste of time/efforts. And there's too many altcoins to just pick one and hope this one is "the future"... Ethereum maybe?
you have to stop listening to these types of topic on the forum or even news on news websites like cryptocoinnews especially. all these people are mostly talking out of their asses and have no idea about what they are saying and also a lot of them have other agendas when they spread these kinds of things which is called FUD.
Read the entire linked page (not just the linked post):
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15136683
Jump to: