Topic: "Bitcoin Will Bite the Dust" report (Read 1680 times)

Possibly because it is impossible to have a proper critique which concludes that Bitcoin is dying?
Even if the critique is not exhaustive, people should at least try harder.

The perspective taken by the author of this report is very common for people against the concept of Bitcoin. They don't believing the network is sustainable in the long term which means it will inevitably collapse on itself (specifically referring to the miners). I for one disagree. I think the Bitcoin network will become stronger and stronger as more people of the public begin to accept it. Once it hits mainstream markets, there's nothing that could hint a collapse in my opinion.

This report has as much credence as the recent Accenture Report advising the UK government to require all bitcoin wallet holders to be regulated and identified like bank account holders.

http://www.coindesk.com/accenture-uk-government-should-regulate-bitcoin-wallets/

Do these people even know how bitcoin works? Or why was it was even created in the first place?

Ignorance is not a virtue, but boasting upon ignorance is a sin.

H.

Im yet to see a proper critique that's hard enough to predict an outcome of "Bitcoin dying" that is convincing enough to be considered seriously. This is all over again taking things out of context and not understanding a lot of key subjects on BTC and the protocol.

Gavin and Co. don't think mining is a centralized monopoly. They think mining is well distributed and there's no need for change.

When was this article written? Looks like they pulled these stats when Ghash was still dominant.
This is the latest information on pools : https://blockchain.info/pools
I see no Armageddon here. Looks like a FUD attempt or someone who wants to push Ripple or gold or Silver?
Well written, but poorly executed. ^HeH^

As clear as mud! If there is a weakness in the system and a point of failure, it is not explained in a manner that is comprehensible. Are these people like astrologers trying to explain astronomical phenomenon? Or, are they like the "climatologists" who are paid to "prove" climate change is due to human activity.

if bitcoin fall which is the coin that is carry the whole crypto concept, then it would cause a huge loss of confidence in the cryptoworld, it's better for bitcoin to stay alive

so it actually matter

apparently the article can not understand the difference between farm and pool, there is no centralization in mining until one big farm or pool is controllig 51%

I would have thought with the inputs received from Gavin Andresen, as stated in their credits, they would have understood the basics of mining pools. This natural monopoly that are being created by China and some of the bigger mining pools are still more decentralized than the fiat system.

The "failed experiment" would only fail, if the cow dies. This is the part that they do not understand. If these mining pools create a situation where they can double spend, people would leave Bitcoin and they will be left with something with no value. It is not in their interrest to kill the cow, that is producing the milk.

The mining monopoly is not a good thing, but it is not a issue, when you consider the result. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Dowd


https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/martin-hutchinson-predicts-2015-demise-bitcoin/


À la Mary Matalin and James Carville, did these two end up in bed together after a happenstance meatup at some pup?

i read the first paragraph and found it mis represented.

supposedly wrote by a british scholar and an american journalist..
but just that first paragraph tells me of the american influence exceeded the british..

honor=american
honour=english

then comparing bitcoin to stones that are too big to use... um... no.. bitcoins are the easiest currency to move, EVER.
even with the bit where they say they publicly announce a chance of ownership, yet the stones never move.. that is like someone writing a message signed with the privkey/pubkey to show the ownership of a private key has changed hands, but the funds on the key have not moved.

they say the flaw of bitcoin is the mining competition, which they say is unsustainable.. well my dear scholars, we are no longer in the pickaxe game of gold mining where everyman and his son can get gold. and where now it requires large investment of machinary and expertise.... yet no one is complaining about gold flaws.

in bitcoin, mining will continue, whether there are 2 people mining it or 200,000.. and if it got to a point where 2 people were mining it, 1000 people will club together to pool their resources to fight the attempts of 51% hash ownership.. oh wait its already happened..

when scholars only think about the creation and not about the use. they miss the whole economics of it. EG pawn brokers and jewellers make money from gold without having to dig any dirt. economics is not about who has the biggest slush machine... its about the control of ownership once in circulation. and 95% of miners dont keep their the majority of their hoards.

i became less bothered by their opinions at this point. i might waste my time later and read the rest, editing this message accordingly.. but for now i dont consider it a true economic understanding of bitcoin

Do not listen to naysayers they always want to make everyone down as they afraid that other one will empower them, We as a bitcoin favorites, never going to give a bit care to the rubbish and deterring talks pertaining to bitcoin digital currency.

This is going to piss off a lot of people here. Why would I care what a libertarian think tank has to say? Libertarians aren't exactly plugged into the mainstream consciousness.

Didn't read the all thing, does the author address the fact that it would hurt financially everyone in the bitcoin ecosystem including the 'mega centralized mining pool' or mines?

It goes against the economic interest of the bitcoin industry players, specially the big ones, to turn it into another centralized system.

Why would the Cato institute know anything about bitcoin? The only one of them I have met that understands bitcoin at all left them to go into bitcoin.

In the bigger picture, it doesn't matter if bitcoin makes it or not. But the concept of cryptocurrencies is here to stay.

There is something about statement that Bitcoin is gravitating towards centralization. You already can see it, that bitcoin on its own is nothing, you need exchanges to sell and buy, you need satellite services to process payments. And we still can't figure it out how to create decentralized marketplaces or exchanges.

They could be right but then there will come in a coin which is more decentralised to replace BTC. That's what i am thinking anyways: centralisation WILL kill it and in the long run the leading coin will also be the most decentral because what has this all been about in the first place? Only decentralisation gives it value in the first place. Less decentralisation means it'll become prone for DDOS which would kill it instantly. I think the issue with centralisation of mining is hugely underestimated.

Anyways: the end of bitcoin will not be the end of cryptocoins.

if it rises fast as it collapses faster, but i dont think btc will bite the dust, since it has risen stably.