Topic: Consolidation sounds like centralization to me - page 2. (Read 256 times)
I dont get it why consolidation would be differentiated according to number of people holding bitcoin. Consolidation, in my own understanding, is merely, putting together ones assets or in crypto, putting all your altcoins into one coin like bitcoin for example.
Bitcoin is always transparent. It is also fair to its users. People using bitcoin has full control over it and thus they have nothing to do with what others are doing! In this situation, you can make a balance in your transaction. Hope that, you will get the best result.
Bitcoin operates in a decentralized system and the users have full control over their money and transactions. It has always been fair and transparent to its users. So what others are doing and facing is nothing to bother about. In this situation, you can hold some and spend some. You will get your feedback soon!
Quote
But i'd encourage Bitcoiner to spend their coins, even only for small goods.
Yup, hoarding all your Bitcoin isn't going to help the overall market. We need people to spend their coins so Bitcoin achieves it's true and original purpose...as a currency.
I didn’t get how consolidation define the centralization/decentralization. Hope it will be not make BTC as centralized curreny.
this is the first time i hear someone use the word "consolidation" in this context! it is either what NeuroticFish said above about inputs or in economical context it means this: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/consolidation.asp
it has nothing to do with distribution of bitcoin and there is nothing wrong with the way bitcoin is distributed because it was always fair and transparent. you can not blame someone who has taken a huge risk and invested his time and money in bitcoin so that he can own a bigger amount like 1000. you should blame yourself for hearing about bitcoin years ago and not doing the same.
for example in first days 1000BTC meant you should have ran your computer for 3 hour and 20 minutes at least to find blocks for something that didn't even have real value in the real world and was literary "virtual" money.
the way i see your argument is asking why someone like Hal Finney for example put his time and effort on something that now has a lot of value. and you imply that to be unfair.
it has nothing to do with distribution of bitcoin and there is nothing wrong with the way bitcoin is distributed because it was always fair and transparent. you can not blame someone who has taken a huge risk and invested his time and money in bitcoin so that he can own a bigger amount like 1000. you should blame yourself for hearing about bitcoin years ago and not doing the same.
for example in first days 1000BTC meant you should have ran your computer for 3 hour and 20 minutes at least to find blocks for something that didn't even have real value in the real world and was literary "virtual" money.
the way i see your argument is asking why someone like Hal Finney for example put his time and effort on something that now has a lot of value. and you imply that to be unfair.
The problems on the market are not created by the ones with 1000 BTC, it's made by the ones having 1000s ...
And about encouraging... imho the best is always somewhere in the middle: hold some (hopefully it'll help the price grow), spend some (to ensure liquidity).
Now for OP: I don't know the context where you've heard about consolidation, but one context is to consolidate the inputs. This means to send the Bitcoins to yourself if they were achieved from many transactions. The result would be all your coins are from one transaction, ensuring the future spending at lower cost. This was very popular when the transactions costs dropped back to normal after being extremely high in December (possibly caused by spam attack) and people were expecting the high fees (and the spam attack) would return, so consolidating the input could save big bucks.
And about encouraging... imho the best is always somewhere in the middle: hold some (hopefully it'll help the price grow), spend some (to ensure liquidity).
Now for OP: I don't know the context where you've heard about consolidation, but one context is to consolidate the inputs. This means to send the Bitcoins to yourself if they were achieved from many transactions. The result would be all your coins are from one transaction, ensuring the future spending at lower cost. This was very popular when the transactions costs dropped back to normal after being extremely high in December (possibly caused by spam attack) and people were expecting the high fees (and the spam attack) would return, so consolidating the input could save big bucks.
Is bitcoin better off with 1000 people holding 1 bitcoin each, or "consolidating" to 10 people holding 100 bitcoin each?
The first case (1000 bitcoin holders) has 500,500 different combinations of people who can send bitcoin to each other.
The second case has 55 combinations.
Am I misunderstanding the word consolidation?
If I find out someone is involved in consolidation, should i jeer them, laud them, or just shrug my shoulders (as in, whatever, dude)?
Seems like consolidation might be good for bitcoin as digital gold (desire greater to hoard 100 units of something than 1 unit?), not so good as peer to peer cash transfer network.
The first case (1000 bitcoin holders) has 500,500 different combinations of people who can send bitcoin to each other.
The second case has 55 combinations.
Am I misunderstanding the word consolidation?
If I find out someone is involved in consolidation, should i jeer them, laud them, or just shrug my shoulders (as in, whatever, dude)?
Seems like consolidation might be good for bitcoin as digital gold (desire greater to hoard 100 units of something than 1 unit?), not so good as peer to peer cash transfer network.
Jump to: