Topic: Do you think bankers will destroy block chain tech, decentralization, bitcoin? - page 5. (Read 4103 times)
September 19, 2016, 03:57:54 PM
I think the bankers should have to create their own wallet where they will serve those customers who will like to put their money in bitcoin so that the bankers will not lose their profit with the success of bitcoin and bitcoin will also get a stronger support and people will put more and more money in bicoin as banks will give guarantee for their money.
September 19, 2016, 03:56:20 PM
The day's not over yet.
What's stopping people from running a witness node, Franky? It's "nothing", isn't it?
What's stopping people from running a witness node, Franky? It's "nothing", isn't it?
September 19, 2016, 03:55:48 PM
Once the bankers know about the profit of bitcoin they will start to love bitcoin and especially when they learn to run the technology of bitcoin. They hate bitcoin because they do not know anything about the technology of bitcoin and just know that with that people will put their money only in bitcoin and not in the banks.
September 19, 2016, 03:53:17 PM
The difference is that R3 promoted engineers who came up with a plan to turn Bitcoin into a centralised network, whereas the team that PWC funded have been working mericlessly on improving the decentralised properties of the network. To wit:
And who was responsible for all that development? The Classic/XT turncoats, or the Blockstream based devs?
- 0.8 introduced the UTXO set
- 0.10 introduced headers first block propagation
- 0.12 introduced secp256k tx verification
- 0.13 introduced compact block propagation
- 0.13.1 will bring in SegWit
And who was responsible for all that development? The Classic/XT turncoats, or the Blockstream based devs?
pwc:
segwit, to blind old nodes
no witness mode to not even verify data because they dont ask for signatures
pruned to not have copies of historic data to help newbies start up.
in short segwit code results in LESS fully validating nodes.
have a nice day
September 19, 2016, 03:47:46 PM
The difference is that R3 promoted engineers who came up with a plan to turn Bitcoin into a centralised network, whereas the team that PWC funded have been working mericlessly on improving the decentralised properties of the network. To wit:
And who was responsible for all that development? The Classic/XT turncoats, or the Blockstream based devs?
- 0.8 introduced the UTXO set
- 0.10 introduced headers first block propagation
- 0.12 introduced secp256k tx verification
- 0.13 introduced compact block propagation
- 0.13.1 will bring in SegWit
And who was responsible for all that development? The Classic/XT turncoats, or the Blockstream based devs?
September 19, 2016, 03:37:53 PM
They don't care about bitcoin. Banks have bigger problems than bitcoin.
September 19, 2016, 03:20:27 PM
look at carlton with all the propaganda.
but where is carlton when it comes to the bankers investment of $55m that went to adam back and greg maxwell..
oops i struck a nerve.. i mentioned a banker relationship with the ones trying to slow down bitcoin capacity growth..
but where is carlton when it comes to the bankers investment of $55m that went to adam back and greg maxwell..
oops i struck a nerve.. i mentioned a banker relationship with the ones trying to slow down bitcoin capacity growth..
I've always addressed this directly.
PriceWaterhouseCoopers are not a bank. And that's the investment organisation Franky is referring to. That isn't a bank.
thats like saying R3 organisation is not a bank..(because its just an organization)
PwC is just an organisation of partners.. look at the partners of Pwc, just like the partners of R3
R3 and PwC are the same thing.. banker money used to sway programmers to do certain things to get what bankers want. and programmers doing it to release a second tranche of investment by achieving what bankers want.
i look forward to seeing greg and adam get too excited about their next tranche of investment release, as their egos are too big to hide such a milestone. and then they have to start admitting what was required and needed to be achieved to get that tranche of funds
the hypocrisy is amazing when it comes to carlton trying to defend core while attacking anything not core.
carlton, hows the prep work going to REKT luke JR before he releases real capacity buffer increase version of core?
September 19, 2016, 03:05:07 PM
to be honest i am a bit afraid, that they might just do something worse then destroying it. they could pervert the block chain and make it something it was not meant to be. and since they did not destroy it enough people are dumb enough to go with it. sure there would be still some small groups left with a proper block chain, but so small that nobody would care.
As long as there is an open market for the competing currencies, that can't happen. I feel more concerned about the infrastructure of the internet itself being neutered than Bitcoin being hijacked (although the latter is not impossible).
Too many of the original Bitcoin investors were computer literate, and there seems to be a positive correlation between computer and math literacy and the amount of BTC people invested in (I bought a fair amount). It's difficult to fool those kind of people with nonsense arguments, so it's a little difficult to get any kind of hijacking leverage out of that dynamic. Hasn't stopped them trying, though
September 19, 2016, 03:00:57 PM
The bankers are not much stronger then crypto technology, they will only follow the technology and the more development for their banking system will be to provide their own wallet and nothing more
September 19, 2016, 02:55:28 PM
1. How are you going to stop the bankers trying to dictator crypto?
By welcoming them.2. Are you fully aware of things that are going on?
In bitcoin? Yes. In bank and scamcoins? No.3. What measures are you taking now?
Buying more bitcoin while the price is low. 
September 19, 2016, 02:43:07 PM
they won't destroy blockchain technology. you can't destroy an idea and it's useful for them anyway. they wouldn't dream of participating in something decentralized. that ain't how they operate and never will.
to be honest i am a bit afraid, that they might just do something worse then destroying it. they could pervert the block chain and make it something it was not meant to be. and since they did not destroy it enough people are dumb enough to go with it. sure there would be still some small groups left with a proper block chain, but so small that nobody would care. September 19, 2016, 02:36:21 PM
look at carlton with all the propaganda.
but where is carlton when it comes to the bankers investment of $55m that went to adam back and greg maxwell..
oops i struck a nerve.. i mentioned a banker relationship with the ones trying to slow down bitcoin capacity growth..
but where is carlton when it comes to the bankers investment of $55m that went to adam back and greg maxwell..
oops i struck a nerve.. i mentioned a banker relationship with the ones trying to slow down bitcoin capacity growth..
I've always addressed this directly.
PriceWaterhouseCoopers are not a bank. And that's the investment organisation Franky is referring to. That isn't a bank.
September 19, 2016, 02:23:10 PM
look at carlton with all the propaganda.
but where is carlton when it comes to the bankers investment of $55m that went to adam back and greg maxwell..
oops i struck a nerve.. i mentioned a banker relationship with the ones trying to slow down bitcoin capacity growth..
now i expect more trolling from him not talking about cores funding.. instead of admitting even his beloved chums have been bought out
now i expect more 3 shell game of "everyone look to the left while the bankers attack on the right" to pretend core are innocent and no one should investigate or judge the funding of holy religious order of core control.
but where is carlton when it comes to the bankers investment of $55m that went to adam back and greg maxwell..
oops i struck a nerve.. i mentioned a banker relationship with the ones trying to slow down bitcoin capacity growth..
now i expect more trolling from him not talking about cores funding.. instead of admitting even his beloved chums have been bought out
now i expect more 3 shell game of "everyone look to the left while the bankers attack on the right" to pretend core are innocent and no one should investigate or judge the funding of holy religious order of core control.
September 19, 2016, 02:22:40 PM
they won't destroy blockchain technology. you can't destroy an idea and it's useful for them anyway. they wouldn't dream of participating in something decentralized. that ain't how they operate and never will.
September 19, 2016, 01:32:58 PM
They goal is maybe to destroy Bitcoin as competition they don't like but they don't have the interest to destroy blockchain technogy. At the.moment they would like to.embrace it and implement into their business.
September 19, 2016, 01:28:13 PM
Firstly blockchain concepts have been around since the 1970s. I used it for creating a transaction verification file on an IBM 360. T
Will the miners take over Bitcoin? That's the big question, andhe Bitcoin revolution was the decentalisation and replication of this type of verification file. This makes it difficult/impossible to corrupt the historical data.
Can bankers take control? - not if we can support a free and honest core team.
can bankers create an alternative? Of course they can, but it won't be the same - maybe they will start including electronic data in the new plastic notes to support their new virtual currencies. one that I'm not qualified to answer.
Will the miners take over Bitcoin? That's the big question, andhe Bitcoin revolution was the decentalisation and replication of this type of verification file. This makes it difficult/impossible to corrupt the historical data.
Can bankers take control? - not if we can support a free and honest core team.
can bankers create an alternative? Of course they can, but it won't be the same - maybe they will start including electronic data in the new plastic notes to support their new virtual currencies. one that I'm not qualified to answer.
September 19, 2016, 01:25:50 PM
Of course the banks are welcome to create their own alt-coins. But they can not compete and here is why.
Bitcoin fees trend to the lowest profitable amount using a global competition model. Banks would have to buy/rent hash power as no one will volunteer to run their coins.
Bitcoin incentivises mining by turning over all new coins to the miners and allowing anyone on the planet to mine. Banks aren't going to give their coins away to people they don't even know.
Bitcoin's distribution, and supply can not be changed without consensus from all users. Bank coin value and supply will be decided by the bank, and in the banks best interest.
Bank coins will come with whatever rules the bank sees as profitable. With bitcoin no one can stop anyone from doing with their money whatever they wish.
Bank coins are not going to work around the world like bitcoin. They will have limited and controlled use.
Basically banks can create a money they control and that you can use under their system. Does that sound like something bitcoin users are going to switch to? lol, no of course not.
Bitcoin fees trend to the lowest profitable amount using a global competition model. Banks would have to buy/rent hash power as no one will volunteer to run their coins.
Bitcoin incentivises mining by turning over all new coins to the miners and allowing anyone on the planet to mine. Banks aren't going to give their coins away to people they don't even know.
Bitcoin's distribution, and supply can not be changed without consensus from all users. Bank coin value and supply will be decided by the bank, and in the banks best interest.
Bank coins will come with whatever rules the bank sees as profitable. With bitcoin no one can stop anyone from doing with their money whatever they wish.
Bank coins are not going to work around the world like bitcoin. They will have limited and controlled use.
Basically banks can create a money they control and that you can use under their system. Does that sound like something bitcoin users are going to switch to? lol, no of course not.
Why are you ignoring the forking threat that you've been told about already, and that has been menacing Bitcoin for 18 months? If people using Bitcoin can be swayed into choosing a destructive fork, it hands the steering of Bitcoin over to those controlling the new fork.
September 19, 2016, 01:07:44 PM
bankers takes taxes for their own development and they will keep a seperate record file of all the transacrions too because they can not fully trust on anything else when matters are about money and banks are made to balance the money in a country and they can destroy the anonymity in the network
September 19, 2016, 12:48:28 PM
I think banks will lift the ideas they like and use it to polish up their own product. Most average people would swallow what the banks serve up to them regardless of how appalling it is for their future.
Do I think there are paid shills from the banks prowling this board right now? I think Bitcoin attracts enough psychotic freaks who are willing to upend it for free for their own sweaty little reasons.
Do I think there are paid shills from the banks prowling this board right now? I think Bitcoin attracts enough psychotic freaks who are willing to upend it for free for their own sweaty little reasons.
September 19, 2016, 12:47:35 PM
Absolutely not.
There is a lot of talk about the banks destroying bitcoin, yet no one has even shown me a method for doing this. Until someone can show how this could be done, I don't think it will be done.
There is a lot of talk about the banks destroying bitcoin, yet no one has even shown me a method for doing this. Until someone can show how this could be done, I don't think it will be done.
Banks are trying their best, they are crooks trained in deceiving for 100's of years, seeing how Ripple is backed by banks and freezing user funds and how ripple is valued as third biggest crypto and recent Ethereum bailout and their connections with bank is showing that they are improving with their crony strategies, i believe the free market will dictate its course and they will not win, we have to stay vigilant and protest nonetheless.
Of course the banks are welcome to create their own alt-coins. But they can not compete and here is why.
Bitcoin fees trend to the lowest profitable amount using a global competition model. Banks would have to buy/rent hash power as no one will volunteer to run their coins.
Bitcoin incentivises mining by turning over all new coins to the miners and allowing anyone on the planet to mine. Banks aren't going to give their coins away to people they don't even know.
Bitcoin's distribution, and supply can not be changed without consensus from all users. Bank coin value and supply will be decided by the bank, and in the banks best interest.
Bank coins will come with whatever rules the bank sees as profitable. With bitcoin no one can stop anyone from doing with their money whatever they wish.
Bank coins are not going to work around the world like bitcoin. They will have limited and controlled use.
Basically banks can create a money they control and that you can use under their system. Does that sound like something bitcoin users are going to switch to? lol, no of course not.
Jump to: