I feel, Bitcoin is torn in a cold war between two kinds of people! - page 3.

devphp

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 260

Quote from: Soros Shorts on November 21, 2014, 07:30:09 AM

Quote from: devphp on November 21, 2014, 05:09:56 AM

Alright, users and small miners would stay on their old fork, but large miners that control the network would have to comply with the regulations or shut down operations. Eventually users would have to either sell their Bitcoins (sell them on the old or new fork) or switch to and stay on the new regulated fork as well. What's wrong/impossible with this picture I just drew?

I could be wrong, but I would imagine that the coins in the new fork would have lesser value than the old fork. For example, if I have relatives living in a "terrorist" country and the new fork does not allow me to remit them money, why would I even use the new fork?

Well, for starters, let's imagine that 90% of the hashing power (large miners) switches to the new fork to comply with regulations, where would that leave the old fork? It would make each new block arrive in 2-hour intervals, the difficulty retarget would arrive in 2016 blocks in the worst case, that would be 5 months to wait for normal 10-min blocks or even longer (can't remember how much the max retarget downwards in Bitcoin is allowed). Where would that put the credibility of Bitcoin? In short, it would be a total mess.

Soros Shorts

donator

Activity: 1617

Merit: 1012

Quote from: devphp on November 21, 2014, 05:09:56 AM

Alright, users and small miners would stay on their old fork, but large miners that control the network would have to comply with the regulations or shut down operations. Eventually users would have to either sell their Bitcoins (sell them on the old or new fork) or switch to and stay on the new regulated fork as well. What's wrong/impossible with this picture I just drew?

I could be wrong, but I would imagine that the coins in the new fork would have lesser value than the old fork. For example, if I have relatives living in a "terrorist" country and the new fork does not allow me to remit them money, why would I even use the new fork?

turvarya

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 500

Quote from: Fuserleer on November 21, 2014, 05:32:17 AM

The real concern with what you suggest there is that users that had Bitcoin on the pre-fork chain can spend them on both the new & old forked chains.

If the majority migrate to the new hard-fork, then it's not really an issue, because the old protocol dies, but if we end up with 2 large sets of users on each, then you can double spend previous BTC on both.

Obvious way around that is of course to have everyone run both the old and new chains and cross reference between each, but then that adds a whole new level of technical complexity to an already tricky non-technical problem.

Nobody will cross-reference two chains. That just doesn't make sense.

Quote from: devphp on November 21, 2014, 05:09:56 AM

Quote from: turvarya on November 21, 2014, 05:00:19 AM

Quote from: devphp on November 21, 2014, 03:58:54 AM

Quote from: turvarya on November 21, 2014, 03:34:32 AM

Who wants to change the source code to suit the needs of regulators?

Wouldn't large miners (who basically control the network) have to comply with any provision issued to them (including modified code with whatever rules regulators think of to code in there)? Regulators don't bother with this just yet, as they see that Bitcoin is too small and fading away by itself to become irrelevant due to its flaws, and it's cheaper for them socially to just wait it out. But if it didn't fade away and began to grow to threaten the fiat system, be sure, they'd issue this license in a heart beat.

When it is a change, that changes how the blockchain works, you would need a hard fork. Users/miners would just have to stay on their old version to not accept it.

Alright, users and small miners would stay on their old fork, but large miners that control the network would have to comply with the regulations or shut down operations. Eventually users would have to either sell their Bitcoins (sell them on the old or new fork) or switch to and stay on the new regulated fork as well. What's wrong/impossible with this picture I just drew?

Why would a miner in Siberia care about a regulation made in the US?
Is there a statistic about, where most miners are? I don't think, they are in US.

Btw. that's exactly why some many people hates US-citiziens. A lot of them just don't realize that there is also an economy that is not controlled by your government, which is especially stupid, when you are talking about bitcoin.

devphp

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 260

Either way sooner or later Bitcoin is f*cked. Large miners are the weak point. Centralization and regulation is inevitable in PoW if it ever grows big enough.

Fuserleer

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1016

The real concern with what you suggest there is that users that had Bitcoin on the pre-fork chain can spend them on both the new & old forked chains.

If the majority migrate to the new hard-fork, then it's not really an issue, because the old protocol dies, but if we end up with 2 large sets of users on each, then you can double spend previous BTC on both.

Obvious way around that is of course to have everyone run both the old and new chains and cross reference between each, but then that adds a whole new level of technical complexity to an already tricky non-technical problem.

devphp

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 260

Quote from: turvarya on November 21, 2014, 05:00:19 AM

Quote from: devphp on November 21, 2014, 03:58:54 AM

Quote from: turvarya on November 21, 2014, 03:34:32 AM

Who wants to change the source code to suit the needs of regulators?

Wouldn't large miners (who basically control the network) have to comply with any provision issued to them (including modified code with whatever rules regulators think of to code in there)? Regulators don't bother with this just yet, as they see that Bitcoin is too small and fading away by itself to become irrelevant due to its flaws, and it's cheaper for them socially to just wait it out. But if it didn't fade away and began to grow to threaten the fiat system, be sure, they'd issue this license in a heart beat.

When it is a change, that changes how the blockchain works, you would need a hard fork. Users/miners would just have to stay on their old version to not accept it.

Alright, users and small miners would stay on their old fork, but large miners that control the network would have to comply with the regulations or shut down operations. Eventually users would have to either sell their Bitcoins (sell them on the old or new fork) or switch to and stay on the new regulated fork as well. What's wrong/impossible with this picture I just drew?

turvarya

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 500

Quote from: devphp on November 21, 2014, 03:58:54 AM

Quote from: turvarya on November 21, 2014, 03:34:32 AM

Who wants to change the source code to suit the needs of regulators?

Wouldn't large miners (who basically control the network) have to comply with any provision issued to them (including modified code with whatever rules regulators think of to code in there)? Regulators don't bother with this just yet, as they see that Bitcoin is too small and fading away by itself to become irrelevant due to its flaws, and it's cheaper for them socially to just wait it out. But if it didn't fade away and began to grow to threaten the fiat system, be sure, they'd issue this license in a heart beat.

When it is a change, that changes how the blockchain works, you would need a hard fork. Users/miners would just have to stay on their old version to not accept it.

Bagatell

hero member

Activity: 722

Merit: 500

This thread reminds me of the committee of blind men inspecting an elephant. Cheesy

Jybrael

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 250

Well the war hasn't started yet and hopefully won't for some time but in the end I do agree it is inevitable.

devphp

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 260

Quote from: turvarya on November 21, 2014, 03:34:32 AM

Who wants to change the source code to suit the needs of regulators?

Wouldn't large miners (who basically control the network) have to comply with any provision issued to them (including modified code with whatever rules regulators think of to code in there)? Regulators don't bother with this just yet, as they see that Bitcoin is too small and fading away by itself to become irrelevant due to its flaws, and it's cheaper for them socially to just wait it out. But if it didn't fade away and began to grow to threaten the fiat system, be sure, they'd issue this license in a heart beat.

turvarya

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 500

Quote from: Lethn on November 21, 2014, 03:14:31 AM

It's hardly idealism, the simple fact is if we give ground and change the source code to suit the needs of regulators that's when Bitcoin will end up failing, you can insitute what kind of tax rules are to be placed on it all you like, just don't go saying things like "Yes we'll change the way the public ledger works" and so on because the first time I see a "Full Name" or "Country" field on my Bitcoin wallet I'm transferring everything.

What the fuck are you talking about?
Who wants to change the source code to suit the needs of regulators?

Fuserleer

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1016

Quote from: Lethn on November 21, 2014, 03:14:31 AM

It's hardly idealism, the simple fact is if we give ground and change the source code to suit the needs of regulators that's when Bitcoin will end up failing, you can insitute what kind of tax rules are to be placed on it all you like, just don't go saying things like "Yes we'll change the way the public ledger works" and so on because the first time I see a "Full Name" field on my Bitcoin wallet I'm transferring everything.

I don't think that argument even comes into play.

I think its more to do with that fact that at the beginning, the 3rd camp (i just edited above) was a lot larger, and that is what got us here because being both they know how to compromise.

Now we are in a position, where the 2 majorities constantly squabble, and its all or nothing for both...so we end up stuck.

If we could get back in the position where the 3rd camp is the majority, then we could do a fine job of working with various bodies to push forward, instead of having to speculate on extremes like you present above.

Lethn

legendary

Activity: 1540

Merit: 1000

It's hardly idealism, the simple fact is if we give ground and change the source code to suit the needs of regulators that's when Bitcoin will end up failing, you can insitute what kind of tax rules are to be placed on it all you like, just don't go saying things like "Yes we'll change the way the public ledger works" and so on because the first time I see a "Full Name" or "Country" field on my Bitcoin wallet I'm transferring everything.

Fuserleer

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1016

I think if you want to break it down into 2 halves then you are close, but you can simplify further

One half of the camp is a bunch of idealists. The other half of the camp is a bunch of realists.

The problem is that the realists know what need to be done, and try to do it, yet get beaten down constantly by the idealists because it doesn't meet their opinion. The idealists just sit around all day, preaching about unachievable ideals, ramming opinions down every throat they can, with absolutely no grasp on reality regarding how to get there (if they did, they would also be realists) so then never actually get up and do anything.

You have a tiny 3rd camp which are people with both attributes, but between them they can never get enough momentum to affect an change and recruit realists that do, nor can they be heard over the ever vocal idealists.

Stalemate...which is where we are at with very little forward momentum IMO.

Lethn

legendary

Activity: 1540

Merit: 1000

We're all in this for profit, but the point is that a decentralised and unregulated currency is going to be far more profitable than another digital dollar, once you take away the decentralised and open source nature of Bitcoin that's it's value gone, it was specifically created to get round the banking system and if the banks take over it then it's pointless as a currency.

We've all seen the dollar and we all understand how it works, what interests people about Bitcoin is the fact that you only to download some software onto your PC in order to use it and that's it.

QuestionAuthority

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1393

You lead and I'll watch you walk away.

Quote from: Lethn on November 21, 2014, 02:27:52 AM

Quote from: Alonzo Ewing on November 21, 2014, 02:10:49 AM

This market anarchist wants financial privacy, predictable money supply, and free trade among all people of the world.

Why would anyone want to buy coffee with Bitcoin? We already have centralized systems that work well for that kind of thing.

As an Anarchist I resent these statements that have been made about Anarchists, not just you in particular because the OP did it as well, I don't necessarily want/need anonymity but that's a nice feature, what I want is a currency that is free from the state and central banks and can be traded freely without restrictions and there are people who are actively trying to prevent that through groups like the Bitcoin foundation. Thankfully though, it's seems that there are currencies like Darkcoin etc. that are stepping in to fill that kind of gap that Bitcoin seems to be leaving, I haven't seen any moves yet by Gavin to take away the freedom Bitcoin gives but I'm not holding my breath.

So long as we're free to exchange our Bitcoins anywhere in the world and not have anyone interfere with transactions based on our I.P address etc. I at least am happy, though obviously I can't speak for all Anarchists since they all have very different opinions.

The profit mongers are going to be disappointed when they finally get Bitcoin fully regulated, institutionalized, mainstream, blacklisted and ready for the average John Q Public. John doesn't want or need a difficult to use Western Union replacement. Cash already works for him for small and anonymous purchases (ask any street corner drug dealer or prostitute) and he understands cash. Credit/debit cards fill in the rest. No, the fringe element in society is keeping Bitcoin alive and we'll stop using it in favor of something the profit mongers haven't destroyed.

Lethn

legendary

Activity: 1540

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Alonzo Ewing on November 21, 2014, 02:10:49 AM

This market anarchist wants financial privacy, predictable money supply, and free trade among all people of the world.

Why would anyone want to buy coffee with Bitcoin? We already have centralized systems that work well for that kind of thing.

As an Anarchist I resent these statements that have been made about Anarchists, not just you in particular because the OP did it as well, I don't necessarily want/need anonymity but that's a nice feature, what I want is a currency that is free from the state and central banks and can be traded freely without restrictions and there are people who are actively trying to prevent that through groups like the Bitcoin foundation. Thankfully though, it's seems that there are currencies like Darkcoin etc. that are stepping in to fill that kind of gap that Bitcoin seems to be leaving, I haven't seen any moves yet by Gavin to take away the freedom Bitcoin gives but I'm not holding my breath.

So long as we're free to exchange our Bitcoins anywhere in the world and not have anyone interfere with transactions based on our I.P address etc. I at least am happy, though obviously I can't speak for all Anarchists since they all have very different opinions.

cuddaloreappu

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 502

Quote from: cbeast on November 21, 2014, 01:41:06 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Thanks for letting me know that I have to pick one of these two very specific choices. Here I thought all along that anyone could use Bitcoin for any reason they like. Gosh... silly me.

Bitcoin is a game with rules. They are very broad, but absolute. You don't have to play the game, but you do have to follow the rules if you do play. That's the whole idea of transparency. The OP probably didn't intend to form a dichotomy, but was trying to be broad and inclusive regarding general interests in Bitcoin. You don't have to pick sides, but it behooves you to see the nuances of blockchain assets.

there it is... you clearly said my intentions...

cbeast

donator

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1014

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.

Quote from: Alonzo Ewing on November 21, 2014, 02:10:49 AM

This market anarchist wants financial privacy, predictable money supply, and free trade among all people of the world.

Why would anyone want to buy coffee with Bitcoin? We already have centralized systems that work well for that kind of thing.

Good for you, mate. When you say *We* who exactly are you speaking for?

Alonzo Ewing

legendary

Activity: 1040

Merit: 1001

This market anarchist wants financial privacy, predictable money supply, and free trade among all people of the world.

Why would anyone want to buy coffee with Bitcoin? We already have centralized systems that work well for that kind of thing.

Topic: I feel, Bitcoin is torn in a cold war between two kinds of people! - page 3. (Read 4594 times)