Topic: is bitcoin getting rebranded as the blockchain? (Read 3010 times)

This. Some doubled goxxed scam or this shiny new blockchain?

It tells me that they actually like bitcoin, but when they want to tell the public they are using it they would rather say blockchain technology.

i would say better, by saying that bitcoin is the instrument of the blockchain, and they don't like that instrument, they are rebranding it in something that suits more their needs

for they i mean those who are against bitcoin

This only tells you ONE thing: They are all AMBIVALENT towards crypto

Yes that seems the trend, maybe it's just a way to ease the way to more investments without looking at this bubble complete burst and maybe focussing on the market after that when a recovery and a rise will be evident.

My exact thought when I read the OP, but you summed it up way better than I could have.

I was hoping it would be synonymous when you say blockchain and people would automatically relate it to bitcoin but looks like the trend is decoupling. People seems to be more interested to develop something new based on the blockchain and right now people have been putting forward new ideas on what they can do with it. Blockchain is the technology but bitcoin is just branding and what we can do is to continue promoting bitcoin and hoping they continue to link it together

Hey, let them called it what they like, blockchain technology does sound kinda cool and doesnt have the "oh no everyone is going to lose their money @ mtgox" attachment.  You could rename bitcoin the currency and nothing changes... circle not mentioning bitcoin in a transfer etc.

in reflection of the idea above, lets say transaction fees where set to 0.1%, then the cost to secure Bitcoin as Block rewards diminished and the network grew, would equalize at about 0.1% of GDP to maintain the decentralized system. at the moment as a % of GDP the cost of managing money is greater than the the cost of global manufacturing, who knows what the correct ratio is, but i sure know that the guy that makes stuff is more valuable than the middle man i use to pay him, and i can see how Bitcoin can can reduce the cost of the middleman to the minimum needed to transact in a global way.

but a better solution is to offset all incentives so that everyone is incentivized to be as efficient as necessary and to operate in a competitive environment, this is the Bitcoin we have today, all costs will evolve to the marginal profit on the basic cost of utility, provided we are able to scale with out eroding the current incentive sachems reflected in the Bitcoin protocol.

its quite simple really,
Either Bitcoin adapts to the financial interest of the world, (the economic majority)
or the financial interests (the economic majority) of the world adapt to Bitcoin.

I am invested in the latter. if you want Bitcoin you need to put value into the system, or F*%# off. Developers working to change the incentive structure in the Bitcoin prototypical that secures Bitcoin are opening up a gateway for "block chain technology  " and providing ways to leverage Bitcoin - move transactions off the dominant value ledger, and create new value ledgers, call them sidechains or whatever. They will leave the incentive structure that protects and makes Bitcoin vulnerable, the blockchain technology that will grow the biggest value network is the one chosen by the economic majority.  The risk is the economic majority don't value the fundamental economic principals embodied in Bitcoin, they prefer the Keynesian view of exponential growth they may choose something more favorable a blockchain tecnology that fits their own view than choose Bitcoin given an option.
  

Bitcoin is the Blockchain, bitcoins are the unit we use to describe the % of the blockchain we command,  if we can keep Bitcoin, prevent it from being co opted and changed, the economic majority will have no choice but to move into Bitcoin. in my view, this down trend, is a strong reflection that the certainty of that happening is diminishing.  


That said, Bitcoin needs to scale, and the scaling mechanics need to remain true to the incentives in the core protocol otherwise it will be co opted much like our existing financial system. Many of the treats presented are FUD, centralization for eg. promotes FUD, we want specialization, but we don't want 1 specialist - the FED is 1 specialist with few interest groups, Bitcoin by comparison is 100% decentralized, the fact that nodes may be shrinking in quantity is more a reflection on specialization than it is a move towards a centralization or a 1 specialist type system. but we still need to be mindful, because it's a real threat.  

The biggest threat to Bitcoin in my mind are the developers, they are the keepers of the protocol, they are programers developers, they make engineering decisions to solve practical real world problems in Bitcoin. the caveat is most of them are young, and don't have 30 or 40 years of economic experiences to draw on, so some value the clever and innovative technological engendering above the economic engineering that makes Bitcoin Bitcoin. to participate you need to understand both the economics and the engendering, unfortunately only one person has proved himself thus far, and his name was Satoshi. There are lots of more competent developers involved, but not all of them have convinced me they are competent macro economic Actuaries.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter. Take for example, the NASDAQ news. This does not mean that NASDAQ will use Bitcoins as a currency but to dip into its technology the important contribution of the currency to the world of finance is recognized. This is the first time in history in which a trading system does not require a third party intermediary. While this may not seem new, within the banking sector is revolutionary.
What this means is, even if you don't mention Bitcoin, it's Bitcoin.

That's a nice train of thought, but the mass is usually too sheep type to do their own research, otherwise they would have found out that Bitcoin is amazing and they would all be posting here. Let's keep positive tho, hopefully it eventually happens one way or another.

Trying to outlaw Bitcoin will only bring more attention towards it, thats why intelligent countries are threatening it as neutral foreign currency and stupid low IQ countries are being negative towards it.

Riiight.

Corporate Blockchains can only survive if they can convince everyone that the coin supporting it will continue to have value.  It needs a currency backing it in order for people to maintain the blockchain. If corporations try to proprietize and centralize their blockchain, it will eventually fail.  Bitcoin has leaps and bounds ahead of every altcoin blockchain in that regard.  It would take a massive change to disrupt that and all the venture capital currently supporting Bitcoin

You got me there, but I was referring more to places like the US and Europe.

There are no shortage of odd little regimes that have probably outlawed stuff we use every single day elsewhere without blinking. I could probably find someone somewhere who outlawed having a nice shit.

Or BTC (blockchain transfer credits)

Block Chain Technology:  BCT rather than BTC?

blockchain tech will be the king, and btc is the prince.  overall it will be a game of what else the blockchain can do. btc got the currency part covered.  whats next for the sub category of the blockchain. voting maybe?