Topic: One Remarkable thing about Bitcoin (Read 362 times)

actually the whole world already knew about Bitcoin but the problem is the news about this, and that is why this affect the encouragement for bitcoin investments .
many people sees bitcoin as not trustworthy and they are preventing to enter the investment while others try to engage .
and technological advancement? lol internet is around the world and the adds towards crypto is coming from here and there.

Yes,,, we live in a world where supposedly this is the cutting edge of technology but almost every new project actually has just a copypasta team behind it with 90% of the team on marketing and PR and "influencer" and maybe 1 guy who can copy github code with no real expertise or skill to actually introduce something new or even something useful. The whole 2.0 and 4.0 thing is pure marketing that hopes they make people forget the whole point of why blockchain and Bitcoin was so powerful in the first place.

I personally thought this proof of stake argument was dead with ICO era POS coins but I guess it is also a rich man's game with rich people happy to take idle profits,,, so much for the idea of "liberating" crypto.

It's even funnier when you see that the 2.0, 4.0 etc. versions aren't even introducing anything new or innovative. It is all repetition of the old ideas dusted off and represented as new. The funny things don't end there either, in most cases the newer versions are weaker and with more problems. For example Ethereum 2.0 is going to switch to PoS and make it weaker while giving ultimate power and money making opportunity to the ethereum foundation and Vitalik so that they can get paid constantly for doing nothing, just because they hold the 72 million premined ETH.

While it's true that the world was fundamentally changed because there's no way to fake money if it's Bitcoin, people always look for something fishy and keep feeling distrustful. While the facts are out there about the nature of Bitcoin, many still avoid it and believe it's a pyramid. Also, there are some less certain areas where people have different opinions, such as if the price of Bitcoin is subject to whale manipulations. Finally, there are lots of scammers online, targeting people who aren't many knowledgeable about cryptos, and if people lose money to crypto scammers, they associate this negative experience with cryptos themselves, so the matter of trust is still relevant.

It is nothing new. Everyone already knows about that, the purpose of bitcoin and what it aims to achieve. I believe that Bitcoin has already achieved what it is meant to achieve, which is being a decentralized system, of transaction. Bitcoin is decentralized and doesn’t need the government or any centralized authority for it to be able to work. So, it’s already a success.

The only thing is now the adoption which keeps on, slowly, growing. But it already has adoption, there are already so many people from around the world who are making use of bitcoin and that number is huge, and is only going to keep increasing in the future.

That’s like the same strenuous process that we have to go through to open a bank account in my country. And it is not just about the long process of opening a bank account that would stress you, it is the number of people who would be there in the bank for one thing or the other and the long queue you will have to stand in before you get the chance of being attended to.

But when opening a bitcoin or cryptocurrency account, it is usually something else and is really easy for you to create a cryptocurrency wallet . You don’t need any paperwork or any ID to verify yourself, it’s just straight to the point and you’re also in full control of your money.

definitely bitcoin is something that went down in history, I am particularly happy to know that I can keep my coins in my wallet without having to do KYC (in the case of my country to open a bank account, KYC becomes a nightmare because first the person has to pay tax , then the person needs to go get a document that proves that you live in that neighborhood, then the person goes to the bank with ID and with all documents and needs to say what they do to earn money that for me to spend bitcoin I still need to use the bank

The funny thing in blockchain "industry" now that some people are even calling new projects using "blockchain 4.0",,, when to me in reality, Bitcoin was the blockchain "original" and maybe if we want to argue Ethereum is making the type of next 2.0 because of much more capabilities for smart contracts and cross-chain.

I do agree we still can consider it new though because adoption has not happened.

In genera when we talk about bitcoin and blockchain, they should not be mixed with each other. Bitcoin is way to connect with the crypto space where it is one of the asset that can be traded peer to peer via different vehicles (exchanger, address to address).

Blockchain usage is whole new area of interest. Using blockchain one can create completely different environment with its own properties to work with. If we go down to scale of data science, then blockchain is one of the space where it can get stored, have its own integrity and anti counterfeiting space.

So it’s actually about the blockchain. It is what giving the bitcoin its properties.

I think the op doesn't literally mean new but he only used that term to compare bitcoin to the old financial system. It doesn't matter if the person is new to bitcoin or not but the real truth is that bitcoin is not a new technology anymore because it was created in the year 2008-2009. It is only up to the person if what they will believe but they cannot change that fact. They cannot change the history of bitcoin depending on their own understanding.

@hatshepsut93, I think it was the year 2017 where the bitcoin and blockchain hyped begun not the year 2015. The year 2015 was too early for them and I don't hear any major positive news during that year.

That's one meaning of the word "new", but other meanings are "fresh" and "recent", and Bitcoin can hardly be called such. And as for adoption, no one has any idea just how well adopted Bitcoin going to be, and there's no good method for predicting it.

Sure, Bitcoin keeps improving, just like everything else, but fundamentals are staying the same.

It stops being new when something newer comes along in my books and so far nothing newer has been seen, everything is a poor copy of bitcoin. On top of that if we consider the adoption, bitcoin's is still less than 1%. One way for bitcoin to stop being "new technology" is actually being adopted and used.
Another view is that Bitcoin is changing and improving, in other words not only the technology is new but also new things keep coming out: Script hash, locktime contracts, SegWit, Taproot, Lightning Network, ...

um, no.
Proof of work. is not the consensus. its just the proof of expense of hard work for formulating a difficult ID for a block of data. that is all.
blockchains can use many algo's(proofs) for the hardening of the ID
the ID identifies the data within. thus any changes to the data changes the ID. so making it expensive to make an ID makes it expensive to change the data

PoW is just the most expensive proven method of hardening batch of data. making it multiply the expense the further you go back to change it and then rush forward by 5 blocks (6 total) now to overtake the network
                    
good network     gA           gB           gC           gD           gE           gF
malicious user    gA        bA        bB        bC        bD         bE        bF
to get bG to be seen before gG to then make everyone adopt bA bB bC bD dE bF and drop gA gB gC gD gE.. malicious user has to be faster than the entire good network just to be able to work on his bA variant and then catch back up and overtake ~6 blocks later
which is why they say 6 confirms is deemed safe.(someone has to be considerable even faster then good network for less than 6 confirms)

but he cant change the rules. or algo. all he can achieve is changing the data in the blocks
(remove/change transactions in A B C D E F)

consensus and consensus changes is not determined by PoW. PoW is just to make it expensive to change the transaction order (unspend an already spent transactions). consensus determins what rules are implied. where one rule is that it can use PoW. but consensus change could(but shouldnt) decide to change to a different Po?. .. the PoW does not determine consensus. consensus determines PoW

the consensus. is a bunch of rules all users should equally follow. where by anyone not following the rules . ends up outside the network.
because anyone not following the rules is just making THEMSELF ignorant to the rules/data and making only themselves blind to the network

if bA contained weird data breaking the rules the good network would reject it. making malicious users efforts for nothing.
all malicious user can do is just change which transactions are included in a block. where the selection has to still fit within the rules

there is a process to undo blocks. but all you can achieve from this is changing what transactions to remove/include in new block list.
PoW just makes it too expensive to attempt it.
EG to do the edit, it costs $200k to solve a block and requires 6 blocks ($1.2m) then overtake the network to get people to follow your chain of blocks
why remove your $3 coffee purchase from the chain if its going to cost you $1.2m to get it seen as no longer on the majority chain

thus its not worth changing things for a $3 refund.again hense why 6confirms are safe for value upto $1.2mill

to change the rules. well no single person can try that. as it requires the majority collectively to follow any new rules for that new rule to be accepted

the consensus rules are HARD strict about whats valid. the consensus of HARD rules only change when majority all agree. and its then determined safe to activate a new rule, and thus everyone follow the new rule after an agreed event.. any minority disagreement means the minority are rejected. the rules only become enforced when its a known point that majority want the new rules and deemed safe to activate a new rule because its deemed safe that majority will be able to follow the new rules.
without majority. there is no point trying new rules because if only a minority are following. then that minority will just get rejected by the majority following normal rules.
some soft rules can be changed without controversy(like blindly accepting a transaction of unknown format) but that just makes the user that does not understand the format blindly accept something unchecked. which makes them waste their effort pretending to be a full validator/checker

Yes, people in this forum have already known Bitcoin since 13 years ago. But there are too many people out there, never heard about Bitcoin. So, they can assume Bitcoin is a new technology even if Bitcoin has already existed for more than 13 years. I don't want to debate which one is true, OP or you. In my opinion, new or old technology cannot be determined by years. It can be subjective, depending on the individual who knows it.

Well, it's true and it shouldn't be an issue or a thing of debate about the use of bitcoin. It's good as it is being a currency and an asset and whichever we prefer as we own it, that's not a big thing to deal with.

We can't please everyone and these are the people that are not willing to understand the concept of bitcoin and what it is all about. They are close-minded and not willing to talk about it.

If the government were satoshi, believe me when I say that they would have allowed the use of bitcoin and made it highly centralized for themselves and the wealthy, with the poor man as a weak vessel in search of a few satoshi. Who knows if every government from different countries would want to have their own coin (just like other failed shitcoins we've had) and have everything sum up as the world market cap.
We have improved mining machines technologically, with more power efficiency and lightning network, adoption has already scored in, and they are still denying the facts that bitcoin is a currency that does not discriminate between men and boys, it is expected that they wouldn't give up and admit, but I believe more widespread used is what is required to beat every centralized system.

As long has many haven't still seen the use of the technology and as long as it still remains a mystery to many it is a new technology until it becomes a toy that can be accessible and appreciated by all then we can discard the old name. Many around the world still don't understand what satoshi's innovation has brought about some still see it as a sort of ponzi.

Minus mining Bitcoin is a file that works as a read and append only file and  this is where mining comes in to prove the authenticity of the file been appended by a proof of work alogrithm on the Blockchain network. Ensuring it's validite through a digital voting system achieved through consensus

It's time to stop calling Bitcoin "new technology". It's 13 years old. And blockchain hype started in 2015, so it has been 7 years since that.


Except blockchain doesn't really work outside of Bitcoin. The point of mining is to synchronize a large and open network of nodes. If it's a small private network, you don't need that. So blockchain minus mining is just a data structure that is append only, which is rather primitive and not desirable in many cases, because it's redundant and doesn't allow changing the data.

Fair enough! Blockchain can certainly be used in such cases to maintain the integrity of the database. But what bitcoin has to do with it?? It has no relation!

There are many countries who are actively exploring the possibility to implement blockchain into various data driven field. All major Consulting companies now have a blockchain advisory service available to achieve this goal.

But again, what will bitcoin do with it? How does it affect its adoption?

I think that financial system is too big for bitcoin alone, I think that it's going to make a catastrophic results if we go for that route because I think that the power vacuum that bitcoin and other cryptocurrency has to fill in is just too big for them, no matter how big the market cap of the crypto market is, I am sure that it's not enough for everyone and for it to go around as fast as fiat.

The more time passes and the more countries integrate bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies in one form or another into the national financial system, the sooner all this will have a multiplier effect for the whole world. Until now, there are a lot of countries and regions on the planet where the population does not receive not only high-quality services in the financial sector - they do not receive them at all. At all. Blockchain can and will definitely change that. Therefore, the future belongs to such solutions, it is not so important how exactly they will be implemented.

In the present econometric society where compromised and unreliable database has stirred up doubts and trust issues amongst citizens in a  centralized society came a technology that actually proved integrity can be maintained using a distributed ledger that runs on a decentralized network  doing this through a proof of work algorithm to achieve a global consensus which has been a major challenge in all manipulative and controlled centralized database in any distributed computing.

Bitcoin birth has triggered lots of inquisitiveness to the mystery behind the technology even though cryptography existed as far back as 1990s, this early cryptographic discoveries didn't see any significant progress because it was tied down to a centralized value (basically gold and fiat) after its creation this gave room to different manipulations and compromise making sure the poor never had access to play part in the big game so the can always keep the masses in check.

what has bitcoin got to do with this:
Satoshi has cleared the doubt that transparent, well trusted  and reliable database can be generated in a decentralized network where no central third party serve as an intermediary how? it is simple by solving the Byzantine General's problem which is a process where a collective network of individuals or central authority tries to effect a change, follow  a course of action or make a general agreement on the state of a system on a highly compromised and unreliable network.

[/b] How was satoshi able to solve this?[/b]
Satoshi was able to solve this big economic issue by introducing a decentralized public ledger that relies on a proof of work algorithm to establish any valid consensus. Which means nothing on the network is hidden and no process can be undone since tampering with a single data on the blockchain will affect every other entry down to the genesis block rendering the whole database void and all this approach don't need a central authority to decide which data comes first rather than a consensus of the nodes on the network even satoshi himself doesn't have autonomy over the network what a selfless service

Why should this be your concern
A new technology is launched and is creping into our financial institution gradually it might not necessarily replace the fiat currency but one this i am excited about is that on the long run it will spring up innovations to improve on the centralization issues and still give more edge to bitcoin adoption either as a technology, a currency , an asset or a network which ever way Bitcoin will get more adoption. cheers!!