Topic: Stop adding features to Bitcoin that don't facilitate its use as electronic cash (Read 761 times)

Investing in a currency is not the issue.  Anyone can do that by earning it or buying it.

Pricing Bitcoin in other fiat currencies is also not what I think is important.  What I do think is important is making a decentralized, peer-to-peer currency with a limited supply available to everyone to use as a way to transact. If we do this right goods and services will be priced in Bitcoin.


Bitcoin is the only decentralized option.  None of the others are decentralized, peer-to-peer and have a limited supply. That is why we should fight for Bitcoin!

Why would you say that? Bitcoin absolutely accomplished what it set out to accomplish, it's just that not very many people have that problem.

While a few people in the world need to keep their transactions out of the reach of a government subpoena, most don't.

Meanwhile, pretty much everybody likes to make money .

Now, are you are saying that those investors... annoy you? That could be, and maybe you even have a point, but without those investors using their apps and brokers and banks and ETFs, the price of Bitcoin would be back to the price it was before they all came, e.g. about $1 per Bitcoin.

I'm pretty sure nobody on the core dev team of Bitcoin would do something like that.

And then there's the broader context: Bitcoin's original purpose is far better served by other products today, e.g. Monera et. al.

So what you are asking the Bitcoin dev team to do is ignore their users and just solve your problem, even though your problem can be handled with another product just fine. Why would they do that?

One of the primary goals is to remove financial institutions as the 3rd party in financial transactions.  If most transactions use 3rd party intermediaries and Bitcoins main use is as an investment for people with means then we can say that Bitcoin did not achieve what is set out to achieve.

What we as the custodians of this new technology should be fighting for is purely peer-to-peer transactions using the most amazing invention of our lifetime. Bitcoin!!

My opinion is that the hope of Bitcoin is financial sovereignty and financial freedom for anyone who has access to the internet. I see it as THE killer app of the edge network known as the Internet. I think edge is really critical because Bitcoin was also designed as an edge network.  This means that every user was to have a node.

You make a lot of good points but I have to disagree with one of them.  Bitcoin was designed to be a "digital form of electronic cash".  If you say this in the title and the first sentence of the white paper it is the intention.

I also understand why you would be concerned that we couldn't come up with a solution since one has not been identified to this point.  I think we can solve these problems. See my post above for some basic ideas.

I never declared Bitcoin a failure. Not even close. Bitcoin has accomplished what it set out to accomplish. And beyond that, it accomplished something else. That is in no way calling it a "failure".

If I say that it's architecturally impossible that Lionel Messi will ever become a top NBA basketball player, I am not calling him a "failure".

Yes, Bitcoin is a master key of electronic Cash that you cannot see physical, Bitcoin is in charge of anything electronic money, so therefore it can never be compared with others,  it just have to be more easy for people to access, but let it be very difficult for someone to steal money from you via bitcoin, but let it be easy, the future that is not necessary on bitcoin wallet should be removed and it should be perfectly arranged, The more easy bitcoin is the easier it get to people.

Oh yes, bitcoin is a designatory of electronic digital cash system primarily for exchange on a P2P module but with the volatility potentials of the digital currency, it also serves alternatively for inflows of income known for investment.
On the view outage that every nature of investments is due faced with UPs and DOWNs, such is how the volatility nature of bitcoin has also responded with the nature of its volatility where the currency is potential to yield value increments and decrements.
So in as much as it posseses these potentials then it's figured to be nothing else but a digital currency for alternative means of payments in replacement of the traditional currencies and also alternates for source of income.

Bitcoin doesn't gain its grounds by hyping and nothing would change the system on how it's initially designed.
So Op, I don't know the side rumours you've heard about how bitcoin has been falsefully been speculated or hyped that got you had the thought for this thread.

Define freedom.

If you censor ordinals inscriptions, how it can be a freedom? you're trying to make it more centralized because you don't like that transactions. When wasabi is blacklisting certain transactions or Ocean mining pool is blacklisting whirlpool transactions, many people will scream both Wasabi and Ocean Mining Pool are against Bitcoin because they don't support privacy.

So why we have double standard? allow one and don't accept the another.

Freedom is either not to do anything or freedom for each service to choose whatever they like, but a complete freedom is not to do anything.

Being free doesn't that we just stand there and let them what they want, that's not being free, that's being a passive person. That's not how you do things when you want to defend your freedom, when there's enough people that have agreed that something isn't right then it's a right that we all bear to correct that error so we can continue having that freedom. As much it's their right to add some of those stupid stuff that's congesting the network then it's also our right to be vocal about how crazy that thing is and that it shouldn't even be part of this network. We can't always be letting things just pass by, some people might be okay with being a human doormat but there's more that aren't okay with that kind of set up.

It stands to reason why someone offering... whatever service it is you're peddling... might claim such a thing, so I'm not going to roll my eyes too hard.

Beyond that, you're implying you somehow see the situation more clearly than every other person still believing they can solve that problem and are currently working on it (many of whom are just as qualified as you).  I'm sure you can see how that might come across a little arrogant.

It's an incremental process.  Every release effectively contains new building blocks that move us closer to the next step.  A load of people are obviously now complaining that someone found a way of using one of those building blocks in a manner that wasn't intended, to create a load of bloated crap on the chain, which is unfortunate.  But the fact remains, there was a goal in mind when that ingredient was added to the mix and there is still potential to be extracted from what it offers.

If you can't personally see the big picture, and people can tell that you can't, then those people aren't going to take you seriously when you declare it a failure.

satoshi did not make it slow and expensive.. bitcoin settlements of ~10minutes was faster then visa/debit/wire transfer irreversible settlements
satoshi never made it expensive. a cpu in his day only cost pennies per 10 minutes.. the issue is the transactions per 10 minutes has not scaled with the mining cost.. and thats a fault of CORE stagnation

you speak of costs like a $50 hard drive for 20 years of data is detriment to decentralisation.. yet think a $40 for single transaction is not an issue.. yep its official you fell into the echo-chamber mind trap of the cult of idiots.. escape before its too late


you have fallen into the mind-trap of the echo chamber cult telling you bitcoin should not be a currency at all due to a stupidity narrative that bitcoin will only be a currency if its the "one world" currency all 8 billion people use collectively for everything

..
you do know there are 180 fiat currencies in the world right!
we should not think of bitcoin to need to encapsulate every transactions of all 190 countries of 180 currencies every payment. but instead be more able to atleast enhance peoples choice to use bitcoin when needed as a currency side by side with tradfi fiat currencies

once you can understand that, then we can stop the monotony of stupidity of refraining from scaling bitcoin at all due to stupid diatribes that the only option for scaling is the stupid notion of LEAPING to (as even you are saying) "tens of thousands/billions of" (facepalm)

with only 8 billion people on planet.. your naive trap mind of echoed narrative you fell in, is using the nonsense fallacy that all 8 billion need to do all their multiple transactions of real life on bitcoin and only on bitcoin. in a dystopian world of a "one world currency"

and that is your foolish argument which you have heard from idiots as your only reason to not even attempt to scale bitcoin..
.. i know its not your opinion, just a silly narrative you heard from idiots. but by you now saying it now makes you look like an idiot
.. escape the idiot cult narrative, before you are too trapped in their mind games.. they wont help you later

---

also bitcoin IS CODE. so you fix bitcoins exploits and upgrade bitcoin, and evolve bitcoin using code.. because bitcoin is code
its not a mineral, its not paper, its not got any arms or legs so doesnt need blood transfusions or organ donations.. bitcoin needs to refine its code and undo some exploits, harden some rules, make every byte count and SCALE(not leap) its growth of transaction handling

the issue with bitcoin code is not technical, its become political. code needs devs, but bitcoin devs have colluded and centralised themselves into one brand to become political government of bitcoins rules and future direction. and right now their decisions are not helping bitcoiners utility, because their political and religious beliefs of their power have decided to want people to abandon bitcoin for other subnetworks they have been sponsored to create and offer to people.. emphasis on the sponsorship, control, decision

---

bitcoin was designed to solve the byzantine generals issue... to be a system to not require a major general controling it (no-COREporal major(general) in command) yet core have messed with it and positioned themselves to be the major general in command.. and thats where decentralisation has failed and also needs to be fixed.

Okay, so you want Bitcoin to be fast (low transactions latency), and have low transaction fees. Great.

I completely agree that these are barriers to Bitcoin (and decentralized cryptos generally) to be accepted as a means mainstream means of daily transactions.

In fact, I suspect people here in Bitcointalk are probably getting sick of hearing me say this.

Now let's talk about how this will never happen using the blockchain architecture.

The blockchain architecture--implemented as it was designed to be used, e.g. as a massively decentralized architecture--is directly at odds with both cost and latency. Indeed, you could say that Satoshi intentionally designed Bitcoin to be slow and expensive in order to make the decentralized paradigm work.

Insofar as cryptocurrencies have decreased their cost and latency, they have sacrificed decentralization. This is a trade-off that is based on the universal constant of the speed of light.

It will not be solved by optimizing some code.

It will not be solved by making a few changes to the usage paradigm (unless you sacrifice decentralization).

And while I am an experience software architect and I could have told you this shortly after reading the Bitcoin white paper for the first time, even if you aren't a technical person, you'd have to conclude that after 14 years of trying with no solution, the problem is never, ever, EVER going to be solved.

And no, increasing the block size isn't going to help. A mainstream currency would need to the tens of thousand of times faster, it would need to be hundreds of times cheaper, and it would need to handle tens of billions of transactions per day which is absolutely unthinkable with a public ledger.

Repeat after me:

Bitcoin was not designed to be a mainstream currency.

Bitcoin was not designed to be a mainstream currency.

Bitcoin was not designed to be a mainstream currency.

It just. plain. wasn't.

This was never Satoshi's goal. If it was his goal, he would have designed Bitcoin differently (e.g. not blockchain, not decentralized [e.g. he would have created something like Haypenny]).

Be content that Bitcoin does what it was designed to do (well, sorta does): it allows transactions that evade government subpoenas. Thousands of people all over the world need this.

And Bitcoin also does something it was never intended to do, but has become very popular: it works fine as a speculation instrument. Millions of people like this.

Having Bitcoin do any more than that will require that Bitcoin isn't Bitcoin anymore.

I think some guys just got into bitcoin not long ago and end up reading one stupid random article and decided to make a topic, I don't see any feature that contradicts the main purpose of what they originally designed bitcoin to be like, maybe your referring to crypto in general thinking its bitcoin, now clear facts bitcoin is crypto but crypto isn't bitcoin, next time be specific.

I completely agree with your point.  Bitcoin is faster.  The issue is that RBF allows senders to reverse the transaction before it settles(is added to a block).  If we can fix this so that it is not so easy to RBF then Bitcoin is faster.



I also agree with this point.  There are tradeoffs but the low hanging fruit here is don't allow extra bloat into the transactions like fungible and non-fungible ordinals.  This is slowing the transactions down and making them more expensive.  It is like the developers don't want it used as a "form of electronic cash".  Then lets see how efficient we can make the blocks. Since the block size was increased to 4MB we could eliminate ordinals and use the full 4MB to store transactions quadrupling the capacity and speed of the network. I am sure these numbers are not accurate but you get the idea.

We can do this if we keep our eye on the ball - Bitcoin is a currency that can change the world as we know it by providing individual sovereignty and financial freedom.  Lets focus on that!!!  

the economical, practical, useful, logical, common sense approach is this:

unlike the cultish games and shoddy subnetworks of today. the future could see the likes of walmart/starbucks setting up THEIR OWN subnetworks(plural) where people onchain lock up monthly value into their favoured retailers multisig to then purchase goods with IOU units on the subnetworks and settle up each month by closing the sessions. and re establishing new sessions in the same process

much like buying giftcards today in the real world with fiat

but whether we patiently allow cultish idiots to remain in their delay scandals of utopian dreams that never manifest, or the practical future of niche subnetworks for retail needs. the bitcoin network still needs to scale.. and no i am not saying LEAP!!(before the cult idiots pretend thats what scaling is)

scaling means:
1. hardening the rules again to remove the cludge. so that every byte counts and gets validated to meet the rules of actual bitcoin purpose
2. by doing (1) less bloat would occur to allow more transactions within the current allowed blockspace
3. make bloat cost more(a fee multiplier specifically for bloat(witness/metadata)) rather then punishing everyone else while giving bloaters the lower fee
4. where by transactions that want to respend EVERYBLOCK(spammers) also get penalised, rather than everyone else
    and no i dont mean just a huge fee of 1 confirm spends. i mean a scale thats huge for 1confirm respends, decreases per confirm unspent
5. doing (3) and (4) will also help reduce the spam/bloat to then allow more transactions for genuine bitcoiner economic use
6. yes increase the blocksize, but do so based on the DATA congestion of blocks(like how difficulty adjusts) not some central core groups politics
    eg when blocks are full over ##% period(52.5k, 105k 210k blocks) of a halving cycle increase blocksize
7. by doing (1) especially but also some other tweaks, to make transactions leaner so more transactions can fit
8. by doing (1) especially but also some other tweaks, allot the main body of a tx(the actual value transfer) utilise the ful "weight" space, instead of segregated to a 25% portion, thus allowing more transactions per block

emphasis: none of these idea's are blockchain killers nor going to cause centralisation nor going to cause any other stupid excuse cultish groups come up with

i guarantee i will see them spin up old narratives that they fear costs of $50 hard drives for 20 years of tx data..  but be ok with $50 for a single transaction.. so lets get that joke over and done with before they make us laugh, and before we make them cry

i guarantee i will see them spin up old narratives that they fear [insert stupidity] so get the popcorn and lets see them make us laugh with their lame excuses why bitcoin should not scale and we should instead abandon bitcoin for their single subnetwork of their favouring (of shoddy workmanship that has more exploits, bugs and broken promises that are NOT solutions)