More ranting...
If you can't sum up your argument in a few sentences, you're pulling a JJG and trying to prove your point with walls of text rather than logical argument.
Yeah right....
You are likely lacking reading comprehension if you are going down the road to proclaim that logic is missing within certain walls of text or as a general statement that all walls of text, including those of yours truly, are lacking in logic.
You sir, are either lacking in reading comprehension abilities
(or other abilities, such as logic comprehension), or you are lacking in will power to attempt to understand words that are so courteously placed before you in the form of text
(perhaps a wall, but still - if you want to be treated like an adult, try to comprehend, you must.).
Nobody is trying to play tricks with you, merely because they are using words to 'splain their lil selfies.
My argument is people are idiots and the few who aren't will be priced out of the market by high fees.
Your argument is pie in the sky nonsense in regards to a fear of a future of bitcoin evolving in a way that squeezes out the little guy...
You have hardly any evidence of that beyond pure speculation, and why the fuck do you believe that bitcoin had adopted segregated witness rather than increasing the block limit size? That is in order that
little normie people can run nodes.. .Have you heard about that kind of inclusiveness phenomena that puts power of the chain in the hands of the people through consensus mechanisms?
Bitcoin scales just fine, you're just looking at it wrong. The highest value use cases will survive and the everything else will be done off chain or die, including your ideology. This is the free market I'm talking about.
Of course, there is going to be a combination of off chain and on chain. Did someone send you over from the bcash nutjober camp to make these speculative baloney points?
I have no problem with Lighting and I think it and other side-chains will have their use cases.
Lightning network and other side chains provides options.. and we will see how they evolve and how empowering they are for people.
Seems that there are a lot developers on the lightning network who are trying to make it similarly empowering in terms of giving individuals abilities to spend their bitcoin, to the extent they are going to want to do that in the future.. and lots of work seems to still need to be done regarding user interface of some of these second layer systems...
I'm not a worshipper of plutocracy and the world isn't going to change just because you will it to. Things are just what they are.
You seem to be the one making doom and gloom predictions regarding supposed future exclusion of normies from bitcoin when there hardly seems to be evidence of that beyond your pie in the sky fear-based speculations.
Something to ponder tho...
What is the difference between ?
1. A banking system that issues IOUs backed by Gold/Silver.
2. A future with "bitcoin banks" that issue private digital currencies backed by Bitcoin.
A: Nothing, nada, zilch. First it's backed 1:1 to build and insure public confidence and trust. Then it gets fractionally reserved. And finally they go off the "Bitcoin standard" (i.e., The "Gold standard" of the future) and back their private digital shitcoins with literally nothing, while they inflate them to infinity. Repeating history all over again.
Another doomer/gloomer.
As you likely realize Torque, one of the great powers of bitcoin is to be able to accomplish quick and easy possession of such bitcoin, which is a whole fuck of a lot more difficult to accomplish with gold.. and fuck that paper backed crap... if you really want to demand possession of paper backed gold, you are not getting anywhere as compared to demanding possession of the actual gold (which as you know is way more difficult to get possession, especially if talking about very large quantities).
Accordingly, there is a distinction in bitcoin that makes a difference, and you should well know about the material difference of that distinction, too, Torque.
I would suggest that it is quite likely that human (individual) behavior is going to change based on such options that are available to them (that were not previously available to them), and some people are going to choose to keep some, if not all of their bitcoin in their own possession, so they do not have to depend upon the integrity of institutions that have actually fucked over a lot of people in the past in terms of their control over assets.
Surely, institutions are going to be forced to be more honest, too, if they realize that people are not going to tolerate entrusting them with their bitcoin, unless they know that they can get possession of the bitcoin upon demand... and least the smarter hodlers will engage in such behavior, which will force (incentivize) institutions to be more honest - if they want to survive as bitcoin becomes more and more dominating.. and it could take many years for these incentives and understandings to play out.... and I am glad that some of us already recognize the power of holding our own corn.
[edited out
There IS a difference. It is easy to withdraw bitcoin. It is hard to withdraw gold.
cAPSLOCK said it first.