Topic: What are the biggestest threats to Bitcoin? - page 4. (Read 6973 times)

Disagree. Bitcoin is close enough to perfect that stagnation is a non-sequitir. Is the design of the common pencil stagnant? Hasn't been changed in over a century - perhaps two centuries. Once something is good enough, it is good enough.

And we have seen that the community rallies when needed. As an existence proof, see the QT v.8 (?) debacle.

As for the only thing that I see that merits modification....


Transactions per second is a limit that we will need to deal with. Some day when there are more transactions per second. Until then, it is a non-issue. And a well-understood one. The limit now -- as a compromise between TPS on the one hand, and potential spamming of the blockchain on the other -- looks just fine to me.

How many transactions have you personally had thwarted by the TPS limit? I know of absolutely no one who has. I am not claiming that, as I know not of such, that means that none has ever occurred. But I am skeptical that this is any issue whatsoever.


I personally don't see the Bitcoin community as a threat. What is the alternative? Not having a Bitcoin community? Regardless, your points don't seem to support your argument.

I would say that the Bitcoin community is the biggest threat to Bitcoin.

Nearly all discussions turn into circular firing squads. Reaching consensus on any major protocol changes will be extremely difficult. I fear Bitcoin will be consumed by infighting, and that the protocol/code will stagnate. Alts, meanwhile, are a greenfield for innovation.

Diehards proclaim that Bitcoin is virtually flawless, despite areas where it is already losing valuable ground, such as transactions per second. Bitcoin zealots prevent change, despite their best intentions, and push potential contributors away from the community when all criticism starts to be interpreted as an extension of a vast international conspiracy.

Even minor changes can become extremely difficult to make in decentralized systems, and this is especially true with such a deeply divided community. I love all of the passion, and wish it was could be effectively harnessed to keep Bitcoin at the forefront of the cryptocurrency landscape, but without cultural change---I see the Bitcoin community itself as the largest threat to the future of Bitcoin.

You seriously believe that?
You really think alt coins have done more harm than endless scams, thefts, hacks, negative media, and Gox?

My personal opinion is that if there was a huge bug in the code it would hurt btc a lot, but tons of government regulations will irreversibly damage btc.

True, but my illustrations were illustrating the reality that when given a choice, a viable alternative, people choose freedom and decentralization over servitude and regulation, and eventually work in cooperation to establish their own policy to keep the system afloat. People don't mind rules and regulation, it makes things run smoothly. People mind being treated like criminals and being marginalized and discriminated against, and people mind some blow hard with a self appointed title giving orders like a king, and people mind other people making decisions that effect them adversely just to pacify and promote the ones making the decisions.


In the fake ID and kids thread the point has been raised along the lines of your rebuttal or comments so I'll add it here. Casinos and fake businesses also can be used to launder money and nobody's shut down casinos. They use fiat/cash to buy drugs, guns, and commit felonies and nobody's stopped that or tried outlawing the USD.

The problem is not the currency. The problem is why all these things are being done. If all the criminals - excluding the legitimate addicts feeding a habit - were capable of finding rewarding work that paid well and allowed them to live in the manner that preferred, have nice things, and enjoy living without breaking the law, they'd all do it. The reason they are doing any of this sort of thing (aside from psychopaths) is the money...they can't find a line of work that'll pay them that kind of money where they can afford to live that way and have lavish lifestyles - not honestly.

Too many loopholes, red tape, rules, regulations and so on that do not benefit the one doing the work.

I personally spoke with a local drug dealer years ago over an unrelated issue and at one point I got irritated and spouted off, "Well so get a fucking real job then" and he laughed, looked at me like I was a retard and told me, "And try to live on minimum wage? I make more money in 3 days dealing than I'd make in 4 months working a minimum wage job"...and while that can be argued, he had a legitimate point. Legitimate work anywhere in this country is not rewarded without a specialty degree which I'm not referring to. The neuroscientist is doing okay. The guy trying to just make his expenses cannot.

I genuinely hope bitcoin catches on even grander so people can be paid in bitcoin. If I make $10 an hour and work 40 hours a week, I expect $400 when I get a paycheck. Not $249, not $379, not $300. I expect all of it, 100%. That's one of the main reasons I stayed in the bar business for a large portion of my employment years (i.e. working for other people instead of myself), because I knew where the clubs were that would pay me under the table in cash, 100%. Of course the government wouldn't like it, but fuck them. They weren't doing the work, they weren't liable for my rent or expenses, they weren't paying my bills, and THEY earned no rights to my money.

Ask anyone who is rational and sane which way they want to get paid - give them an option: $10hr and WE take out this tax, that tax, this fee, that fee and you get the rest OR $10 and you get 100%.

Which one will they choose when they have the freedom of choice of a viable option?

Mesh Networking already exists, but it is not widely implemented.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesh_networking

Are bubble networks possible? I'm wondering if that'd be the same as a mesh net but not sure since I'd assumed a mesh network still has to rely on some paying user's ISP account and jacking into it via wi fi but it's a new concept to me so I'm probably utterly wrong.

It's more an intuitive based question than one grounded in a lot of techno knowledge or comprehension.

Is there a way for groups of people to be their own ISP, even having free access, so they can't be regulated by a central authority, aren't forced to pay a company fees for the permission to "get online", and aren't at the mercy of an ISP, court orders to release info, and all that sort of thing - not as a way around the law but a way to guarantee the same sort of freedom of choice.

I'd see small, independent networks with their own isp capability like mini internets that can be linked together to other networks voluntarily but nobody can order any of them to shut down or cap traffic or release identifying information, etc. It's not one giant network, it's mini networks.

Is something like that technologically possible?

pool owner(s) with large amounts of the network hashrate

Government "regulation" of ISPs.

The kind of stability that you are talking about will never come to crypto.

Speculation that is a big threat for bitcoin. Right now bitcoin is seen like a vehicle for speculation and to as it suppose to be :a currency .What makes a good currency? It should be a medium of exchange, and a store of value - and in the current state it fails pretty much on both accounts due to +-40% daily price swings. If you order pizza, by the time it arrives the pizza might be 20% more expensive/cheaper than when you ordered it. Its ridiculous.

Music: Napster sued by Metallica. Bigass congressional hearing over Metallica tunes being shared for free online. (Really, Lars? Really? Took 2 days to download a three minute song on dial up and you felt violated?) Ripping music CDs and P2P music sharing pissed off government and music industry corporations, and some artists. Fear mongering: ZOMG!! You're stealing from Metallica! Courtney Love, of all people, wrote a fabulous 5 page essay/commentary on the thievery of the record labels and supported *decentralization* of the industry.

And lo, record labels either adapted and learned to accept people, when given a choice between paying 30 bucks for a CD of crap they might not even like, most of which went to the label and not the band, and P2Ping any given tune for free and eventually making micro payments for what they wanted, they all chose option B.

And the government AND corporations lost to the people choosing decentralization of the music industry.

Movies: MPAA and RIAA decided the pirates were costing (them) billions. Bigass congressional hearing over it and various assorted one hit wonder actors testifying about how hard done by they were to be losing all those royalties when people illegally download/stream their movies. Then came the fear mongers and threats...we will find you and kill you!...or, find a 13 year old and make an example of him when we sue him for 49.2 billion dollars for all the movies he jacked from Pirate Bay. And let's go stop Pirate Bay! And China!

TPB came back better than ever with renewed P2P numbers and now there are all kinds of streaming freebie sites to watch anything and everything absolutely free - right alongside Netflix...because given a choice between paying 60 bucks to go to a crowded (or empty) theater and put up with idiots kicking the seat, yapping, or the kids crying, or the $12 box of popcorn, and jacking the same movie for free online, or watching their favorite tv series/shows free online, the people chose to cancel their cable tv subscriptions and haven't stepped foot in a theater in years.

And the government AND the movie studios lost to the people choosing decentralization of the movie industry and the television networks who caved and signed deals with online movie houses who charge a fraction of a movie ticked for unlimited viewing.

Books: Big name publishing houses set the rules by which any of us ever see an author's work. They had sole authority to determine who was worthy of being published and who was rejected. Until someone figured out a way to digitize books and then Amazon came along and opened up self publishing. Out came all the fear mongering and law suits. ZOMG! You're stealing food off the tables of starving authors! And self publishing? Anyone can PIRATE YOUR STUFF and you lose money!

And the government AND the publishing houses made examples of various "unscrupulous" authors faking reviews and whatnot, and held hearings on digital content prices and media harped that nobody would ever take self published authors seriously, nor would anyone choose a computer device to read on in place of real books.

And the government AND publishing houses lost to the people choosing decentralization and the ability to publish and create and own 100% of their work...so the publishing houses either adapt and promote digital format options or they go out of business.

Same for the video game industry, the electric companies, the telecom industry, and every other industry that has been controlled by corporations backed by government enforcers.

In the end, it doesn't matter what the government wants because the government isn't an entity. It's a conglomeration of smaller agencies made up of people with self interests over business interests at the end of the day and they also have a choice to support a dying currency in a weak economy or an alternative with much more security and potential for much wealth...

Bitcoin is doing and experiencing the same, exact "conflict of interest" and "threat" from the same two "entities" - government AND corporations (banks included) who have a vested interest in NOT making the USD worse than it is already...but the people have seen the reality of incompetence, corruption and psychosis of those "in charge" and are quite willing to look closer at THE ALTERNATIVE to USD.

Not everybody jumped on the internet/email/website/doing business online bandwagon the first half dozen years. Tons of people vowed it was a fad that nobody would take seriously - in the face of mega corporations, banks, and agencies moving business online. It was beating them in the face and still they hollered fad, nobody's gonna do all that, it's too hard.


Government can make all the laws it wants about bitcoin, same as they made all the laws they wanted with pirating movies, music, books, and games, or trying to regulate solar panels to pacify the electric companies who'd lose business to el sol...but ones the P2P genie is let out of the bottle, the government can't enforce a damn thing...they can't afford to pay enough people who have the technological capacity to do anything other than go after a few people to use as examples...Mt Gox may as well be Napster. May have gone out of business, but P2P music sharing is stronger than ever...

Government can outlaw it, which will only reinforce the black market. They can't enforce it anymore than the government can "turn off the internet".

Just a matter of time before the money thrown at the infrastructure gets things stable enough for Joe Blow to easily grab some bitcoin over the counter as a gift card and store it securely - and those two things will be when the rest of society gets on board.

IMO the biggest threat to bitcoin is the information overload and convoluted, overly technical aspect of learning how to get it and secure it and use it...as long as it's over the head of Joe Blow it's not going to gain traction. It just isn't.

Joe Blow can get on you tube, watch half a dozen reviews and figure out what kind of smart phone to get, go to WalMart, buy it, get the pay as you go plan (because given a choice between a corporation's 2 year $100 a month plus first born child contract plan and a $50 pay as you go card with unlimited use and no horse shit, people choose option B without hesitation), set up the account and start using the damn phone within 15 minutes or so.

When Joe can go to WalMart or the local vape shop or coffee shop and grab a bitcard over the counter, scan the barcode to set up the account via the smart phone, pay the merchant the value amount and activate the card same as a gift card, and the bitcard is also the wallet that isn't hackable, then it'll catch on.

Government is not a threat. It's just a nosey, fear mongering, psychotic pain in the ass - same as it's always been. This fight will be more interesting to watch though because the ones who control the money control civilization...and when the people choose the P2P option of currency, the government loses its control short of a tyrannical retaliation...which is the line in the sand...it won't happen in this country. No matter how lazy Suzy Homemaker is, there are millions of people who won't for one second tolerate any government official trying to pull it off without blood in the streets...which includes LEO, feds, and soldiers refusing to enforce the dictatorship.




TLDR - 1. bite me, 2. we've fought all this already with music, movies, books, games, power and they lose to p2p, 3. government aint shit, don't sweat it.  

That depends on the dedication and depth of involvement of users.

What are you willing to do?

If governments end up really deciding they want crypto's gone... they're gone. That's my bet at least.

Bitcoin will succede or fail based on its own qualities and how its adherents handle thing.

"Competing" currencies, IMHO, have nothing to do with it.

The greatest "threat" moving forward will be from competing digital currencies.

But I think Bitcoin will always be there lurking in the shadows like a behemoth IBM.

I believe the media is a huge threat to bitcoin.  Some people (a lot of people) take what the media says seriously. From what I have seen, mainstream media is very anti bitcoin.  Considering who controls the media, it's no big surprise to me, but others don't see it that way.

I am an open bitcoin supporter on my facebook and of course many know very little about it.  Whenever there is something negative in the media, it gets brought to my attention fairly quickly. 

State instigated Psychological Warfare waged via the media