Topic: What "event" will be the nail in the coffin for your Bitcoin goals? - page 2. (Read 500 times)

Yes, some of the key features of Bitcoin is not negotiable. The main problem is the services that are attached to the

technology. People are not using Bitcoin in the way that it was designed to be used, namely as a P2P payment network and

the direct consequence of that is the fact that many of these features are being destroyed by the 3rd party services that are

being used. (Examples : Exchanges / Wallet providers / Payment processors etc.) We need to go back to the White paper and

reconsider the vision that Satoshi had for Bitcoin. We are selling that vision for "Ease of use" / "Profit" / "Convenience" and

to bend over for government acceptance.  

I think the nail in the coffin moment for me will be if I found out that some government agency developed Bitcoin to take control of people's wealth. It has happened before that some agencies created honey traps to trace money derived from criminal activities and they even infiltrated Tor exit nodes.

I entered Crypto currencies, because it gave me some financial privacy , so if I found out that this was only a smoke screen, then I would definitely exit the scene.   

price is important of course because even if we deny it, we have "invested" in bitcoin but it is not the determining factor for my involvement with bitcoin or for owning. that factor is mostly the decentralization feature and the fact that bitcoin is  censorship resistant.
basically for me bitcoin has a certain definition. a decentralized currency without any limitations. if any of these attributes change and some day i feel that bitcoin is no longer satisfying then i will stop using it no matter what the price is or where it is headed.

That's because most Bitcoin developers support that roadmap. Not just Core developers, but Bitcoin developers generally. It's not because there's some secret cabal that's dictating the future of Bitcoin development.

As FOSS, Bitcoin development is consensus-based. Sorry, but there is no charity for unpopular ideas.

If alternative implementations were relevant in terms of developer activity, robustness and testing, they would be more relevant to the direction of Bitcoin development as well. But... they're not relevant.

You can always move temporarily, because a lot of people are doing that. My neighbour stays here in Summer and then he

relocates to another country for 6 months to avoid the cold winter. Alternatively, you could spend your bitcoins on a lavish

Bitcoin holiday in another country, where Bitcoin is allowed. A ban is not the ultimate way to stop Bitcoin, it just fills the tax

pockets of other countries where it is allowed. 

That event for me would be the moment a hard fork like BCH succeeds in taking over BTC place that would be the true nail. I believe that there is no possibility that BTC would become a centralized currency and with all the attempts we are seeing from everywhere to control BTC I don't see anyone that have a chance to do so, the centralization of BTC is something I am not worried about because it's never gonna happen, people are mixing the centralization of the exchanges with BTC which is totally different and totally unrelated to BTC itself.

The centralization would come from a fork of BTC, not BTC itself.

Bitcoin is the largest and most valuable coin in the world of cryptocurrency and has been done very well. At present there is no logical reason to leave bitcoin but one reason if bitcoin becomes a security token that makes it under government regulations.

that's the reason why I'm involved in bitcoin

A regulation in my country so strict that it decides to ban any cryptocurrency activity. When you use an exchange with your bank account it's easy to know you're in crypto. I am not ready and it doesn't worth to be jailed for something just financial. I could move to another country but I love mine. The Gaule will rule the world

predicted insult confirmed

the refernce client roadmap only under 40% traffic.
both of wanting to use their route between november 2016 and summer 2017.
and also under 40% now of wanting to use their vehicles designed for their route.
but lets address the summer of 2017
obviously that was not good enough stats for the reference client teams roadmap to be the main road. and so
there was a mandated follow only this route and comply to only this route or find yourself moved out of town.
that is not consensus

even the misdirection alternative road called segwit2x was designed by the same group to appear like people could travel a different direction in august while remaining in the same town. but by november they realised that road was never a new direction but a one way street that u-bends back to the reference clients road

but why. i predict the standard reply. if you dont like the town with only one road. get out of town

The current one.  There's nothing wrong with it, despite what franky1 might claim.  He's just throwing tantrums because he can't get his own way.



You don't have to follow a certain roadmap.  You are free to create a client that proposes an entirely new roadmap.  The problem you seem to be having is that people either:

a) don't approve of your proposed roadmap, or
b) don't have a particularly strong opinion one way or the other and are just going with the flow, or
c) are already using another coin that has a similar roadmap to the one you keep whining BTC should have

If more people felt the way you do, the current roadmap wouldn't be the current roadmap.  Or do you think all these thousands of BTC nodes are being run just for the fun of it?  Each of those nodes is testament to the fact that BTC's present course is locked in and you can't do anything to change it, unless you can build a layer on top of Bitcoin that is more to your liking.  You're free to do that too.

I see what you're doing.  You want more people to feel the way you do.  That's why you're taking thinly-veiled potshots at the current roadmap in most of the topics you participate in.  No one's falling for it.

The only issue would be when regulated it would act as per the government norms making it centralized totally.This situation would be ridiculous for many investors as the price would be stabilized by then and governments wouldn't allow large fluctuation of prices due to investors money is concerned.So i think this would be the situation when all btc investors would feel like they are in a coffin.

"someone must make the call" ... um no. thats the centralised mindset.
solution
not having a reference client that has a moderation policy and a 3 step judging system to even get a proposal wrote to code. and only the proposals that fit their roadmap get accepted.

instead allow the community to make their nodes have different offerings and let consensus play out.
in other words an open network of roads where the majority of vehicles offer alternative routes. and after time if it shows the majority without penalty of being thrown out of town for not going a certain road(mandatory diversion at date X), again without mandatory diversions. if there is a majority of natural traffic flow going through certain roads. that that becomes the natural main road.

a reference client mandating a route and blind followers is not consensus
but people following the majority without mandate or threat. is consensus, plus if the road ends up being wrong they still can change direction without needing a reference client to decide for them

saying a network without orphans is good.. is saying a network without choice is good. a road without junctions is good.

having open roads and people choose not to use them is better than only having one road designed by one group which people are mandated to follow

This one too. Though this is definitely very unlikely in my opinion, as it's literally the opposite of what bitcoin is trying to achieve. GitHub keyholders makes the bitcoin repo private? I'm pretty sure some other dude can make another github repo with the same code as bitcoin core is open source anyway. Scary concept though, if you think of it.

Who will dictate this roadmap? A few individuals or a government or Financial institutions? Is this not what we are seeing with

Alt coins like Ethereum and Ripple? Someone must make the call, to decide what will be accepted and what not, so what kind

of consensus mechanism would you suggest to keep decisions like this, decentralized? This is a tricky subject, but I am very

curious about your opinion on this. 

a situation where people end up having to follow a certain reference roadmap. where people cant independently propose changes that counter such roadmap, all they can do is make software that follows a roadmap...
anyone who does try to create software that allows its own proposal plans, even if that proposal plan has no mandatory deadlines is treated like hostile. and told to get off the network?

The only nail in the coffin for me would be if Bitcoin somehow became a closed-source and permissioned system.  A "walled garden" where people weren't able to view or modify the source, or create the software they wanted to create.  Freedom is the most important thing for me.

This one might be one of the strongest contenders for me leaving the Bitcoin scene. Unfortunately this is happening faster than

what most people might be realizing. Take for instance how many people are using centralized exchanges that are governed

by strict KYC/AML regulations. These requirements is totally destroying "pseudo-anonymity" and a lot of people do not know

this or they simply do not care about this. 

seems your words are about a government centralisation attempt
how about not be concerned with senators/ministers. they are not the ones writing bitcoin code. and there are 200+ countries so a minister/senator cannot rule a law that bitcoin code has to be wrote a certain way


and instead think bitcoin can be centralised by a group of certain influencers
such as a banking group who have devs on the employ. and the banking group have ownership of a portfolio of merchant tool/exchange services.

where this group want to shout that bitcoin is dead and the only solution is using other networks that function like the fortknox->banker permissioned/managed accounts model

As with all currency. Cryptocurrency has it own risk. The more prominent risk are government involvement, fraud, theft, volatility, technical failures, regulatory uncertainty and competition from other currency. One of this risk can make any crypto loses is value and that include bitcoin
 But bitcoin has done well to bridge this lapses that why I have a strong believe in it but the only reason I would leave bitcoin is when all this risk are compromised

Probably some things like the government implementing a heavy ban on bitcoin. Heavy meaning point-a-gun-in-your-head level ban. Though quite unlikely, it's still theoretically possible. Take note that this is just in an "investment" perspective though. If such thing comes to existence, I expect people to be panic selling. No doubt. I definitely would still be interested in bitcoin, but of course I wouldn't want my holdings to decrease in value by a huge percentage as I definitely would still want to live a decent life(and not in poverty).