You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Bitcoin "end game" a mathematical certainty: correcting bad Bitcoin journalism.
Great article. But an easy rebuff, I feel like you have more to say and are just pushing off this. - And would like to here more - about how you see Bitcoin in the long term.
One point of disagreement, perhaps you could set me straight on :
- The fees are artificially high at the moment, once the community forms consensus and the proper alterations are made - fees will lower and the transaction backlog will disappear
You presume much here. First of all that the community will form a consensus (it appears people have different ideas of what bitcoin is and could be and who it should benefit). Secoundly, a consensus could easily enforce high fees to turn bitcoin into a security (which at the moment it is) more than a day to day currency.
Edit: dodgy brackets and grammar.
Thanks for the comment.
Of course I have much more to say. It is difficult in crypto journalism to balance my optimistic feelings for the future and the tone and independence required by the space. Bitcoin in the long term: you should be able to get a good idea of how I feel about these things if you read some of my blog posts. I am not a Bitcoin maximalist. I am optimistic however.
I absolutely presume much in that comment. The scaling debate is not something that can be outlined in a single comment. It would be best to take a look at r/btc on reddit to build a sense of the climate. The reason so much is presumed is Bitcoin is messy to change anything by design. This is actually something that people view as attractive in Bitcoin. Consensus will form, it just might take a bit longer than say Ethereum due to the structure and politics of the network.
Bitcoin doesn't have to be the currency - there is nothing wrong with a security (I don't know if I would call it that though)
Thanks for the measured reply. Crypto journalism is a real minefield, most people have vested interests and of course its all completely new to everyone.
I do generalise with terms like security and currency, because bitcoin is actively changing semantics and moving the goal posts in the field - another journalistic frustration.
The personal reason I would like to see bitcoin as a currency is that it could have tremendous force to help developing economies and global financial inequality. As a security that may still be true but is limited. If a another crypto-currency can replace bitcoin in this function (because primarily of the time it takes to reach consensus) then the consensus debate will have a very different feel for bitcoin.
My main point stand that a consensus may lead to even higher fees if bitcoin is promoted as a security - encouraging people to hold it - and hold large amounts. These are in conflict with a day to day use of currency to buy milk and bread.
I agree. I guess it is mostly a "wait and see".