You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: If You Want To Understand Why I am So Passionate About Bitcoin - Watch This Speech
In all fairness BTC did a great job in crippling itself over the last year. High transaction fees and lengthy transaction times cannot be blamed on BCH.
For the record my holdings have remained the same since the fork, holding equal amounts of BCH and BTC. My feeling is that the fork has not fully played itself out yet. My best case scenario is that both BTC and BCH do well so please don't see me as a shill for either side.
It’s just part of the natural process a revolutionary technology must go through. Doesn’t mean it’s broken, it just needs time and people need patience
It's not a matter of patience really. That's just the counter narrative.
No amount of patience will undo the sabotage of the community and chain (likely based in ignorance, rather than malevolence) or solve the more fundamental issues of the replacement technology which are brought by routing and relying on the liquidity + the location of nodes.
There needs to be alternatives and in this case the alternative happens to be the scaling plan implied by the Bitcoin design itself and advocated by Satoshi until he left.
That said, LN is a great experiment. I'm hoping to see it evolve into something even more interesting eventually.
Just because it's not ready to scale for mass adoption right now doesn't mean it's broken. It needs to go through a speculative phase and build up a much bigger market cap in order to stabilize the volatility long before the world adopts it as a currency. For now it needs to be a store of value before it can become a currency. This doesn't at all mean that it has failed to be a currency, it hasn't even begun!
That wasn't the argument made.
But it was broken and remains in that state. In full, Bitcoin scales well already and will scale with time on a predictable basis. The only reason it hit a limit was through mismanagement and attempts at central planning.
This is not a logically coherent argument for intentionally making it fully inviable for its very purpose for a period of time. When can it be adopted as a currency then? You have to draw a line eventually. You're just pushing that down the road.
It can't be one without the other. How are you storing value when fees can get out of hand and eat up a good portion of your account? That's not a good store of value.
As Austrian economists throughout time have known, a good store of value is a good medium of exchange.
For years we used Bitcoin as a currency. It had begun and it continues in the form of Bitcoin Cash.
The "speculative phase" doesn't end for a money. You always speculate and you always use it. There are no two phases.
The rise of a money is a gradual process and you can surely break it down into phases if you want to, but you can't separate medium of exchange from store of value without making it less of a money.
But it was broken and remains in that state. In full, Bitcoin scales well already and will scale with time on a predictable basis. The only reason it hit a limit was through mismanagement and attempts at central planning.
---Bitcoin only scaled well when very few people were using it. It's obvious that it wasn't ready to scale for mass adoption yet, last year proved that. You need patience. the internet didn't scale over night either, it didn't mean the internet was broken because it was slow and useless in the 90's. Open your mind.
This is not a logically coherent argument. When can it be adopted as a currency then? You have to draw a line eventually. You're just pushing that down the road.
----This is an extremely child question. When can it be adopted?? hahahaha Do you really think we should all set a date for bitcoin to be used as a currency instead of an investment? Only an individual holder can decide when it's time to stop holding it as an investment and to use it as a currency. To ask when is the stupidest question I've ever heard. You don't need to draw a line, the market dictates how it will be used.
It can't be one without the other. How are you storing value when fees can get out of hand and eat up a good portion of your account? That's not a good store of value.
---It is already a store of value and a currency. Fact, people are holding it as an investment. Fact people are using it right now around the world as a currency.
For years we used Bitcoin as a currency. It had begun and it continues in the form of Bitcoin Cash.
The "speculative phase" doesn't end for a money. You always speculate and you always use it. There are no two phases.
The rise of a money is a gradual process and you can surely break it down into phases if you want to, but you can't separate medium of exchange from store of value without making it less of a money.
---You need to stop thinking in black and white. It's a well known fact that the larger the market cap, the less the volatility. Bitcoin will slowly be used more as a currency as the market cap grows, volatility and the potential for gains diminishes. This is an undeniable fact that cannot be argued.
I think the "childishness" of your reply speaks for itself.
Learn to differentiate between a rhetorical and a genuine question.
Learn to differentiate between when I break down the logic of your statements, vs making a strawman of what you said. Etc.
I don't see any valid retorts to my arguments.
Just as a sidenote, the person who came up with the term "hyperbitcoinization" (for a concept that I have neither rejected nor contradicted here) was himself finally shunned as he became critical of Core.
Centralized btrash is equal to the peering green eyes of the all-knowing governmental overlords and its paper stained with the greasy fingerprints of your banks and your mints. No thanks.
Neat argument. Bitcoin Cash is exactly what we had back in 2010 and then some.
It's not centralized. It's "fully decentralized".
SPVs "don't need to trust nodes" they can ask for Proof of Work.
Your new "Bitcoin standard" is "Banking 2.0". It's not the same Bitcoin standard we discussed so many years ago now.
Now changing essentials of the way transactions are made is considered ok, but hardforking is considered a risk?
It's all backwards.
The valid statements provided are undenial facts and none of which can be debated
Neat that you noticed. No counter arguments were provided. Cyberblocks arguments all assume central planning of internal fees, liquidity and deflation, while also assuming sheer stupidity of any dissenters of this mode of operation.
Bitcoin was not designed to rely on central planning. An emergency fork to restore the order was needed at this point. Whether it survives or no, that we'll have to see.
But you can't excuse the developers intentionally planning for
A genius plan to some and I'm ashamed to admit that I encouraged it. It doesn't make sense in reality and won't help establish Bitcoin as a currency, cash, money or in the long run even "digital gold".
It's a failed economic policy that relies on active management.
"Crippling itself" -- yeah, I think you missed a LOT in the past year or so. There's been deep analysis if the Fan-IN/Fan-OUT attack that was used to do this.
Fee markets exist for a reason, to prevent abuse of a resource in a shared environment.
I'd read this before you get too deep, it would save you some trouble -- https://hackernoon.com/the-ethereum-blockchain-size-has-exceeded-1tb-and-yes-its-an-issue-2b650b5f4f62
Applies to BCash, EOS and ETH. Just a matter of time which one implodes first.
(Moved upstream due to downvoter hissy-fit, lol)
(Moved upstream due to downvoter hissy-fit, lol)