Lol it’s news worthy about Bitcoin. JFC
A little mellow dramatic.
Getting triggered over this shit is stupid.
Sci/Tech Official Bitcoin to infinity ♾️ thread
- Thread starter SiLVa_ABCTT
- Start date
A little mellow dramatic.
Getting triggered over this shit is stupid.
Bro everything you’re saying is rehashed Bitcoin Cash/ Roger Ver Bullshit as well as many other shitcoin pumpers. You don’t realize you’re being lied to.
Anyone can write a bit of code that increases the amount of bitcoin that can be mined , go to the bitcoin core website and present it to the star chamber of core developers. They can update the code.
Done.
The systems " security " relys on people running full nodes ( and it only takes one ) who would theoretically alert everyone that this has happened which would eliminate confidence and everyone would immediately sell their bitcoins and it would go to zero. So why would anyone do such a thing and self sabotage?.
Imagine a senario where it dose get full adoption by the government and they demand taxes ect be paid in bitcoin with the new code update. That's it. It's done.
Just like when they took the USD off the gold standerd or introduced the federal reserve act. It was business as usual.
Last edited:
I am not advocating a shit coin alternative. I'm coming from a place of disappointment. When I say people are selling a 2013 version of bitcoin I'm talking about they present the arguments that were presented back then as to why people should want to get into bitcoin. Even though those reasons have long since been falsified.
Wrong. 100% wrong 😂
You have no way to enforce consensus on a change like that.
Do you know what a fork is?
Difference between a hard fork and soft fork?
Doesn’t seem like you do.
This is probably why you get told you don’t understand Bitcoin or how it works.
Read about the fork wars. Good book called The Blocksize War: The Battle Over who Controls Bitcoin's Protocol Rules by Jonathon Bier
Maybe then you will understand why your hypothetical is not that simple to accomplish.
spoiler alert: it’s already been tried and failed.
Last edited:
None of them have been falsified.
Not sure why you keep saying things you can’t prove.
These types of comments reminds me of when Bill Cooper used to chew people out that called into his show for saying things they had no way to prove or bringing up false stories/narratives without doing any research to back up whatever rumor they were calling in to discuss. He called them dumb sheeple.
I’m not trying to say that about you specifically, but I think you need to look into these concepts and do a bit more hands on research than you have.
Last edited:
I’m not saying you are. But the verifiably wrong comments you’ve made are literally word for word what shitcoiners with incentives against Bitcoin have said for years. And still say to this day. If you watch the interview with Roger Ver that Tucker did recently(which I have suspicions about the timing of it) literally have some of the same false claims.
I 100% know what a hard fork and a soft fork is. I'm fully aware of that book and the blocksize wars. I've also read hijacking bitcoin.
No . You can't force consensus but what I described is 100% correct.
It's kind of humorous to me how people love to extol the virtue of not being able to create more than 21 million bitcoin and have your BTC inflated away yet it's glaringly obvious that you can easily do your ass just by people selling it. As if that's not a massive risk.
You seem to not like Roger ver so you're probably a small blocker and probably Don't like / disagree with him in the same way other small blockers do.
I am curious though, you seem to allude to him spreading lies. I can understand your disagreement with him. I'm not sure what he's lied about though.
I don't have a dog in the race as far as , I think it's fucked either way. I don't think it's right that the majority of miners can just get together and make the decision to increase the blocksize . On the other hand bitcoin hasn't been able to , and simply just can't scale and do what it need to to be at all useful as a MoE. Which I definitely think needs to be a core part of it. You have to be honest and agree that that was definitely a point that was used to sell people on it.
It was only a couple of weeks ago I heard a guy in a bitcoin debate say " we need to move forward into the digital age and we now have the technology to move money at the speed of light ". He was talking about bitcoin. That shit can take weeks to process a transaction if the network activity is high. He had the temerity to just say that and not qualify it at all . Not mention fees or the shit lightning network or having to rely on custodians or any of that.
I haven't actually watched that interview yet but I probably will soon.
I can't remember exactly when I found out about bitcoin but I feel like it was around a year or so prior to when rogan had that guy on his show for the first time. I'm blanking on his name. Aundreas something or other. So I'm going to guess around 2012 -2013 . I remember the way he sold it. Basically " oh it's so easy, ect , you just download a wallet ect ". Then you later hear how " you just don't understand it, you need to do 100+ hrs of research ect ".
It can't really be massively adopted if it's that hard to understand unless you just get retail investors that are almost like suckers.
It's weird. It's almost like we disagree how it was originally presented. I have a pretty clear memory of how it was presented and if you asked the majority of people who don't know much about bitcoin about what's good about it they will probably have a very similar view as how I remember it.
If you read Hijacking Bitcoin then you should actually read the Blocksize wars. Because Hijacking Bitcoin is just more of Roger’s spin and lies. The blocksize wars was what actually happened.
Roger is a liar and con artist. Plain and simple. I’m not going to go into all the shit he’s lied about or all the mischaracterizations he’s made. It’s like when he was called Bitcoin Jesus and that shit went straight to his head, thought he could be the savior of Bitcoin and all he did was alienate himself. He helped to perpetuate the scam that Craig Wright was Satoshi. I’ve never met him but I’ve spoken to people that used be close friends with him and used to work with him.
No it’s not. Yes, people can introduce proposals to make changes and even write code that makes the rules and people have, but it’s not the miners that make the decisions, it’s the node runners. Full Node runners are the consensus. So saying it takes 1 node was completely wrong.
The full nodes locally enforce all rules of the Bitcoin protocol. A node operator expresses what they consider to be Bitcoin by deciding which node software to run. Since a node will reject any blocks or transactions that break its rules, the node operator can be sure that whatever blockchain their node shows follows the rules that they wish to enforce.
If a majority of the hashrate (most of the miners) enforces stricter rules than some node, the stricter ruleset will produce blocks that are acceptable to those with looser rules. This can be used to introduce rule changes in a so-called soft fork: soft forks tighten rules and thus are forward-compatible to less-strict Bitcoin software. This makes the general rules on the network emergent. The network rules emerge from many users making a choice about the software they are running and the common denominator being enforced by the economic majority.
Full node runners aren’t going choose the fork that dilutes their Bitcoin. Why would they?
And running a full nodes is easy, you can run it on a laptop. Way more decentralized than the other forks.
When people say things like “shit Lightning network” I tend to start to see you have some kind of hang up or bias you can’t seem to get past. It really seems like you’re hearing that from people that don’t use it.
Bitcoin’s Lightning network isn’t perfect but it certainly works and will likely not be the only 2nd layer solution for faster, lower fee payments. But it’s one solution and use of it has grown, like with any adoption. Something that’s shit isn’t going to grow with use, risking millions in Bitcoin value.
Bitcoin’s Lightning network isn’t perfect but it certainly works and will likely not be the only 2nd layer solution for faster, lower fee payments. But it’s one solution and use of it has grown, like with any adoption. Something that’s shit isn’t going to grow with use, risking millions in Bitcoin value.
I don't know if you miss understood me. I said it only takes one person running a full node to alert everyone there has been a change in the network. This is me buttressing your point.
Most likely it won't be accepted by everyone and there would be a hard fork.
I did give an example why it may be adopted. Even if it's not a good example.
We are however say the same thing.
The larger point is that it is possible. Yes it's improbable but far from impossible as is often made out.
Your correct though . Why would anyone do it.
I thought it was generally agreed by everyone that the lighting network has problems and evrytime they try and improve it , it creates more problems.
My point stands. I'm not talking about what bitcoin is now. None of my complaints are about what it is now. It's about what sort of potential it has moving forward. If all the current transactions we do with credit cards was done with bitcoin it would use more energy than all of those sectors combined.
That's what I mean. This shit about it being a store of value and digital gold is pushed because it simply cannot be widely used as a medium of exchange. It's not possible. It's just not . No way. For multiple reasons.
Nowhere in the white paper did it say anything about store of value. It said peer to peer payment method without the need for a central bank.
It won't work though
It's just not possible to scale so the only thing it can be usd for is a store of value . Or more accurately. Speculation.
70%? I wonder how many of those long term holders are like me and just can’t figure out how to get the shit back out.
When people say things like “shit Lightning network” I tend to think you have some kind of hang up.
So it maybe hyperbole to say 21 Million hard cap can’t be changed but saying it won’t be changed is based on the majority of preferences of the people that run the network. That’s just the way it is.
When people make the claim that it would be easy to make the change, that’s factually incorrect and yes damn near improbable.
Anyone that says it’s impossible is wrong and no one that understands Bitcoin says that. What they say is it’s not going to happen because they understand the incentives and most of them run nodes so they preserve the chain, regardless of any changes attempted.
So it maybe hyperbole to say 21 Million hard cap can’t be changed but saying it won’t be changed is based on the majority of preferences of the people that run the network. That’s just the way it is.
When people make the claim that it would be easy to make the change, that’s factually incorrect and yes damn near improbable.
Last edited:
That’s not what I hear from people using it.
And again, why would the network be growing if it had so much problems?
Besides it’s kind of a moot point because other 2nd layer solutions are available and being made. Liquid is also a second layer solution. As well as Stacks.
The tech and future is still emerging.
😆 I don’t think it’s that hard to figure out.
If they can’t figure it out then that sucks but it’s fairly simple.
You open the wallet you have it in and send it to an address that’s attached to an exchange. You can even send it to your cash app to sell it if you really wanted to.
I think it’s safe to assume they are holding it because they want to, not because they’re too dumb to figure it out.
Again. Respectfully…you’re stuck in some kind of bullshit narrative. That is just not true. It is widely used. You can measure it. All the chain analysis data and exchange data show the growth so you’re verifiably wrong.
There are multiple currencies all over the world that are not “widely used” globally and are still validly used as medium of exchange, right? Bitcoin is used globally, as a store of value and a medium of exchange.
If you’re trying to make the argument that ABSOLUTELY EVERY CURRENCY TRANSACTION IN THE WORLD needs to be possible on Bitcoin then maybe you would have a point but by the time that was a reality, there would have been many upgrades and second and third layer solutions to make that possible.
But that’s even if that will be needed.
The dollar is world reserve currency now and even that isn’t used for every transaction.
This is just denial at this point. Cope. It is literally scaling and growing in value because more people are using it as both a store of value and medium of exchange. If you refuse to see what is pretty clear that seems like a you problem.
No point in really arguing this anymore. If you can’t seem to get it, there’s nothing else I can say that will change your perspective. At this point I feel like I’m talking to Peter Schiff.
Your right. I could argue on but I don't really want to argue.
I'm just saying there's fundamentally a much different representation of how bitcoin is presented to noobs and what it is in reality and I don't blame the noobs when they are only ever presented all of the benefits and none of the , let's just call them " issues " that bitcoiners are all fully aware of but never mention and are true belivers in spite of. ( however I do kind of understand where you're coming from in that you say " this is why I believe in it and own it , now you should reaserch it and find out more ". But that's not generally how it's presented. I do get it though. It's up to people to look into )
Just one last question and I promise I'm not going to have a retort with any king of argument. Just a genuine curiosity.
In the future. Let's just say 30 -50 years. In the absolute best case senario for bitcoin. Meaning what's best for bitcoin . What dose the world look like. Not so much what would the value be but how much and how frequently is it owned and used by people ? And what would the volitity be like ? At what price would it need to get to to reduce the volatility to insignificant? What would the fee's be like realistically?
How much would people be relying on custodians of some kind to use it and how much would we be relying on some technology to be invented that would improve its usage capability. How realistic is that tech and how secure would it be ?
And is you prediction/ projection similar to others in your community.
That's a lot of questions but I'm only asking to give you an idea of what I mean by " what dose the future of bitcoin look like best case senario ".
No need to go through them point by point or anything. I'm not going to say " but you missed one of my questions "?
Please don't answer by say things like " it's hard to say for sure " or " no one really knows ". I'm asking what dose it look like best case senario realistically.
Thanks.
Those are all good questions but I’m not a psychic man. How could I know what will happen in 30-50 years? I’m likely dead by then. But I’ll answer best as I can.
At this point I would assume any chaos with governments trying to ban it have long been done and over with so I would assume it’s used by most people, whether it be as a savings vehicle or as an underlying asset that backs whatever digital currency is the world reserve. Unfortunately it is hard to say without knowing how many different things can play out.
Volatility will go down, and already has been trending down. At that point I would assume very much not as volatile as most of it would already a have been mined.
Fees would be different depending on what you’re doing. Main chain -high fees, second or third layer fees -would be very low, close to non existent.
Custody solutions would probably likely be way more than we have today. Self custody will still make sense for some- if the government doesn’t try to stop that. But custodial solutions will still make sense to some people as well. Insurance on your Bitcoin in self custody may make self custody a lot easier, I know a start up that is working on that now, but it’s very new.
I honestly don’t jive with most people in the Bitcoin community, because many of them are just there for more fiat. They wanna be rich. I just want a solution to sound money that is self sovereign and secure from the state.
State capture is still a thing. I’m not pie in the sky delusional about it. Some think we already won because Trump won and they think a strategic Bitcoin reserve proves we are winning. That could be the case, for sure but could also be a new strategy by the state to infiltrate and maneuver plans to control it. They would be wrong to think it was that easy, but wouldn’t be the 1st time.
That would take a hard fork, and therefore I can keep running the code I want and they can give me a new coin I can either keep or sell. It still won’t be easy for them to do that but the tech is such that I can run the code I want.
Hope that’s a good enough answer for you.
If governments completely bend the knee it’s much more different than if they become more adversarial to Bitcoin.
At this point I would assume any chaos with governments trying to ban it have long been done and over with so I would assume it’s used by most people, whether it be as a savings vehicle or as an underlying asset that backs whatever digital currency is the world reserve. Unfortunately it is hard to say without knowing how many different things can play out.
Volatility will go down, and already has been trending down. At that point I would assume very much not as volatile as most of it would already a have been mined.
Fees would be different depending on what you’re doing. Main chain -high fees, second or third layer fees -would be very low, close to non existent.
Custody solutions would probably likely be way more than we have today. Self custody will still make sense for some- if the government doesn’t try to stop that. But custodial solutions will still make sense to some people as well. Insurance on your Bitcoin in self custody may make self custody a lot easier, I know a start up that is working on that now, but it’s very new.
I honestly don’t jive with most people in the Bitcoin community, because many of them are just there for more fiat. They wanna be rich. I just want a solution to sound money that is self sovereign and secure from the state.
State capture is still a thing. I’m not pie in the sky delusional about it. Some think we already won because Trump won and they think a strategic Bitcoin reserve proves we are winning. That could be the case, for sure but could also be a new strategy by the state to infiltrate and maneuver plans to control it. They would be wrong to think it was that easy, but wouldn’t be the 1st time.
That would take a hard fork, and therefore I can keep running the code I want and they can give me a new coin I can either keep or sell. It still won’t be easy for them to do that but the tech is such that I can run the code I want.
Hope that’s a good enough answer for you.
Thanks.
The only thing I would quibble with is the volatility part. I don't think the mining has anything to do with volatility from my understanding. Aside from that most of them have already been mined. There's only a couple of million left. The volatility is purely dependent on how much is brought and sold . So the more people own it , or own of it ( the higher the price)the less the price would be affected if large amounts were sold.
Maybe I'm mistaken or just misunderstanding you.
I appreciate the thoughts.
The reason I ask is I hear bitcoiners all the time say things like , we should all be using bitcoin ect , ect. And never. Not even once , to the point where it's conspicuously absent from the conversation , talk about how things would look in the future if there was a mass adoption of it and any real challenges that would come up. I just here individual issues and almost waved away as nothing to be to concerned about.
I was just wondering if there was some clear grand vision that im not aware of.
This is but one example of what I’m talking about when I say you have people with skewed incentives lying about Bitcoin because they have ulterior motives. This guy that’s being corrected by Dennis, as well as hundreds of others, is the coauthor of Roger Ver’s book, and supporter of Bitcoin Cash.
A bunch of people that don’t know the difference just reposting his comments as truth when it’s clearly a biased opinion, not based in fact. That’s why it’s imperative to get into the weeds, doing real research and not take these people seriously.
View: https://twitter.com/dennis_porter_/status/1869622176091082992
A bunch of people that don’t know the difference just reposting his comments as truth when it’s clearly a biased opinion, not based in fact. That’s why it’s imperative to get into the weeds, doing real research and not take these people seriously.
View: https://twitter.com/dennis_porter_/status/1869622176091082992
Last edited: