I'm using Bitcoin primarily as a long-term store of value, so as long as my savings is beating the inflation rate (or the S&P 500) I consider that success. There are other indicators of progress/success that have to do with things like adoption, service offerings, 2nd and 3rd layer tech, but at the end of the day the price is reflective of whatever all these "successes" might be. This is why I'm trying to get people to put a stake in the ground and define success/failure. Because it feels like we could have these unproductive conversations forever if the goalposts are on wheels. Speaking of moving goal posts, feel free to define the proper level of "acceptance" for you.
Touched on some of the security issues with Bitcoin already, so I'll mostly touch on other 2. Bitcoin absolutely can and has been censored and is subject to authorization. If you said it was more resistant, I *might* grant you that, though even that is functionally not that useful IMO. For scarcity, this is only true if you put your trust in the people behind Bitcoin (so much for "trustless"). We can convince everyone on Earth that there should be more gold, but we're not getting more gold. You can convince 50 people (maybe more like 5?) to increase the supply of Bitcoin (and note persuasion could involve hammers to heads), and...we'll get more Bitcoin. And honestly, I would expect it to happen, but regardless of what may or may not happen, the point is this scarcity only exists if you have that kind of trust. Um...there's already precedent for that. People use their computing and electrical power to find/store/distribute stuff like child p*rn, and....that's illegal/banned (well...at least in the US). Throw in digital piracy, cybersecurity attacks, or the type of things that countries like Russia, China, etc. crack down on. There are already plenty of things you cannot freely do with your computing and electrical power. I'm not sure how likely that is currently, though it is certainly a possibility. Especially if mining creates more and more problems. You can use something like M-Pesa (and several others IIRC) and send money within minutes as well. Generally to anyone with just a phone I believe. And as an added benefit, people can actually use the money from this transaction to buy something in their local markets. I could technically send 100 transactions of aUEC to people within minutes as well, but unless that person wants to buy a new mining ship in Star Citizen, probably won't be that meaningful. Of course, if we're talking about using it as a store of value, then being able to actually use Bitcoin to buy stuff doesn't really matter, but then I'd think it doesn't really matter how long it takes anyway. Furthermore, some of the negatives you mention are actually *good* things about the traditional systems. This seems to be a common theme with Bitcoin/crypto where you take a negative/limitation and just handwave it as a positive ("it's not a bug, it's a feature!"). We want things like reversibility in transactions like this...or at least I do. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/02/blockchain_and_.html Alright, so to be blunt, it is clear that you (and a few others) have a fairly limited understanding and level of experience when it comes to cybersecurity (which is not unusual for the average person). I've been more technical and specific earlier in the thread. Crickets or "I don't understand your point." I've tried to dumb down and simplify the argument (e.g., think about online voting and *why* we do not use it for meaningful elections). I cite credible experts in this field, and I get "that's FUD/appeal to authority." FWIW, note that I am an authority on this specific topic (albeit much less of one than others), so that does make this a bit different than the other topics discussed. Speaking of that, do you even understand what an appeal to authority means? It isn't a cool thing you can say when someone mentions experts who disagree with you. I'm literally sharing the opinions of credible experts (i.e., computer scientists, cybersecurity experts, software engineers, etc) on this topic, and unless you can explain why these folks (including myself) aren't credible on this particular matter, then it doesn't really mean what you think it does. Since we like talking about informal fallacies, I'll throw one back at you. I see a lot of begging the question here. Why am I to assume that Bitcoin is the most scrutinized application in history? What is 2nd? What is the top 10? Have any of them been taken down? What metrics are we using? Who are the cybersecurity experts that can break this down? What does it mean to be thriving? Etc. Also, not sure your usage of the term honeypot is correct (in the cybersecurity sense) unless we stretch that definition quite a bit. But I think I get the point there. Those things aside, I already touched on why. There is not much benefit to taking down Bitcoin, at least from the perspective of most hackers/thieves/etc. Taking advantage of Bitcoin, sure, but actually taking the network down doesn't really provide any financial benefit to them. I *guess* someone could move all the coins into a single wallet, but you can't *use* that for anything. You can try to convert it into a real currency, but you probably wouldn't get too far with that. Compare that to...I don't know...military plans, corporate secrets involving billion dollar transactions, blackmail on celebrities/political figures, etc. I'm not sure Bitcoin is really as attractive a target as some of you think. And again, why do that when you can just use Bitcoin to prop up all your Ransomware attacks? Or just take advantage of all the folks who thought it was easy to setup/manage a wallet, but it turned out they did it wrong. Etc. In a way, I suppose this makes Bitcoin more secure, though can't say I appreciate the trade-off personally. Uh not really anything unless it radically changes how it functions...and even then, I'd probably prefer alternatives. I suppose getting to the acceptance of traditional investments would be a start (Google gives me a figure of ~60% American people/households depending on the exact metric). From what I understand, the current Bitcoin acceptance metrics are but a drop in a bucket relative to those numbers (and I'm not even sure how many wallets are actually legit/contain anything). Polling doesn't seem to paint a pretty picture either: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-r...the-safety-and-reliability-of-cryptocurrency/ Acceptance is one general metric, which I assume will come along with other markers (e.g., experts changing their minds as well). I'm stubborn, so I'll probably *still* be critical at that point, but I'd at least take some time to reconsider my thoughts if those things were to happen. The line goes up, which I know is great for a lot of you, but that's not something I particularly care strongly about by itself (especially given potential Tether shenanigans which I never even bothered to really look into). I rarely even look at the BTC price if I'm being honest. I'm also pretty sure that my stance on that was pretty clear since the beginning...but maybe I'm wrong? Can't speak for others, but I'm not sure I moved any (major) goalposts. I've been strongly critical about pretty much everything Bitcoin/crypto related, and I thought it was pretty clear that it would be next to impossible for me to change my mind on that. I would be surprised if anyone involved in this discussion changed their mind. I avoided this thread for a lengthy period due to that very point, and I'm pretty sure I mentioned it before I started posting again. I'm not reconsidering my conclusion, and conversely, Bitcoiners will not be changing theirs either. I primarily participate to further enhance my understanding on all the related topics, and that has been successful. I suppose there's a secondary desire to share my opinion on matters so that lurkers can see both sides...though honestly I kinda assume no one reads this thread except the usual folks.
Belongs in the altcoin thread IMO. Shitcoin casinos trading unregulated securities getting what is coming to them. Womp womp.
Citation, please. I'm guessing you and I have different definitions of censorship and authorization. If you've discovered a way to stop or alter a peer-to-peer bitcoin transaction, you will have made world-wide front page news. You don't need to convince 5 or 50, you need to convince 51% of the Bitcoin network, basically in perpetuity. Good luck with that. Again, good luck locking down the majority of the world's electrical and computing power. You're gonna need a lot of hammers at this rate. You can't view features in a vaccuum when they come as a package with so many other consequences. I don't really care about your or anyone else's credibility. If Bitcoin has an irreconcilable flaw, please present the evidence and take your place in history as the man who made almost a trillion dollars in value disappear overnight. Otherwise tick tock, next block. Everything you have posted to this point has either been "this person doesn't like it so neither do I" or "there might be an unforeseen problem". I find neither argument compelling. Do you really think it's that far of a stretch to assume Bitcoin is the most scrutinized application in history? I can't even muster up a guess for #2, can you? Part of what makes Bitcoin anti-fragile is how it is far more lucrative to spend time/resources securing it vs. attacking it. And this is where we part company permanently. An admission that there is no circumstance which could exist where you can change your mind is a big ass red flag. There is no point in conversing with someone who feels this way.
Cramer Curse...? Jim Cramer, former hedge fund manager and host of CNBC’s Mad Money, Tuesday morning reversed his previously bearish stance on bitcoin (BTC) ahead of what's expected to be U.S. regulatory approval of a spot ETF and as the price rose above $45,000 for the first time in 21 months. "This thing, you can't kill it," Cramer told CNBC's David Faber. "Bitcoin is a technological marvel and I think people need to start recognizing it's here to stay." Cramer also took note of another famous Bitcoin skeptic (to put it mildly), saying the late Charlie Munger "was blind to this."
lol Windows (95/NT/7) mebe? Def Linux for open source...Multi-trillions in value and counting. The corollary to your bounty question is the utility question. Folks are still conjuring up shifting narratives of utility for the normies, except other apps do what btc does but better. The store of value claim kinda works but is largely driven by speculation and the greater fools theory: "It's SCARCE...therefore Number Go Up!" You can argue the physicality of gold and old baseball cards provide more intrinsic value than a bunch of numbers on a statement or a physical zip drive shaped wallet. None are really true replacements for the other, but the narratives for BTC's intrinsic value (not worth) will spin like a dog chasing its tail until there's a no brainer reason for casuals to by a satoshi at a ridiculous price...and like it.
IMO the use case for the bitcoin base layer has been pretty static and well understood for a long time. There's always 2nd and 3rd order applications being made that can add or change use cases though. If you don't think Bitcoin has actual value, bully for you. Many of us do, and the market reflects our sentiment a lot more than yours. Eventually all the holdouts will have no choice to capitulate out of self-preservation. Meanwhile, enjoy grousing about tulip bulbs. I'm sure the bubble is gonna pop any day now. Care to make a prediction?
You mean like a small drop now then a crazy ride up before possible spot etf and halving? Sure, you can view it like a stock pick, but there are no fundamentals to derive a price other than interest. I don't need btc to survive (even gold has uses beyond jewelry/personal vanity) and if i did the world would be in a very sorry trustless state. So what are we debating then?
You're saying it's worthless, so, I'm trying to see just how sure you are about that. Surely if it's worthless you can stake out some kind of future parameters to prove/disprove that to yourself, yes?
We've debated here before on how i view value and worth as different categories. Art for instance could be worth a lot but it's value can't be measured from a utilitarian standpoint and more from a cultural side. So I'll continue to question or search for good answers to it's intrinsic value from a biz sense. Don't need it to survive. As an investment instrument, there isn't a backer or guarantor to hedge risk. No killer app atm to foster growth. The open endedness gives space for it to be an app and platform, but it doesn't really do anything great. Granted, the system was purposefully designed to be a life raft, but the other promises are far off from wholesale adoption. So it is largely speculative, You pretty much jump in head first and hope a greater fool will buy at a higher price if you decide to cash out your share. Even if "The Global Machine" breaks down, you selling or leveraging your btc is the same primciple. Is that a wrong assessment beyond the future promises?
Is there a gun club that accepts btc for their subscription service? They can send care packages like wine of the month
https://www.vice.com/en/article/jgm...bitcoin-donations-have-been-frozen-and-seized https://www.pymnts.com/cryptocurrency/2022/the-myth-of-censorship-resistant-crypto/ Probably were some similar scenarios involving Russia, Hamas, etc., though I stopped keeping track of specifics. But yes, if your definition is "stopping/altering a P2P Bitcoin transaction," that hasn't necessarily been done. But from a functional/practical standpoint, that's not really that meaningful. The more important question is can you send Bitcoin to someone for them to use (because why would you send it otherwise) without any censorship/meddling by authorities. That's clearly what this talking point is alluding to (because who cares about what P2P nodes are doing). And the answer to that question is no, you can't. It might be more of a hassle (i.e., "resistant" I guess), but even the draconian government of Canada can do it. You go after the on/off ramps, you go after the people involved, etc. (and let's be real, "stopping/altering a P2P Bitcoin transaction" would not make world wide front page news) I don't need to convince 51% of the network. I need to convince the people who control 51% of the network (if not more). Well I guess that is the same thing, but just making that clear. Um again, we already do that with other stuff just fine (particularly places like China). Less than a dozen companies control the backbone to the vast majority of the internet (never mind the countries behind them). And if we're talking non-global scales, it is likely even easier (again, see China/etc.). Now, I'm not that I'm saying this is likely or even good, but it is not that difficult of a task if the right folks want to do it. I suppose if there was something that was a real threat to the power of these world powers, then they'd possibly resort to this, but otherwise I'd assume they'll go with other means. Big picture consequences are what I was alluding to. You were the one mentioning things like withdrawal limits, dealing with countries not friendly with the US, etc. You mention those like they're bad things, but the reason they exist is to prevent the consequences of *not* doing those things. I will admit that in rare cases Bitcoin (or even other crypto I suppose) can be beneficial in these types of circumstances. But those cases IMO get offset by the bad things it enables. We can discuss that more in-depth if you prefer, but that was my general point. So then why mention an appeal to authority? That's the whole point of that argument. To cast doubt on the credibility of those being cited (e.g., Trump is not a credible expert on virology). More evidence you just like to say it because it sounds cool? (yes I'm being a mighty insufferable about this, largely because a lot of people say this without understanding what it really means) (should be timestamped to around 44:42) Also reposting this: https://github.com/visualbasic6/drain (*maybe* it got fixed since I last posted it) To be clear, I'm not saying "this person doesn't like it so neither do I." I'm referencing arguments from credible experts in this field....which is usually a *good* thing when you are having a debate. Now I'm actually skeptical you've actually bothered to spend any time attempting to understand what any of these folks are actually saying (as you've yet to respond to any of their points), so I guess I can why see you came to this conclusion. But that's not reality. Additionally, having a way to handle unforeseen problems is a huge part of cybersecurity, and the fact that Bitcoin (by my eyes, willing to be proven wrong) relies entirely on prevention for its security is what I called out as flawed. As the XKCD cartoon *tried* to point out, we (programmers) suck at our job. We all write terrible code, full of bugs (especially C++ yuck). We need to have contingencies in place that allow us to minimize damage caused by potential exploits. If you don't believe this to be the case, then do you think we should have things like Internet voting for high ranking officials? Do you push that as hard as you push Bitcoin? Why or why not? Hint: the same problems that apply to Bitcoin apply to Internet voting, and that's why we don't/shouldn't do Internet voting. If you don't find any of this compelling, I don't know what to tell you. It is pretty basic software development stuff. Yes, I do think it is a stretch. @Invisible Fan had a good response to this, so I don't have much more to add (though I might throw in some of the examples in my previous reply as well). I didn't make the claim, so I don't have a #2. I don't even know which metric I'd use. If the metric is numbers pulled from thin air (which I guess is what you used?), I'll say this BBS is #2. Well that's one way to spin the point that Bitcoin allows criminals to do more crime. Maybe we should just wipe humanity out of existence. I would agree then that Bitcoin is 100% secure. Probably not worth the trade-off, but that would be a nice talking point for the ghosts that end up debating this for eternity. You say this like you're surprised by this revelation? How? I mean, I'm sure if Bitcoin was actually state controlled, non-fixed, etc., I'm guessing you'd have a different take too. Of course, if either of us somehow changed our core beliefs/philosophies, then maybe things would be different, but I'm being realistic with the situation. Otherwise I'd be making this caveat for a number of things (flat earth, abortion access, fascism, etc.). I'll accept flat earth theory as true when the theory shows the earth is a sphere (well spheroid)...but I don't think that's going to happen.
Right? I need to go back and read through this thread. I bet there's some real whoppers and knee-slappers in there circa 2014.
