What do people think about Bitcoin?

Nah. You're just incapable or unwilling to learn.

Nah. Bitcoin just makes sense to me as the best tool for the job which is the measure, exchange, and store of value for humans.

Because institutions almost universally are not allowed to own BTC by law. The coming ETFs are going to change that. They know it's the best asset on Earth and they're coming for it.

Why? Why do I want my asset to possess those features? Are you serious? Do you think assets which can be destroyed, duplicated, censored, corrupted, etc are made more valuable by virtue of those features?

Yes? You would need a longer time horizon than the heat death of the universe to successfully brute force attack a bitcoin key. You would need all the computing power on Earth focused in the same direction at once to hijack the network and create false records. It's the most secure asset on Earth. This is not a controversial statement or breaking news. Stop being lazy and do some research.

You're gonna ban everybody in the world from using their computing and electrical power how they see fit? Good luck with that.

Domestic wire transfers typically clear in 3 days. International wire transfers take an average of 5 days, and sometimes significantly longer, depending on the country. This isn't even final settlement btw. Then there's always withdrawal limits and such.... and civil forfeiture and asset declaration etc. Not to mention the unbanked (whom can't receive your USD) or those whom live in places that the US is not friendly with.

Meanwhile I can zap any amount of BTC to anybody on Earth for a nominal fee and reach final settlement in hours or even minutes.

I have no idea why you are so routinely eager to show the rest of this BBS just how uneducated and lazy you are when it comes to this subject.

 

You are correct. If someone doesn't value what Bitcoin does, no amount of telling them how it does it is going to change their mind.

I'm politically pre-disposed to dislike Bitcoin.

However, the facts on the ground are clear that it's the best technology for humans to underpin their society with.

In a pre-Bitcoin era, I'd say operating on fiat made sense, but BTC has made that obsolete.

 

I don't understand what's important with lower number of transaction. The # of transactions as related to cost? As related to ease of use? I personally care about long term value and security (long investment).

Acceptance is a driver of long term value. Seems very important....

Given that we don't know quantum compute yet, I'm going to not trust any "quantum-level" security. But this isn't that big of a deal other than anything virtual or "soft" is vulnerable and the only "safe" bet is going back to physical. But we are at the point where we are too far along the virtual and soft (or too big to fail, or maybe too big to allow it to fail) for this to matter that much. Bitcoin is just but another iteration of virtual/soft and it's a very small portion of it - so it's really doesn't matter. Bigger players are grappling with these challenges, recognizing that much larger concerns loom if quantum capabilities compromise everything related to today's security.

I'm referring to the regular users (me included, which also ties back to acceptance). I don't know about this very small HW (i think i have an idea though what it does) and of course, can I trust it as a hold of long investment....

 

Bitcoin is a savings account. How often do you transact with your savings? It shouldn't be often. This is why acceptance isn't really important. If you're only needing to exchange once or twice a year, or even few years, then making sure everybody on every street corner can take the asset from you at every minute of the day isn't super important.

You don't have to "trust" anything. Security algorithms are just math.

It's easy to get started. Plenty of resources out there.

 

Quantum computers will break every major software application (at least ones that rely on authentication and whatnot).

The problem with Bitcoin's security isn't that quantum computers will eventually break their algorithms (because they'll break everything). The problem with Bitcoin's security is the general model (plus the crappy code). Plus lots of other stuff. Doesn't help that proponents think security only applies to basic encryption algorithms and nothing else.

I guess i could say a lot more, but I've got fun family stuff to do. Most of this is just a repeat of previous discussions anyway. Literally word for word in parts.

 

"The general model and code suck" is not a very well articulated criticism. Borders on meaningless, even.

You can argue that people aren't very good with their own operational security, and that's true, but those people should just wait until more solutions arrive to fill that gap for them.

If you can't properly custody and secure your bitcoin (which is not hard to do) you absolutely should not own any.

 

I articulated more specifically earlier in the thread (like 4-5 pages ago IIRC), and got mostly crickets IIRC. I can repeat myself later, but feel free to review that. Or give more crickets.

 

Yeah, it didn't make a lot of sense to me tbh.

 

The largest hacker bounty in human history, yet they can't seem to break the "crappy code".

 

I put quantum computers right up there with cold fusion, AGI, and FSD.

 

Well the cheeky response for me is to suggest you use the internet and find plenty of resources until it makes sense. Maybe some Bruce Schneier.

But I can try to better articulate whatever points didn't make sense if you wish. Or honestly, I can just re-post this:


Or this:


These are just memes for programmers, but the point should be clear. If folks like us would never support doing something like computerized voting (on a blockchain), what do you think our views would be about putting substantial personal savings on the blockchain?

Might as well repost this too (and it doesn't even have my name ):
https://concerned.tech/


I think the ideas behind Bitcoin are wrong/bad, but I think like I said before*, if I was going to go along with those philosophies, I'd probably just stick with gold (or something similar) vs relying on software (at least in this way).

*unless I changed my mind, which might have been possible because I think the gold thing is pretty dumb too, but since thinking about the technical ways Bitcoin works more, it does seem better go with something physically attached to reality

 

I might be misremembering, but I swear you or someone said the exact same thing earlier in the thread. Oh well, I'll repeat my general thoughts about this again.

1) Well it would be highly illegal and potentially easy-ish to track down. Especially given the usual sources of large scale hacks...
2)...probably prefer to just keep Bitcoin around since it helps with all their other hacks. Ransomware would probably go away if not for Bitcoin, so might as well just keep it around...for now.
3) I'm sure Insomniac/LastPass/Rockstar/anyone using log4j/etc thought there security was pretty good too...until it wasn't. Feel free to apply for a cybersecurity job with logic like this, and let know how that goes.

Plus having said that, I'm not even sure it is obvious there haven't been large-ish security breaches. Not necessarily the best accounting and auditing going on with this kind of stuff.

I actually kinda agree with this. Well maybe not quite as far-fetched, but I do kinda think the real world applications for quantum computing might not really amount to all that much (especially outside of niche applications). Maybe more like a flying car. Sorta possible, but in practice, it doesn't really work.

Though admittedly I don't understand enough about quantum physics and all the things involved in quantum computing. I *kinda* get it (like a general understanding of the noise problem), but I do admit that my brain doesn't quite understand how stuff like that could be solved...and how programming will need to adapt to account for this different type of physics. I probably should do a deep dive on it at some point.

But first I want to play more Octopath Traveler 2. Maybe I'll rehash some stuff later involving other stuff said in the last page or two.

 

if you could crack SHA-256 or ECDSA, that would compromise all sorts of vital infrastructure and banking systems and weapon systems

bitcoin would be the least of your worries

 

I hope that your point actually isn't clear, or that I'm misunderstanding it, because all I'm seeing is an appeal to authority mixed with some general FUD about unknown unknowns vis-a-vis security.

You can't just hand wave away the fact that Bitcoin is the most scrutinized application in history sitting on top of the largest honey pot in history. At some point, the fact the network is still standing, let alone thriving, has to mean something.

Question for you: is there any future circumstance that would cause you to reconsider your conclusion? One thing I've noticed that is very difficult to find nay-sayers who will actually create even a reasonably defined goal post of what success for Bitcoin looks like to them.

 

Everyone has a capitulation price, out of financial self-preservation if anything.

 

Right, but getting people to define it or even acknowledge it is difficult sometimes.

 

Yeah, overhyped and we're not there yet anytime soon. Ofc the day when that leap from GPT-2 to 3 arrives, it'll hit us like a ton of bricks...

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01966-2
So the researchers I spoke with, they told me that the claims that IBM is making are kind of brave, considering that until not long ago, the usefulness of a quantum computer was seen to be something in the distant future, but also that they are backed up by solid evidence, and also that they're making claims that are substantial, but not completely outside of the realm of possibility.

 

Genuinely curious. What is the goal post for the "all-in" folks? how are you measuring the success of bitcoin? Other than it went up in value...I don't want to see 100000000000000000000% price charts.
Something other than that..i've never refuted it's not a way to make money. my question always has been: how does it benefit the average joe/sheep...you know..the ones who can't explain interest rates...

Seems like both camps are not going to be convinced either way. So no point in this thread to be honest.

15 years in and so far we got a bunch of cryptos bros who got rich and bought lambos. other than that, is the world a better place? are we better off in the financial world or has scams and bullsh** gone up?

Bitcoin fanatics throw around a bunch of words explaining the traits of bitcoin and literally ignore the very thing that it needs to succeed: acceptance. and if anyone asks or questions anything, it's "you are an idiot, go read the entire internet".

98% of bitcoin wallets have less than 1 BTC. if this site is to be believed.
https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html
which...oh snap.....just realized i am in the top 2%!

great thread. will read again.

 

Easy to buy any amount, reasonably easy to take possession of (and getting easier) if desired, and most importantly, impossible to debase. The perfect savings instrument because the total supply is fixed, it can't be diluted. And any pleb can get in on the ground floor. You can buy $10 worth per day on CashApp, even a homeless person can do that. That's how it benefits them.

I expect bitcoin to 100X in the next 10 years. All any average joe has to do is set up an automatic periodic purchase, set it and forget it, and just sit and wait. Then in 10 years you are set for life.

*Note, this is very simple to do, but not easy to do. Because people can't delay gratifiation, they can't handle the short term volatility, or they have activity bias and can't just sit and wait. So they get shaken out of their position and sell too soon.