Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
Even Olaf Carlson-Wee, the first employee at Coinbase, the country’s most important bitcoin company, will tell you that bitcoin will never be a substitute for the dollar.
I'd like to hear this guy's opinion on the Wired article. I wouldn't put it past them to completely twist someone's words. On the other hand, if later passages reflect Coinbase opinion, then it puts Coinbase's recent re-alignment with the SegWit / Lightning agenda in a different light.
 

satoshis_sockpuppet

Active Member
Feb 22, 2016
776
3,312
New Now Wired are at it. P2P cash? Goodness gracious no!
Ok, for a Bitcoin user I'm fairly un-tinfoil-hatty (maybe not :p), but it makes you wonder. Who has an interest to prevent P2P cash and instead implement centralized Lightning/Paypal 2..
What's the reason to have this campaign to softly block Bitcoin? All without laws and obvious violence, just by falsifying information about it's technical abilities.

I'd like to hear this guy's opinion on the Wired article. I wouldn't put it past them to completely twist someone's words. On the other hand, if later passages reflect Coinbase opinion, then it puts Coinbase's recent re-alignment with the SegWit / Lightning agenda in a different light.
Agreed.
But in any case, it's time to accept, that Coinbase did not and never will actively participate in Bitcoin. AFAIK they didn't spend a single satoshi for Bitcoin development. They just passively accept the bones they get thrown to them.
 

bluemoon

Active Member
Jan 15, 2016
215
966
The promise of digital cash is bigger than Blockstream's, Coinbase's, or anyone else's idea of what they might try using Bitcoin for.

The idea of digital cash is already out there, along with prototype systems, bitcoin being one.

People are already using crypto for some of their real world needs: mostly, that is bitcoin. But if bitcoin does not continue to satisfy needs the action will move elsewhere. Are the miners really so stupid?

I guess we all hope not, but the market doesn't care: it can be brutal.
 

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
Coinbase has a lot to benefit from when it comes to LN and segwit, it's worth noting that ConeBase is not hedging on the success of just bitcoin but pivoting to accommodate all crypto.

For me success looks like mass adoption.

If I was to make a prediction based on mass adoption and the limited supply of BTC no one would lose (other than the existing PTB) there would be only winners.

I'd like to see a billion people all try buy $5.00 a year in BTC over the next 3 years before the halving (and or or the flowing halving). We'd see orders of magnitude in market cap growth relative to the investment due to limited BTC liquidity.

Given general economic behaviors and the existing understandings of wealth distribution and Forex trading, the downside risk of such demand will be insignificant the upside potential incomprehensible.

For that type of mass adoption we need everyone to be able to use the blockchain, when that happens a new economic paradigm will have been born.

BS/Core are trying very hard to shift that benefit in favor of their backers. Segwit as proposed is not a viable way to enable mass adoption, bitcoin growth is under attack.
[doublepost=1483726518][/doublepost]
China banning bitcoin again? (rhetorical question)

http://beijing.pbc.gov.cn/beijing/132005/3230072/index.html

Add some context:

that's good news, just say its not currency but use it as currency. (boom)
 
Last edited:

albin

Active Member
Nov 8, 2015
931
4,008
The censorship special snowflakes will never be happy with Coinbase until Brian Armstrong is willing to do jail time for them in exchange for 1% or whatever it is of their piddly currency conversions.
 

Mengerian

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 29, 2015
536
2,597
Brian Armstrong has now managed to annoy and alienate people on both sides of the block size debate.

Just in terms of Coinbase's corporate interests, this seems like a bad situation he has blundered into.
 

Bagatell

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
728
1,192
Have the Russians hacked BitcoinUnlimited slack? I don't see any posts since I posted ages ago.
 

BldSwtTrs

Active Member
Sep 10, 2015
196
583
Hi guys, I have a silly little question on terminology.

We call the protocole "Bitcoin" and the token "bitcoins", but should we put a capital B to designated the blockchain and the network too?
Is it "the Bitcoin blockchain" and "the Bitcoin network" or "the bitcoin blockchain" and "the bitcoin network".
 

Peter R

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,398
5,595
@BldSwtTrs:

Common nouns are not capitalized while proper nouns are.

Common nouns refer to a class of person, animal, place, idea or thing, while proper nouns refer to a specific instance of that class. For example, "month" (not capitalized) is a class of time periods approximately 30 days in length, while "January" is a specific instance of that class (capitalized). Similarly, "man" (not capitalized) is a class of humans that have a Y-chromosome, while "Peter R" refers to the specific instance of a man who is writing this post.

The word "cryptocurrency" (common noun) refers to the class of electronic, decentralized, digital currencies that we like to endlessly discuss, while "Bitcoin" (proper noun) refers to our favourite instance of that class :)

The word "bitcoin" (common noun) refers to the class of currency tokens exchanged on the Bitcoin network. I could name one of my bitcoins "Henry" if I wanted to refer to that bitcoin specifically.

To answer your question, when we say "Bitcoin network" we mean the specific network of miners and nodes that are building the Bitcoin blockchain, and so we capitalize (it's a proper noun). Similarly, when we say "Bitcoin blockchain" we refer to the specific blockchain that starts with the Satoshi genesis block and contains more proof-of-work than any other competing chain, and so it is also capitalized. (One could argue that it should actually be "Bitcoin Network" and "Bitcoin Blockchain," as both terms could be considered proper nouns in their own right).
 

Bagatell

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
728
1,192
"The European Council seeks to [URL='http://derstandard.at/2000049837956/EU-Rat-fordert-Registrierung-von-Bitcoin-Usern']introduce an anti-terrorism measure that will ensure a stricter handling on cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, Litecoin, and Ripple. If the motion gets accepted by the heads of state and the governments of the member countries, the listed currencies will be managed by the EU Anti-Money Laundering Directive."[/URL]
https://www.deepdotweb.com/2017/01/06/eu-council-requests-registration-bitcoin-users/
https://www.deepdotweb.com/2017/01/06/eu-council-requests-registration-bitcoin-users/
 

Mengerian

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 29, 2015
536
2,597
The block size limit is acting as a hobble on Bitcoin price.

There's a strange concept appearing with increasing regularity that rapid price rises are harmful to Bitcoin, and thus anything that prevents rapid rises is good. For example Vinny Lingham seems to be weaving this narrative:

The reasoning goes like this:
- If Bitcoin is to be used as a currency, it should be less volatile.
- Rapid price rises are volatile.
- Hobbling transaction throughput limits rapid price rises.
- Therefore limiting transaction throughput makes it more likely Bitcoin will be used as a currency.

Of course this line of reasoning is crazy, as limiting transaction throughput directly harms the properties that would make Bitcoin useful as money.

Bitcoin is like a stallion that wants to run free. We just need to remove the hobble!

 

Zangelbert Bingledack

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2015
1,485
5,585
That's such a pathetic narrative if that's the one they're going with, but based on some things Greg has said I think he may endorse it. The point was proven to everyone's satisfaction years ago that volatility can't be avoided in a binary bet.

The best short way to get someone to relent on this point is, I think, is to ask the person to draw a line showing how the price gets to $1 million from here without volatility. The exercise makes it immediately obvious it can't be done.
 

lunar

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,001
4,290
I can't help thinking all this talk of implementing Segwit on Litecoin first, is just the latest stalling point.

Lets see how it goes, they say.... I mean obviously it will be fine, if it is the trojan that it seems to be, with its 29 parallel soft forks, then it stands to reason nothing will go wrong as the intention would be to morph Bitcoin not Litecoin. Those that have designed this, will just not push anything underhand. Then after 6 months they can say "See everything is fine, lets do it on Bitcoin"

The problem I have is with the initial logic. Is as Philosoraptor might say:

If the idea is to try out something risky on another coin first? Then why try the compromised Soft fork instead of a cleaner Hard fork?

Time frame 6 months for activation and dependency updates, 6 months for a control period, and a final few months to activate on bitcoin.... never ending bikshedding.

BS Core must realise they are burning reputation with every passing week. To me It feels like a controlled slowburn to delay the inevitable for as long as physically possible?
 

Mengerian

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 29, 2015
536
2,597
@lunar, Yes, the small blockers have proved themselves experts at stalling, by many means.

To counter this, we have to be unusually persistent, and not lose patience.

There will be setbacks along the way, we can't let them discourage us. Just keep advancing, building the BU project, writing code, making our case, growing node by node, hash by hash.