4 ms·

> This is true for every single currency ever and so doesn't make sense to invoke strictly for this one It does, actually because the large holders of fiat cur

> This is true for every single currency ever and so doesn't make sense to invoke strictly for this one It does, actually because the large holders of fiat currencies are governments. Their holdings are public. El Salvador can atleast identify, talk to and negotiate with them. They are at least somewhat transparent and accountable to their own citizens. The large holders of BTC are completely unknown. You morons are empowering a global mafia. We don't know who they are, they have zero accountability to anyone but themselves. Please wake the fuck up, this is not about number go up, you are fucking with global politics without even knowing it, happily complicit because it makes you money. In a decade, holding crypto will be a black stain on your soul like holding shares in the East India Company or giving money to dictators.

gruez 5y ago
>The large holders of BTC are completely unknown. You morons are empowering a global mafia. Are you suggesting that "the large holders of BTC" are part of a criminal organization? > We don't know who they are, they have zero accountability to anyone but themselves. Less accountability, less control. Bitcoin holders are just that, holders. They don't control the network or the monetary policy. The fed on the other hand can print money as it pleases.
- zaptheimpaler 5y ago
  > Are you suggesting that "the large holders of BTC" are part of a criminal organization? No, i’m saying whoever they are, they have unchecked power. Which, historically leads to evil. Which is why we created democracy in the first place. Most bitcoin holders have little power, but bitcoin miners absolutely do control the network. 30% of the capacity of bitcoin went down when there was a power outage in China. It only takes a few large holders to control the network. Bitcoin mining is extremely energy and capital intensive. Whoever holds the electricity & equipment holds the power. It is only transferring power from democratic governments to whatever shadowy figures happen to be able to generate the most electricity. Its not going to be you or me, it will be an informal, shifting, unaccountable cartel of whatever countries happen to ally and form a >50% control of mining capacity. This fantasy story about decentralized power is false. Many terrible regimes begin with promises of utopia.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >but bitcoin miners absolutely do control the network. Again, what type of control? They can determine what gets confirmed and possibly revert transactions (at great expense, given enough confirmations), but they can't affect monetary policy.
    - zaptheimpaler 5y ago
      That's already a lot of control no? They can block any transaction. They can create and confirm fraudulent transactions. In a world where BTC is on par with any other currency, where people are paid and save in BTC, what would it look like if they decide to rob someone and the network has to fork? In economic terms, it would be identical to previous cases of the currency being destroyed. For example, when El Salvador originally dollarized and people lost half their purchasing power overnight.
      - gruez 5y ago
        >They can block any transaction Not exactly. Any miner can arbitrarily exclude transactions from the blocks they're working on, but that won't do much because it can still be confirmed via another miner. To full censor transactions you need to perform a 51% attack, ie. form a cartel of miners controlling 51+% of the hashpower, and refusing to build on top of other miner's blocks. such attacks would be plainly visible, cause the network to slow down (because hashing power is halved), and would decrease confidence in the network (which is the cost that miner pays for doing it). >They can create and confirm fraudulent transactions. No they can't. Confirming fraudulent transactions (ie. ones with invalid signatures) would produce invalid blocks that are rejected by the rest of the network. >what would it look like if they decide to rob someone and the network has to fork I doubt this will occur. The precedence for this exists in ethereum (ie. DAO hack), but not in bitcoin. >In economic terms, it would be identical to previous cases of the currency being destroyed. That happens in fiat demonetizations (eg. india) because the old currency is deemed worthless and you must exchange your old currency for new ones (via official channels and subject to arbitrary limits, of course). In contrast this doesn't happen with forks because you end up owning coins on both sides of the fork.
krageon 5y ago
> You morons This is not a very wise way to phrase your argumentation if you want me to engage with what you're saying.

gruez 5y ago

>The large holders of BTC are completely unknown. You morons are empowering a global mafia. Are you suggesting that "the large holders of BTC" are part of a criminal organization? > We don't know who they are, they have zero accountability to anyone but themselves. Less accountability, less control. Bitcoin holders are just that, holders. They don't control the network or the monetary policy. The fed on the other hand can print money as it pleases.

zaptheimpaler 5y ago
> Are you suggesting that "the large holders of BTC" are part of a criminal organization? No, i’m saying whoever they are, they have unchecked power. Which, historically leads to evil. Which is why we created democracy in the first place. Most bitcoin holders have little power, but bitcoin miners absolutely do control the network. 30% of the capacity of bitcoin went down when there was a power outage in China. It only takes a few large holders to control the network. Bitcoin mining is extremely energy and capital intensive. Whoever holds the electricity & equipment holds the power. It is only transferring power from democratic governments to whatever shadowy figures happen to be able to generate the most electricity. Its not going to be you or me, it will be an informal, shifting, unaccountable cartel of whatever countries happen to ally and form a >50% control of mining capacity. This fantasy story about decentralized power is false. Many terrible regimes begin with promises of utopia.
- gruez 5y ago
  >but bitcoin miners absolutely do control the network. Again, what type of control? They can determine what gets confirmed and possibly revert transactions (at great expense, given enough confirmations), but they can't affect monetary policy.
  - zaptheimpaler 5y ago
    That's already a lot of control no? They can block any transaction. They can create and confirm fraudulent transactions. In a world where BTC is on par with any other currency, where people are paid and save in BTC, what would it look like if they decide to rob someone and the network has to fork? In economic terms, it would be identical to previous cases of the currency being destroyed. For example, when El Salvador originally dollarized and people lost half their purchasing power overnight.
    - gruez 5y ago
      >They can block any transaction Not exactly. Any miner can arbitrarily exclude transactions from the blocks they're working on, but that won't do much because it can still be confirmed via another miner. To full censor transactions you need to perform a 51% attack, ie. form a cartel of miners controlling 51+% of the hashpower, and refusing to build on top of other miner's blocks. such attacks would be plainly visible, cause the network to slow down (because hashing power is halved), and would decrease confidence in the network (which is the cost that miner pays for doing it). >They can create and confirm fraudulent transactions. No they can't. Confirming fraudulent transactions (ie. ones with invalid signatures) would produce invalid blocks that are rejected by the rest of the network. >what would it look like if they decide to rob someone and the network has to fork I doubt this will occur. The precedence for this exists in ethereum (ie. DAO hack), but not in bitcoin. >In economic terms, it would be identical to previous cases of the currency being destroyed. That happens in fiat demonetizations (eg. india) because the old currency is deemed worthless and you must exchange your old currency for new ones (via official channels and subject to arbitrary limits, of course). In contrast this doesn't happen with forks because you end up owning coins on both sides of the fork.

krageon 5y ago

> You morons This is not a very wise way to phrase your argumentation if you want me to engage with what you're saying.