3 ms·

I can explain a few points for a long term view. Bitcoin is a protocol, primarily, as well as an ecosystem, a unit of account and a new paradigm in digital val

I can explain a few points for a long term view. Bitcoin is a protocol, primarily, as well as an ecosystem, a unit of account and a new paradigm in digital value transfer. The cryptoeconomic model is to create new coins every 10 minutes until the year 2140. The energy committed to protect the ledger is unmatched, and thus it is the most secure. 8 Million of the 18M coins that exist moved in the last year. I don't think the concentration is quite what people believe. As the years go on, there are less and less large holders. Everyone gets antsy when seeing large swings to their savings. The development philosophy is one of caution, of incremental and well tested changes. "Only soft forks", as opposed to forced consensus changes by developers (EIP1559 comes mind). Radical changes are rejected and even small upgrades take time to stick. This is a good thing, as the base layer of money needs to be simple, work reliably and be very secure. I only trust a peer to peer monetary network that I can run myself. Most newer 'next generation' blockchains are for datacenters only. Being able to run a full Bitcoin Core node will remain within the reach of most users for quite some time, hopefully forever. Inflation is a pressing concern for all countries and people right now. The 'Bitcoin Standard' scenario seems like less of fantasy in 2021. And this is still the beginning, we are quite early!

_Nat_ 5y ago
But why not a random Bitcoin clone? I mean, we all get why folks with a lot of Bitcoin want it to be adopted: they'd get rich. The problem for everyone else is that they'd be the ones subsidizing that wealth. Which the majority could avoid by just adopting an alt-coin instead. So why Bitcoin, specifically? This is, in Bitcoin's ideal scenario where it would win out globally and everyone would love it -- even in that extreme case -- why would everyone use Bitcoin instead of starting a new block-chain where they'd get more personal wealth? Are Bitcoin-HODL'ers basically just praying that the majority of the world's population would just be oblivious to that possibility, choosing to instead buy into Bitcoin at their own loss out of sheer ignorance? (Sorry if that sounds dismissive, just, it seems so far-fetched to me; I don't get belief-system behind it.)
- rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
  Ahh. Its the energy consumed and security provided by Proof of Work. Anyone can fork the bitcoin source code. (thousands have). Anyone can fork the ethereum source code (handfuls have, and some are quite successful so far: BNB, AVAX, MATIC and TRON are all examples of this). Proof of stake is a scam, and reinvents oligarchies, and introduces systemic censorship and consensus enforcement risks. You can't clone Bitcoin, the network, the users or the ecosystem.
brightstep 5y ago
The majority of bitcoin movement happens on exchanges, and there's good evidence that a large proportion of exchange transactions are just wash sales, aka people transferring funds to themselves
ac29 5y ago
> And this is still the beginning, we are quite early! I've never understood this argument. Bitcoin's first software release is just shy of 13 years ago now, and the whitepaper and related discussions were even before that. That's an enormous amount of time in the technology world. As a comparison, the first iPhone came out 14 years ago, and 13 years before that, you could still buy a brand new Apple II from Apple.
- rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
  iPhone is a product. Bitcoin is a protocol, a meme, a way of life (?). "Internet" is TCP/IP. It is a protocol, a meme, and a way of life. TCP/IP was invented in 1983. SMTP was invented in 1981. The way we TCP/IP and SMTP are used today would be impossible to predict for their inventors. 13 years ain't much in protocol terms :-)
  - maccolgan 5y ago
    Internet isn't TCP though, it's _just_ IP, and there's two internets, some computers have access to one, or the other, or both.

_Nat_ 5y ago

But why not a random Bitcoin clone? I mean, we all get why folks with a lot of Bitcoin want it to be adopted: they'd get rich. The problem for everyone else is that they'd be the ones subsidizing that wealth. Which the majority could avoid by just adopting an alt-coin instead. So why Bitcoin, specifically? This is, in Bitcoin's ideal scenario where it would win out globally and everyone would love it -- even in that extreme case -- why would everyone use Bitcoin instead of starting a new block-chain where they'd get more personal wealth? Are Bitcoin-HODL'ers basically just praying that the majority of the world's population would just be oblivious to that possibility, choosing to instead buy into Bitcoin at their own loss out of sheer ignorance? (Sorry if that sounds dismissive, just, it seems so far-fetched to me; I don't get belief-system behind it.)

rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
Ahh. Its the energy consumed and security provided by Proof of Work. Anyone can fork the bitcoin source code. (thousands have). Anyone can fork the ethereum source code (handfuls have, and some are quite successful so far: BNB, AVAX, MATIC and TRON are all examples of this). Proof of stake is a scam, and reinvents oligarchies, and introduces systemic censorship and consensus enforcement risks. You can't clone Bitcoin, the network, the users or the ecosystem.

brightstep 5y ago

The majority of bitcoin movement happens on exchanges, and there's good evidence that a large proportion of exchange transactions are just wash sales, aka people transferring funds to themselves

ac29 5y ago

> And this is still the beginning, we are quite early! I've never understood this argument. Bitcoin's first software release is just shy of 13 years ago now, and the whitepaper and related discussions were even before that. That's an enormous amount of time in the technology world. As a comparison, the first iPhone came out 14 years ago, and 13 years before that, you could still buy a brand new Apple II from Apple.

rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
iPhone is a product. Bitcoin is a protocol, a meme, a way of life (?). "Internet" is TCP/IP. It is a protocol, a meme, and a way of life. TCP/IP was invented in 1983. SMTP was invented in 1981. The way we TCP/IP and SMTP are used today would be impossible to predict for their inventors. 13 years ain't much in protocol terms :-)
- maccolgan 5y ago
  Internet isn't TCP though, it's _just_ IP, and there's two internets, some computers have access to one, or the other, or both.