3 ms·

>They cannot devalue your token. Actually they can, they can technically just print more BTC by changing the protocol. Also I should remind you, Elon Musk (who

>They cannot devalue your token. Actually they can, they can technically just print more BTC by changing the protocol. Also I should remind you, Elon Musk (who is not even a miner) can devalue your token just by making a few tweets. >There are always other miners that WILL take the money. They can't do this if the other miners force a protocol change through as their blocks will start to get rejected, the only option then is to fork the chain. >The Bitcoin difficulty equation has never changed. The math has not been changed. We have newer tx formats, and a newer signature scheme. We also have complete backwards compat. This doesn't matter, the point is they have the ability to change all of it. Look at any of the bitcoin forks, this has already been done countless times. Saying "this will never happen to BTC" is certainly an opinion you can have, but it's not one based on any kind of objective "math and physics" reality of what they can or can't do. It's an opinion based on trust that they won't change it. You're trusting them to be the sole authority over the network. >Do you really understand this? Yes. Do you understand that all distributed systems have weaknesses and constraints, and are subject to change by their operators? Blockchains are not special here. Please don't trust anyone who designs these kind of systems and isn't forthcoming with a full description of the pros and cons.

randomhodler84 4y ago
There are trade offs. I am acutely aware of them. In other conversations I will freely explain. I also know history, probably better than most on this board. This conversation is about trying to find the crux of your disbelief. The thing is, you and Bruce are not being original in your arguments. Some of the things you have said are absolutely undeniable the truth. I am saying it doesn’t matter. Nothing you have proposed is existential for an internet protocol, you are throwing gotchas that we mostly disregarded years ago. Sometimes, In practise, worse is better.
- hnthrow1010 4y ago
  >I also know history, probably better than most on this board. I should remind you again, past performance is not an indicator of future results. The history might give you clues, but it can't point you to a guarantee of what will happen. >This conversation is about trying to find the crux of your disbelief. If you have an interest in being reasonable, I think you can see how this statement is total nonsense. I don't "believe" or "disbelieve" in anything, this is just the reality of the situation. If you're trying to get me to "believe" in something, that suggests you're putting trust and faith in them and you want me to do the same. A "belief" would be if I was making predictions of when BTC will collapse, or if I was saying it will never collapse. We can guess, but no one can know that for sure. I certainly do hope it collapses, because it is actually a giant fraud based on nothing. It has no value, it has no fundamentals, it is based entirely on the "belief" that you will be able to dump the coins on someone else some day. Yes, I know that government-backed fiat dollars are also technically like this, those are at least based on the local economy remaining stable, the economy that (unlike any cryptocurrency) is absolutely required to keep your farms and food imports running if you personally want to not experience mass famine and death. If BTC collapses, you can't get your money out because it's worthless; if your local economy collapses, you will have a lot worse problems than not being able to take money out of the bank. And no, you cannot remove the need for a local economy by forcing people to transact in cryptocurrency, businesses will just not transact on markets that are too risky for them. >you are throwing gotchas that we mostly disregarded years ago They were not disregarded for any real reasons other than the opinions of the BTC miners and the developers of the protocol. Actually a great many people disagreed with their opinions and thought they were wrong to disregard them, hence the existence of bitcoin forks, and all the other crypto coins that aren't BTC. I unfortunately understand the BTC maxi attitude, but it's not even consistent with its own world; the goal appears to be to dismiss all the other coins as "shitcoins" for disregarding certain issues with the network in favor of profits, despite that BTC has exactly the same fundamentals and also disregards a lot of issues with the network in favor of profits.

randomhodler84 4y ago

There are trade offs. I am acutely aware of them. In other conversations I will freely explain. I also know history, probably better than most on this board. This conversation is about trying to find the crux of your disbelief. The thing is, you and Bruce are not being original in your arguments. Some of the things you have said are absolutely undeniable the truth. I am saying it doesn’t matter. Nothing you have proposed is existential for an internet protocol, you are throwing gotchas that we mostly disregarded years ago. Sometimes, In practise, worse is better.

hnthrow1010 4y ago
>I also know history, probably better than most on this board. I should remind you again, past performance is not an indicator of future results. The history might give you clues, but it can't point you to a guarantee of what will happen. >This conversation is about trying to find the crux of your disbelief. If you have an interest in being reasonable, I think you can see how this statement is total nonsense. I don't "believe" or "disbelieve" in anything, this is just the reality of the situation. If you're trying to get me to "believe" in something, that suggests you're putting trust and faith in them and you want me to do the same. A "belief" would be if I was making predictions of when BTC will collapse, or if I was saying it will never collapse. We can guess, but no one can know that for sure. I certainly do hope it collapses, because it is actually a giant fraud based on nothing. It has no value, it has no fundamentals, it is based entirely on the "belief" that you will be able to dump the coins on someone else some day. Yes, I know that government-backed fiat dollars are also technically like this, those are at least based on the local economy remaining stable, the economy that (unlike any cryptocurrency) is absolutely required to keep your farms and food imports running if you personally want to not experience mass famine and death. If BTC collapses, you can't get your money out because it's worthless; if your local economy collapses, you will have a lot worse problems than not being able to take money out of the bank. And no, you cannot remove the need for a local economy by forcing people to transact in cryptocurrency, businesses will just not transact on markets that are too risky for them. >you are throwing gotchas that we mostly disregarded years ago They were not disregarded for any real reasons other than the opinions of the BTC miners and the developers of the protocol. Actually a great many people disagreed with their opinions and thought they were wrong to disregard them, hence the existence of bitcoin forks, and all the other crypto coins that aren't BTC. I unfortunately understand the BTC maxi attitude, but it's not even consistent with its own world; the goal appears to be to dismiss all the other coins as "shitcoins" for disregarding certain issues with the network in favor of profits, despite that BTC has exactly the same fundamentals and also disregards a lot of issues with the network in favor of profits.