3 ms·

How on earth does having an ETF changes Bitcoin's capabilities as a payment system?

trompetenaccoun 3y ago
Not in itself, it's just the final nail in the coffin. Bitcoin has been on the digital gold path ever since the blocksize war when those who wanted to get rich and not use it for everyday payments won out. The ETF just further cements this, now big name asset managers are getting in. Many don't know VanEck for example has already announced they will "donate" part of the profits from the ETF to Bitcoin developers. When Wall Street starts funding development, don't you think over short or long they will have influence on the direction the development goes? Money rarely comes with no strings attached.
- rafaelero 3y ago
  I mean, if BTC fails at that then it was never meant to be, I guess. Contrary to you, I am not pessimistic about the project being able to sustain its value as a global payment network backed by a hard and uncensorable coin.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- infamouscow 3y ago
  You're working backwards from an outcome in your head. As of today, that outcome is the farthest away it has ever been. It's irrelevant to bribe Bitcoin developers into changing the software. What Wall Street has to do is bribe all of the Bitcoin node operators living across the globe, often in countries that are sanctioned by the USA. Unless Wall Street can bribe 50% + 1 of the node operators, this point is moot.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- andirk 3y ago
  Whoever it is needs to convince the miners the world around to bend the knee. As you mentioned, even a larger block size was not accepted by the consensus. Then again again, there are a small handful of Bitcoin mining pools that do most of the mining. And one more again. If institutions start adding to their bags, they'll also be incentivized to mine.
- npoc 3y ago
  Node operators will only run changes to bitcoin-core if they believe that they are improvements. Wall Street can pay to have changes made to the github repository, but they won't make it to my node unless I can see a clear necessity for them. If ever changes get accepted by the majority of the network that makes bitcoin a weaker money, then a fork based on an earlier version will gradually grow to beat it.

Not in itself, it's just the final nail in the coffin. Bitcoin has been on the digital gold path ever since the blocksize war when those who wanted to get rich and not use it for everyday payments won out. The ETF just further cements this, now big name asset managers are getting in. Many don't know VanEck for example has already announced they will "donate" part of the profits from the ETF to Bitcoin developers. When Wall Street starts funding development, don't you think over short or long they will have influence on the direction the development goes? Money rarely comes with no strings attached.

rafaelero 3y ago
I mean, if BTC fails at that then it was never meant to be, I guess. Contrary to you, I am not pessimistic about the project being able to sustain its value as a global payment network backed by a hard and uncensorable coin.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
infamouscow 3y ago
You're working backwards from an outcome in your head. As of today, that outcome is the farthest away it has ever been. It's irrelevant to bribe Bitcoin developers into changing the software. What Wall Street has to do is bribe all of the Bitcoin node operators living across the globe, often in countries that are sanctioned by the USA. Unless Wall Street can bribe 50% + 1 of the node operators, this point is moot.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
andirk 3y ago
Whoever it is needs to convince the miners the world around to bend the knee. As you mentioned, even a larger block size was not accepted by the consensus. Then again again, there are a small handful of Bitcoin mining pools that do most of the mining. And one more again. If institutions start adding to their bags, they'll also be incentivized to mine.
npoc 3y ago
Node operators will only run changes to bitcoin-core if they believe that they are improvements. Wall Street can pay to have changes made to the github repository, but they won't make it to my node unless I can see a clear necessity for them. If ever changes get accepted by the majority of the network that makes bitcoin a weaker money, then a fork based on an earlier version will gradually grow to beat it.