throwaway248329

7 ms·

1.
by throwaway248329 5y ago
Governments have literally genocided, sent to concentration camps, tortured, experimented on millions of people more than a few times just in the past 100 years. Of course they can ban Bitcoin lol. The only question is the extent to which t
2.
by throwaway248329 5y ago
This was before they got a new owner.
3.
by throwaway248329 5y ago
Nah, another shitcoin that is run as a startup with a large premine.
4.
by throwaway248329 5y ago
99% of all crypto companies are scams looking pump the price and sell their premine. Bitcoin is the only crypto that matters.
5.
by throwaway248329 5y ago
Yes. See https://wasabiwallet.io/
6.
by throwaway248329 5y ago
The amount of trust will be limited to trusting that the bank is showing your balance correctly and that nobody stole their SSL keys.
7.
by throwaway248329 5y ago
You can't have freedom of speech without freedom of wealth. The more Money is controlled by the government, the more it will be able to censor opposition and incentivize loyalism.
8.
by throwaway248329 5y ago
That's a good thing. Having an established governance process would be an attack vector.
9.
by throwaway248329 5y ago
How exactly was it derailed? Creators of 2X stopped the fork because it was clear that majority of users were against it and that miners would be forced to mine it at their expense.
10.
by throwaway248329 5y ago
Governments would try to borrow more, but would there be enough willing lenders? The endgame is forcing governments to be more fiscally conservative and generally less bloated.
11.
by throwaway248329 5y ago
No, individual users decide the outcome of a hard fork. Coinbase, BitGo, Bitmain all tried to force Bitcoin to use larger blocks because that would've gave them more power, and look where we are.
12.
by throwaway248329 5y ago
Yes, but as long as some miners stay on the old chain, it will live. Hard fork also requires the users to switch to that new client, otherwise they won't be able to accept the new blocks from the forked chain.
13.
by throwaway248329 5y ago
Sure, it's possible that the wealth disparity rise happened for other reasons, not related with gold standard. However, I can still look at those charts and say that the gold standard does not harm the poor the way you imply it does.
14.
by throwaway248329 5y ago
Changing the miner subsidy amount would require a hard-fork, so the chain would split in two chains with a shared history, the original with only 21M coins and the new chain without the cap. And once that happens, it would be in everyone&#x
15.
by throwaway248329 5y ago
Yes. The governments would still be able to borrow, but they won't be able to do it in an unchecked manner. Since the lender would know that they are not guaranteed to get their money back at the expense of the borrower country's
16.
by throwaway248329 5y ago
Sure, I'm not "forced" to buy real estate, but I think it's fair to say that I'm forced to invest and buy speculative assets, otherwise my savings will slowly melt away. And of course I also don't think that on
17.
by throwaway248329 5y ago
>If it "makes sense to you" that the lack of Gold Standard is the real reason workers are poor, it probably helps to consider that workers were much poorer for the vast majority of human history with a Gold Standard... That doe
18.
by throwaway248329 5y ago
True. Although their control of money supply would be limited, and they would lose some part of that control every time they decide to "increase" the money supply.
19.
by throwaway248329 5y ago
The difference is that without fiat currency, the government can't inflate it's currency to pay off the debts. At the very least it means that the population does not have the risk of their savings becoming worthless anymore, and
20.
by throwaway248329 5y ago
No, that's literally not how it works. Read the article I linked. Even if the cabal of miners decided to make a change in the protocol and print themselves bunch of free coins, those mined blocks would get rejected by the full nodes, w
21.
by throwaway248329 5y ago
Do you disagree that real estate is used as a hedge against inflation, which artificially increases the prices? And you can call "lack of Gold Standard is the real reason workers are poor" an astroturf, but it's something tha
22.
by throwaway248329 5y ago
It doesn't mean that governments are going to be funded by crypto whales, it just means that government spending will be kept on check and limited by the amount of money they can tax from people. Politicians not being able to fund wars
23.
by throwaway248329 5y ago
> With Bitcoin, the community that controls the money supply is not at all democratic; it is the early adopters with large holdings that carry all the weight. The mechanism according to which Bitcoin upgrades has nothing to do with decis
24.
by throwaway248329 5y ago
Miners can't do anything outside of what is already allowed by the Bitcoin protocol. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin_is_not_ruled_by_miners
25.
by throwaway248329 5y ago
The workers, unlike capitlists, earn a fixed salary. Inflation makes this salary have increasingly less buying power. This way workers are forced to negotiate a raise every year just to keep up with inflation and don't become poorer. S
26.
by throwaway248329 5y ago
Shouldn't the use of double hashing also delay it? Bitcoin blocks are hashed as SHA256(SHA256(x)).
27.
by throwaway248329 5y ago
No, it only includes on-chain transactions. Average daily Bitcoin trading volume over past 3 months on exchanges was $36 bln, according to Yahoo Finance. https://finance.yahoo.com/u/yahoo-finance/watchlists/cr
28.
by throwaway248329 5y ago
Wash trading happens on exchanges, not on-chain.
29.
by throwaway248329 5y ago
Any other reason why you would move $200 worth of BTC? I've only ever done such transactions when I was making purchases with it.
30.
by throwaway248329 5y ago
You need a false implication for a non sequitur. I didn't imply anything.

More ›