Bitcoin maximalist here AMA

Bitcoin maximalist here AMA

Attached: Bulgarian-Bitcoin-Horde-01-Header-2060x1133.jpg (2060x1133, 167K)

Other urls found in this thread:

sooooo щe бyтaмe ли дъpжaвaтa или нe ?

I just got it from Google m8

bitcoin is shitcoin, as it is not fungible.

only crypto that will make it is the fungible one.

Drivechain will enable Monero as a sidechain to Bitcoin.

When did you realize you were gay?

I am actually not

I distinguish between two varieties of BTC maximalism.
The first simply states that BTC will continue to function as the native reserve asset of the entire crypto space, and continue the Keynesian beauty contest dynamic of being the strongest store of value. I think this is true.
The second variety is the belief that the BTC chain can and should be the basis of all crypto protocols and services, implemented torturously as pegged sidechains, drivechains, coloured coins etc. I think this is beyond delusional and I laugh heartily in the face of anyone who thinks this will seriously happen.

Yeah, I tend to agree and I've always been a bitcoin maximalist of the first variety. I don't think crypto can survive without Bitcoin surviving. It's time-tested and has the hashing power of a medium-sized country securing it.

It's already happening. LN is live on mannet, RSK mainnet beta is out, Monero is joining on MimbleWimble development, and everyone is working. You act like there's some like there's some kind of competition?

Crypto can't survive with Bitcoin surviving either. Crypto is dying.

e кaк нe

I agree with the first also. The digital gold meme may actually be true.

So you believe bitcoin will be world reserve currency? I do. Its just difficult to grasp, sometimes

I need to read the RSK whitepaper already. I thought the stated intention of Monero’s MimbleWimble development was to implement it as a sidechain on Monero itself? Poelstra gave up long ago on getting BTC integration, and decided to go it alone; if GRIN succeeds I still can’t see it being used on BTC. Monero has regular hardforks so they can do whatever they want, whereas BTC needs full cooperation of miners to do anything.

It doesn't even have to be world reserve currency for it to go 100k, all it has to do is replace 10% of assets in offshore accounts.

It'll also be the only coin left, the basis of a new infrastructure, and the foundation of a decentralized revolution.

Agree but my paranoid self worries about the following: when the crypto market absorbs the forex/securities market, which countries will demonize and fight it?

Bitcoin CASH

Drivechain is complete farce and pipe dream.

Crypto currency without cryptographic anonymity proof is useless.

Only purpose of bitcoin is to buy shitcoin. Shitcoin that has anonymity or some specialized one.

BTC is a cash out token. Cash money in hand does more than BTC.

>I thought the stated intention of Monero’s MimbleWimble development was to implement it as a sidechain on Monero itself?
No, silly. Monero will join Bitcoin as a sidechain to strengthen the Bitcoin protocol and weaken alts that damage the environment. Monero never belonged among any of the altcoins.

In 2031 a coffe in berlin will be one satoshi
Either that or a monthly subscription to the place will be a satoshi

Too late for that. Szabo is already working with investment bankers to put financial instruments on the blockchain.

this is why BTC will fail. only 8 decimals. master race ETH has 18 and anticipated this problem.

Source? That’s not what I’ve read in any of the Monero research proposals.

If you followed the landscape, you'd know Riccardo Spagni and Blockstream work together against the alts market

You are a moron.

The alts are the reason BTC was pumped.

The alts are the solution to the scaling problem.

You don't have 1 planet sized creature. You have 100 billion small creatures.

And finally just consider this. Who wins if BTC is the only chain ? The people ? or the BTC speculators ?

Competition is what guarantees fair trade. BTC is dead, its only purpose is settlement lair for the exchanges. And the objective of the exchanges is the ALTS.

BTC is model A ford. It will be worth something in 50 - 100 years

Why would they announce it in a research proposal? It's a fairly recent unofficial proposal and people already talking about it e.g.

There's no other realistic alternative for Monero, and Monero team is a good team. They won't die, but they'll join Bitcoin

Attached: 2018-03-26-211759_700x523_scrot.png (700x523, 68K)

and... BTC dies when there are FIAT pairs for all the coins. That will be the end end of it.

That was painful to read. BTC scales via LN which is live on mainnet. Your post is dumb and you have no idea what's happening.

that sure is great that ETH anticipated a problem it will never have

would be better if they anticipated any of the hundreds of problems they did have over the last 3 years, DAO hack and hundreds of bugs locking money in smart contracts or even the recent one that allowed users to take unlimited ETH from coinbase were great

All I know is I do not want to OWN any BTC.

Will chainklink Moon?

Ethereum has been a scam from the beginning, and all it ever did was damage the space via ICOs. No premined scams will survive

No one cares bud, go buy some Nano

LN is a meme. It's useless as a scaling solution.

I am buying zcoin.

Go buy some beetkoins. Like 0.00000000000021 looks great.

Obviously not. Oracles will be sidechains to Bitcoin:

>implying BTC scales.
>thinking LN is the reason for scaling.

read the LN whitepaper bro, it even states they require 133mb blocks.

BTC isn't getting another hardfork buddy. No more upgrades until it becomes obsolete.
Miners can easily veto all changes and If another 'UASF' attempt occurs, that just means the BTC community splits once again, and where do you think a chunk of that hashing power will switch to?

There's only one other chain that uses the same Proof of work

Drivechain and other off-chain solutions are pipedreams. Satoshi envisioned a future in which everyone could be their own bank. That means having control of your funds. With LN you do not have control over your funds (you can in fact lose them very easily at the moment!).

In the distant future Bitcoin will be tamed by Forex, much like how they tamed silver and gold. This will make Bitcoin a good storage of wealth.

Monero will be the global cryptocurrency and any other non-private coin that wishes to survive will have to facilitate in on-chain atomic swaps with Monero to obtain their fungibility.

DNMs are rapidly adopting Monero and ditching Bitcoin and other cryptos. Merchant adoption for Bitcoin is shrinking as it is not a viable method of payment. Bitcoin obtains it's value mainly from it's anti-fragile nature and having the longest chain of all cryptocurrencies.

I’ve read that guy’s site in depth, in fact its my go-to example of the second type of maximalism.
BTC simply does not have the ability to coordinate upgrades that would allow trustless implementation of sidechains, and its ability to coordinate gets worse every year.
I think Ethereum has already established that ‘premine or no’, people will use it if the tech is there, and this empirical outcome trumps conjecture to the contrary.
I am sympathetic to arguments about BTC distribution being maximally ‘fair’, but to all but the early adopters, there is zero difference between a ‘fair distribution’ that they own none of, and a ‘premine scam’ that they own none of, so they will put their effort and capital into the one with the better technology and long term potential.

But user, LN had 3 implementations, it's live on mainnet, and you can already use it e.g.

Zcoin is a joke much like any coin based on Zerocoin or Zerocash

>they require 133mb blocks.
>Bcash-tier understanding of tech
It's time to let it go

Similarly, arguments about proof of stake are subject to empirical Di’s confirmation. What happens when a highly capitalised PoS network successfully runs for years without being subject to long-range attacks? Because I believe it will happen, so get ready for that outcome.

In the end, the most straightforward solution in that event would be to airdrop tokens for whatever platform ends up demonstrating its technological superiority (I believe this will be Tezos) out of the reserve to BTC holders so the whales will shut up and stop trying to force round pegs into the square hole of BTC.

Autocorrect, should read: empirical disconfirmation

>Drivechain and other off-chain solutions are pipedreams. Satoshi envisioned a future in which everyone could be their own bank. That means having control of your funds. With LN you do not have control over your funds (you can in fact lose them very easily at the moment!).
LN deposit is your wallet when you spend money for small transcations. In case you didn't realise, the UTXO set for your balance is still stored on the blockchain

Also Monero and Bitcoin are in the same team. Few other coins as well i.e. the non-scam coins

Exactly what scammer would say.

hey hey hey, it is not a scam.

>BTC simply does not have the ability to coordinate upgrades that would allow trustless implementation of sidechains, and its ability to coordinate gets worse every year.
That's simply not true. The internet is built on TCP/IP and everyone thought it'll be impossible to build today's protocols. Same engineers are working on Bitcoin today, because it's the most important project happening right now. Also, Bitcoin has been coordinating better than ever recently.

> they will put their effort and capital into the one with the better technology and long term potential.
So obviously Bitcoin? There's no project on the "blockchain" with comparable dev power or VC funding. Vitalik already proved Ethereum cannot be trusted and their governance is broken.

>run successful for years
Come on user. You're doubting Bitcoin, but you're defending the Ethereum mess?

Attached: SjThNJS.jpg (576x259, 20K)

Hmmm, this reminds me of what nocoiners said every year about Bitcoin

All the genius cryptographers in the world can’t make a difference unless they have the ability to push through upgrades, so their effort is wasted implementing Rube Goldberg schemes on top of BTC. What Bitmain wants, Bitmain gets.

The comparison to TCP/IP is telling. It’s a shitty protocol that is barely fit for purpose, shackled to old design decisions that can never be changed, BUT it was possible to successfully paper over its flaws through sheer brute bandwidth, enabling the advanced uses that we now have. No such mechanism is available to BTC.

Not what I said. Ethereum is fundamentally broken for different reasons, but the mechanism of technical debt is similar. Proof-of-Vitalik is obviously flawed.

I said to watch for a PoS network to run in the wild and successfully avoid attacks such as long-range blockchain attacks, because this would represent empirical disconfirmation of a conjectured weakness, and once those cards fall, the dynamic of the supposed necessity of a massive PoW scheme for security will change.

On-chain governance is coming, and it has the potential to avoid both proof-of-Vitalik chicanery, and the quagmire of miner-anarchism.

hahahahaha oh god you're right though
all these kids...
>buh buh but my nano is instant and feeless
it was a scam from the start and you got left holding bags kiddos
if you want instant and feeless buy iota

Hey me too.

the Bitcoin Threat Model does a great job of dispelling all the myths around how bitcoin might fall or be displaced. It examines every conceivable threat to Bitcoin, including that of altcoins

well worth a read

Attached: Capture.png (652x657, 62K)

I'm a tech maximalist. In the world of cryptocurrency, bitcoin is not the "best tech"... its the only tech. The one everyone copies, the one everyone wants to destroy, the one every other value is referenced from.

It just happens that both Bitmain and Core want the same thing: for Bitcoin to succeed. Ironically, if Szabo died, I would lose my faith in Bitcoin to succeed in any meaningful way. I am 100% convinced he was the one who spearheaded the opposition to block size, and he's the only one with the authority, integrity, and mental capacity to lead Bitcoin vision. Back when the block size debate was happening I remember him saying in an interview that this is a civil war with Gavin leading a 51% attack and Bitcoin will use all its security features to defend itself. I'm sure this is very stressful for him, and he's the trusted third party whose disappearance makes Bitcoin vulnerable to all the predators around bitcoin: Bitmain, alts, government, etc.

TCP/IP is a comparison that shows a worse case. I'm sure the Bitcoin ecosystem will thrive despite its challenges. There's quite a bit of funding, there are passionate people, and enough momentum to get this working.

Ethereum is the only coin that has any kind of traction and is supposed to go PoS. Any other shitcoin doing PoS is irrelevant. Dan Larimer has launched 3 dPoS shitcoins and no one cares. All serious devs go to Bitcoin. PoS won't change anything at all. It's too little too late. On chain governance is far, far away. DAOs are a joke. By the time we get there, everything will be on top of Bitcoin

>"Digital assets benfeit from network effects for adoption"
Yeah, like ICOs make the entire space look like scam?
>PoW is mandatory
>Government not even on that website
The biggest threat is that Szabo dies and no one has any fucking idea what they're doing, what's the vision, what's the direction, and how not to get manipulated by government. You leave a bunch of deluded nerds who have no understanding of economics and politics, and the whole movement will be dead.

Is this a joke? Blockstream created the altcoin market by refusing to increase the block size and turning btc into an unusable piece of crap. Even a shitcoin like eth has more usability than btc at this point at least ypu can send transfers and run icos. Btc otoh is completely useless at this point. Nice store of value that crashes 70 % in a week lel.

But sure LN is gonna fix everything. Offchain transactions on a highly centealized second layer will bring in the decentralized revolution lmao

BTC transfers are like 1 sat/byte right now. A couple of alts will join Bitcoin, the rest will die

>You leave a bunch of deluded nerds who have no understanding of economics and politics, and the whole movement will be dead.
>implyibg that hasnt already happened when axa / rothschild bought out blockstream

Nope, Bitcoin is still following its initial direction very well. Partnerships are important when you have someone that understands what can be compromised and what cannot be. Bitcoin has a big vision, and you don't get there being an anarchist 12 year old that shouts fuck the banks XDD

The document does cover government threats. Any time he uses the word "attacker" or "criminal organization", replace with "government" and the meaning remains unchanged.

>BTC transfers are like 1 sat/byte right now

Becausr nobody uses this piece of shit for transactions anymore. During the runuo to 20 it became literally unusable and that will happen again if/when it goes on another run. LN was promised years ago and is still not even close to a functional solution. Its almost as if these bankers who pay blockstreams salary have no interest in a scalable btc and cripple its growth wherever they can hmm really makes you think

>talks about muh decentralized revolution
>sees nothing wrong with a centralized second layer that will be entirely run by banks

Youre full of shit just like every other bitcoin core maximalist

Szabo is MyGuy also, and I was very interested to see him follow Sergey/ChainLink. I think he cares about the success of smart contracts just as much as the success of bitcoin/cryptocurrency, and he’s seemingly not opposed to blockchain-agnostic systems like ChainLink instead of BTC oracles (which again, depend on sidechains that cannot be trustlessly implemented without changes to the core protocol).

On chain governance is not however a pipe dream, it will be fielded and tested this year.

That document is just a silly waste of time from a manchild. Still partially good that people involve themselves in Bitcoin, but there's nothing of substance there besides embarrassing everyone

lightning is not centralized and there's no evidence that it'll be "run by the banks" outside of your Bilderberg conspiracy theories you heard on Alex Jones

Just since no one has derailed this interesting conversation yet - what do you maximalists see as btc price in future?

I am a btc fan in that I wish I had 1) only ever bought btc and 2) never traded that btc for any other coin.

ALL of my losses have been from doing that. I regret ever touching my original bitcoin, it really is the king. I am struggling with the urge to gamble away the little I have left, through alts, to try and recoup some losses.

I, myself, am not sure that btc will see an ATH from here, and think that it may well be perma-cucked well under 15k from now on. How do you feel about that? If I believed btc would meet some of the wilder price expectations, I would never worry about just holding it from here on out.

You're all over the place and have no idea what you're saying

well, the author has a bounty of $50k if you can find five inaccuracies. If he's so wrong, go and collect.

Its good to see you alt fags finally learning your lesson. bitcoin is the only nonshitcoin not bcash faggots Bitcoin.

Will markets ever recover or this the end of everything? Should I sell all crypto and enter the DJIA

>lightning is not centralized

LN hubs need liquidity and who has liquidity you dummy?
I tell you who, banks

>muh conspiracy theory

are you implying axa and rothschild have not invested in blockstream?
because I can dig up the sources if you want

Lightning will be pretty centralized, Bitcoin will power banks, and third layer solutions will use fractional reserves. Deal with it

It's called Bitcoin. Every time some pre pubescent edgelord retard says Bitcoin core every adult in the room rolls their eyes

>price predictions

AXA and Rothschild invest in a lot of things hoping for a return. Doesn't mean they're secretly pulling the stings from the shadows in an effort to centralize BTC

>no idea what youre saying

so now youre not even trying to form a coherent argument any more
typical corecuck

Lol what

Post sources

>I tell you who, banks
Nope, LN is sold to exchanges dummy

>coherent argument
You first user

ok so let me get this straight
BTC comes along and threatens the entire banking worlds business model
then the jewiest of all jew banks buy out blockstream and literally pay their devs salary
after that blockstream literally does whatever they can to gripple BTCs growth and run the network at 100% load instead of simply raising the blocksize
they promise a vaporware solution that shouldve been rolled out years ago
and this vaporware solution (if it ever becomes reality) will be highly centralized by banks. again see my comment above about liquidity which you conveniently ignored.

so now youre saying this is all a big fat coincidience right?
like what are you even talking about here

Wow cashies are literally brainwashed. Is this what you do all day in /r/btc?

Hope you're right. I'd like Bitcoin to succeed and see the things you say come to fruition.

Blockstream is funded by the Digital Currency Group (DCG). Their senior advisor is Larry Summers, one of the main proponents on the war on cash. On their board of directors is one Glenn Hutchins, who's also on the board of the Federal Reserve bank. The DCG itself is funded by Master Card among others.

Another investor in Blockstream is AXA Strategic Ventures. Their chairman and CEO Henri de Castries was at the time of the investment also chairman of the Bilderberg Group.

AXA is also a recruitment pool for Rothschild bankers. Their asset manager Laurent Tignard was handpicked as global head of asset management for the Edmont de Rothschild group.

So a bunch of central bankers, credit card companies and a company with strong ties to the Rothschild and Bilderberg group have all heavily invested in Blockstream. There is a clear conflict of interest because a decentralized currency at massive scale would threaten these people's business model.

Now since they poured in money into Blockstream the tx fees have gone through the roof, the merchant adoption has gone down and BTC is at the lowest rate in market dominance ever. This could all be a massive coincidence or just some powerful people trying to protect their business interests. I'll leave that up to you to decide.

>muh brainwash
>muh cashie

yeah thats usually how it goes with you corecucks, when you run out of arguments you resort to namecalling and the muh tinfoil hat meme

How will bitcoin power banks when an unknown number of anonymous hoarders would become the richest people in the world? Putin could have satoshis private key for all you know

what's you opinion on skycoin, it's one of the oldest projects in the space and devs are pretty libertarian in thought

There's much more to come as long as Szabo is with us. Smart contracts for international politics, smart property for lower interest high risk credit, decreased need of lawyer and accountants for the common people, trust-minimized systems, more openness. Bitcoin has a lot to offer, and it's been crushing all FUD for 10 years now

Bitcoin's price will be less volatile in the future. It'll be more like watching a big stock, index or fiat move cents or dollars.

Fearing that Bitcoin's cucked below 15k forever is why holding is hard and weak hands sell. There's a buyer on the other side of that trade. Who are you selling to?

If you're scared just learn more, more Bitcoin, more economics, more game theory, etc.

what a load of conspiracy crap. First, making an investment in a company doesn't mean you "own" it or have any say at all in operations. The block size limit is by design and meant to improve decentralization. Changing the block size requires hard forking, i.e. creating an entirely different coin. Lightning is not vaporware. It's here today already running on mainnet in beta, and there are three separate implementations being worked on so even development is decentralized. It's also fallacious to assume that banks would be the only source of liquidity. Anyone can run a hub, and I imagine many entrepreneurs will assuming they can profit from fees.

your argument consists entirely of conspiracy buzzwords like "jews", "bilgaberg" and "rothschild"

op, what do you recommend i buy to get to a healthy life down the road?

i already have a couple bitcoins, i have plenty of shitcoins (vtc, wtc, a couple eth). should i just put all my money in btc and wait it out, or is there any reason to buy things like ltc and monero iyo?

Bitcoin is doing what it's always been doing. Gaining territory while guarding its main property: security. The other coins don't know what this refers to

The wealth transfer is not as big as you think at all. There is an insignificant number of people who have been holding for years. Most people sold a long time ago and bought back. Many Bitcoin Core devs aren't even rich. This is not the significant obstacle at all

Stop falling for scams user

Dude, learn to spell.

"Retard maximalist here AMA"

>If you're scared just learn more, more Bitcoin, more economics, more game theory, etc.

where to start? i've already read the easy shit like the internet of money. what's the next step?

>assume that banks would be the only source of liquidity.
Exchanges are the main source of liquidity. This was already known from the beginning from common sense, and there were some leaked emails as well