pull down to refresh
related posts
15 sats \ 0 replies \ @F 11 Aug 2022
Someone finding my private key on that site that has all the private keys.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @takaponka 11 Aug 2022
The biggest problem would be internal. Nodes transferring value orienting the protocol to its death because people running them have a wrong vision. That's why I never tell to a very beginner to run his own node before having at least basic knowledge about bitcoin.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @F 11 Aug 2022
I don't understand this comment, can you explain?
reply
0 sats \ 7 replies \ @faithandcredit 11 Aug 2022
The decentralization. It creates uncertainty. You may wake up tomorrow and find the value of BTC being extremely low because alot of people just decided BTC isnt cool anymore. This cant happen with dollars or Euros because it more or less forced to be used. And this force may also find its way into Bitcoin, you may wake up one day and find out China or USA or some other government has onlined a facility with 51% of the hashrate and stopping all on-chain activity because they want only their money to be used as money
reply
37 sats \ 6 replies \ @F 11 Aug 2022
What the.. Huh? How is decentralization, the main feature of bitcoin, a negative? So the value of bitcoin is volatile, that I can agree with can be a bad thing (for now).
If a country manages a 51% attack it would only work for 1 block before everyone realizes what just happened and goes back to the original chain. It would be extraordinarily expensive and useless to do.
reply
0 sats \ 5 replies \ @faithandcredit 11 Aug 2022
Money has only ever worked for the most part thanks to kings (or presidents) they decide what the people use as money and that gives comfort. Its also why Vitalik Buterin keeps hanging around Ethereum, he gives comfort to most investors. Not having a king or a vitalik creates uncertainty. Thats all im going to say.
reply
9 sats \ 0 replies \ @takaponka 11 Aug 2022
So you want centralization and the same old scammy system. 51% attack will work only in theory but in practice it won't do shit to the network.
And don't see any offenses but if you're against decentralization why are you even here ?
reply
3 sats \ 0 replies \ @go 11 Aug 2022
🤮
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @F 11 Aug 2022
What about the Rai stones.. they didn't have any king or figurehead. They were just gigantic immovable stones and they worked for hundreds if not thousands of years as money.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @faithandcredit 11 Aug 2022
They must have had a king initially
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @F 11 Aug 2022
I'm sure they had a leader of some sort, but the entire community agreed the stones had value. Not one single person.
reply on another page
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @frostdragon 11 Aug 2022
The government taking a hard stance against it. I don’t think it’ll hurt bitcoin, but it’ll make things difficult and stressful for a while.
I think an even worse case scenario for bitcoin is countries going back to the gold standard, but that seems astronomically unlikely.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @F 11 Aug 2022
How is going back to a gold standard even worse for bitcoin? Gold is heavy and cumbersome, extremely expensive and difficult to transport. Not to mention difficult to verify authenticity. Also, not infinitely divisible. Bitcoin beats gold on so many different fronts, it's not even close...
If countries go back to a gold standard, it would make bitcoin look even better.
reply
3 sats \ 2 replies \ @frostdragon 11 Aug 2022
Good question!
Going back to the gold standard wouldn't mean people carry around or transport gold, it just means paper dollars would be redeemable for a set amount of gold again. No more monetary supply increase (aside from gold mining).
Bitcoin still beats gold in the long run for tons of reasons, but I think it'd give the government the best fighting chance, because from their perspective, it would be the best of both worlds: stabilized economy via hard/sound money, and full regulatory power. Going to gold + telling the public that unregulated money is dangerous and then regulating the hell out of crypto would give the USD the best fighting chance against bitcoin.
But... Making the switch would cause such an insane economic crash that it would be political suicide to advocate for it.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @F 11 Aug 2022
Even if we went back to a gold standard, I don't see how there wouldn't be monetary paper supply increase. There was plenty of monetary supply increase during the gold standard before it was left behind. Going back to a gold standard wouldn't really change much from the current system, and if anything would get people to think about money systems and highlight the positives of bitcoin in relation to gold even further.
As far as I'm concerned, all other currencies are already doomed against bitcoin. It's like opening Pandora's Box.
reply
3 sats \ 0 replies \ @frostdragon 11 Aug 2022
I hear what you're saying, but that's not the scenario I'm talking about. When I say going back to the gold standard, I mean actually going back to the gold standard in the sense that 1 dollar = X unchanging ounces of gold and the money printer shuts all the way off. Which is why I think it's super unlikely.
Ultimately you're right - we've already run that experiment, we printed more money than could be redeemed for gold, and when that got out of hand we just cut the ties to gold. If for some crazy reason we went back to gold, there's no reason to think this wouldn't happen again.
I'm just making the hypothetical point that if the US gov actually learned from its mistake, and actually stuck to gold in a real way and didn't print more money, bitcoin would have a legitimate competitor, at least for a while.
EDIT: Some Austrians like Schiff think this is actually going to happen (which is crazy imo) and that cryptocurrencies like bitcoin are going to crash as soon as we go back to sound money that "has a track record". Like I said, that's not a real fear of mine. Just an interesting one to ponder.
reply