The future of Bitcoin and crytocurrencies

Status
Not open for further replies.
daniels27 said:
daniels27 said:
Why so aggressive?

What I mean is that it is very, very unlikely that the majority of bitcoin miners will agree to an increase of the cap as their current coins will devaluate. Hence, they will keep mining on the original blockchain. Hence only a hard fork is possible. You then have BTC and BTH.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Mining is a business.They will push anything what will bring them more money and not what is better for retailers.
Miners do many shady things to profit like increasing transaction costs artificially and many other bad staff.
You think they would have a problem mining a softfork which would bring them more money ?

Keep dreaming.Node providers are greedy as hell.Talking a lot s**t about protecting the code ,community etc but in reality all they care is profit.
Have a look at our old major programer Daniel Larimer who went to EOS.Sold basicly our code to EOS for a money grab to the EOS buyers where even our crypto projects name was still in his code.There is no honesty in crypto our chief control programer went to algorand .He was somewhat half honest but they what cared most was their own pockets as he made $400k a year
 
run said:
run said:
Mining is a business.They will push anything what will bring them more money and not what is better for retailers.
Miners do many shady things to profit like increasing transaction costs artificially and many other bad staff.
You think they would have a problem mining a softfork which would bring them more money ?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Thank you very much for your reply. I appreciate it. But then, we would have to put it another way.
"As long as the owners of bitcoins have sufficient control over the mining ressources, it is theirs."

Which then, however, contradicts bitcoins biggest advantage:
JackAlabama said:
JackAlabama said:
well bitcoin is the only asset you can own, there are other bearer assets like gold silver but these are hard to store
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
So, essentially the "storage" cost of bitcoin is having sufficient control over the mining power. The advantage over silver and gold is (and that is important), others may be willing to do it for you.

But hypothetically speaking even if they would mine off a softfork. The old owners could still operate their hardfork of the original protocol.

run said:
run said:
Keep dreaming.Node providers are greedy as hell.Talking a lot s**t about protecting the code ,community etc but in reality all they care is profit.
Have a look at our old major programer Daniel Larimer who went to EOS.Sold basicly our code to EOS for a money grab to the EOS buyers where even our crypto projects name was still in his code.There is no honesty in crypto our chief control programer went to algorand .He was somewhat half honest but they what cared most was their own pockets as he made $400k a year
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The one of Steem?
 
run said:
run said:
Have a look at our old major programer Daniel Larimer who went to EOS.Sold basicly our code to EOS for a money grab to the EOS buyers where even our crypto projects name was still in his code.There is no honesty in crypto our chief control programer went to algorand .He was somewhat half honest but they what cared most was their own pockets as he made $400k a year
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Thanks for the example, but still... what does your lack of controlling IP and retaining personnel have to do with BTC? I understand your point, but you have even worse people wielding more power in the 'FIAT world'.
 
daniels27 said:
daniels27 said:
Thank you very much for your reply. I appreciate it. But then, we would have to put it another way.
"As long as the owners of bitcoins have sufficient control over the mining ressources, it is theirs."

Which then, however, contradicts bitcoins biggest advantage:

So, essentially the "storage" cost of bitcoin is having sufficient control over the mining power. The advantage over silver and gold is (and that is important), others may be willing to do it for you.

But hypothetically speaking even if they would mine off a softfork. The old owners could still operate their hardfork of the original protocol.


The one of Steem?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
People will go where the money is.If major miners and exchanges decide the softfork is the real bitcoin than the crowd will follow.
And yes Larimer also created the small side project steem.
Another member of our group is/was the creator of DAI which is basicly an upgrade of bitassets

Last edited: Jan 3, 2025
 
0xDEADBEEF said:
0xDEADBEEF said:
Thanks for the example, but still... what does your lack of controlling IP and retaining personnel have to do with BTC? I understand your point, but you have even worse people wielding more power in the 'FIAT world'.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Bitcoin is the project of the fiat world.They just want more control.

what does your lack of controlling IP and retaining personnel have to do with BTC?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
It was just to show the wrong statement that bitcoin can't be traced and stopped by tyrants

Bitcoin will in the end fail when they want to implement the second final monetary system.
Make your money with bitcoin and co.I do the same since in 2014 i realised crypto can't be stopped.However i try everything to keep cash alive and make sure i have real tier 1 money stored securly which can't be taken away or put a negative interest on.
 
Crypto now and in 50 years, it won't go away! I hold 1 btc coin and I keep it until it hit's 1 million

Toggle signature
Hi I'm HoFo and love Internet Privacy and OffshoreCorpTalk dead:-!
 
run said:
run said:
what are you going to exchange it for in 2 years?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
If your point is off-ramping, then there are plenty of solutions to use. Either directly in transactions, or through the right solution providers. Using exchanges is the lazy way.
 
0xDEADBEEF said:
0xDEADBEEF said:
If your point is off-ramping, then there are plenty of solutions to use. Either directly in transactions, or through the right solution providers. Using exchanges is the lazy way.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Yeah right and the seller is going to take the burden to find another one who will be willing to sell his assets for crypto in a tokenized world.The stability of value must be insane this way.
Makes fully sense of a good working solution
 
run said:
run said:
Yeah right and the seller is going to take the burden to find another one who will be willing to sell his assets for crypto in a tokenized world.The stability of value must be insane this way.
Makes fully sense of a good working solution
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Speaking from experience, I've never used such a solution and always go through exchanges with proper documentation, but there are plenty of people who have been operating this way for years with success. Claiming that a solution is faulty, while it works for a lot of people with significant volume, simply doesn't make sense.

This demonstrates the exact problem you previously mentioned: that people only care about making money. While this is true in general, what I see in the DeFi space is that many projects are created by people who don't provide real-world value. However, dismissing solutions that use the 'raw' blockchain to deliver cryptocurrency's core principles overlooks valuable innovation. Past experiences with failed 'to the moon' projects shouldn't blind us to legitimate developments happening outside the typical 'create a token and pump it 1000x' approach.
 
0xDEADBEEF said:
0xDEADBEEF said:
Speaking from experience, I've never used such a solution and always go through exchanges with proper documentation, but there are plenty of people who have been operating this way for years with success. Claiming that a solution is faulty, while it works for a lot of people with significant volume, simply doesn't make sense.

This demonstrates the exact problem you previously mentioned: that people only care about making money. While this is true in general, what I see in the DeFi space is that many projects are created by people who don't provide real-world value. However, dismissing solutions that use the 'raw' blockchain to deliver cryptocurrency's core principles overlooks valuable innovation. Past experiences with failed 'to the moon' projects shouldn't blind us to legitimate developments happening outside the typical 'create a token and pump it 1000x' approach.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
you are always switching from status quo to future.We talked about futur offramp and not status quo.
Noone is going to run a DeFi soon which is against the law.
SEC made it already many years ago clear if there is no owner the people who make the Defi possible like prgramers ,node providers etc will be held responsible.
Currently there is still no problem but once they want to enforce their CBDC's this will change quickly.
 
run said:
run said:
you are always switching from status quo to future.We talked about futur offramp and not status quo.
Noone is going to run a DeFi soon which is against the law.
SEC made it already many years ago clear if there is no owner the people who make the Defi possible like prgramers ,node providers etc will be held responsible.
Currently there is still no problem but once they want to enforce their CBDC's this will change quickly.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I believe the current state will be the future state, with the exception of (slightly) higher conversion fees.

I was talking about the physical world and e.g. P2P. The SEC can say and do what they want, that does not mean everybody is subject to their rules. In regards to DeFi, some sanctioned tools are still available and used, albeit with less volume. So nobody is stopping you from using these platforms either.
 
0xDEADBEEF said:
0xDEADBEEF said:
If your point is off-ramping, then there are plenty of solutions to use. Either directly in transactions, or through the right solution providers. Using exchanges is the lazy way.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The point is that things are going in the wrong direction. Off-ramps are continuing to be closed off. Certainly for the mass of sheep, off-ramps are already closed off without full KYC, tax taken from you at source, full tracking of your spending, and your coins even confiscated if deemed fit.

I say again, this is not what cryptocurrencies were supposed to be. Satoshi intended precisely the opposite of this totalitarianism. Sheep compliance has enabled a complete failure of Satoshi's vision. For the sheep, it almost may as well be CBDC at this point.
 
0xDEADBEEF said:
0xDEADBEEF said:
I believe the current state will be the future state, with the exception of (slightly) higher conversion fees.

I was talking about the physical world and e.g. P2P. The SEC can say and do what they want, that does not mean everybody is subject to their rules. In regards to DeFi, some sanctioned tools are still available and used, albeit with less volume. So nobody is stopping you from using these platforms either.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
You clearly have never participated activly in a DeFi .Noone is going to risk his neck against SEC for a few dollars.
P2P ?You mean exchange of crypto to CBDC ?Rofl seriously you seems like many other living in a dream cloud
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

JohnnyDoe.is is an uncensored discussion forum
focused on free speech,
independent thinking, and controversial ideas.
Everyone is responsible for their own words.

Quick Navigation

Forums

User Menu

Login
Community platform by JohnnyDoe © 2025 JohnnyDoe
  • Width
  • Queries
    11
  • Time
    0.7551s
  • Memory
    14.06MB
Top Bottom