The DOWNFALL of bitcoin

[Dark Sky]

By what metric is Bitcoin "getting left further behind"?

I mean let's say bitcoin vs ripple in the metric transaction speed. But surely in lets say 20 years time, cryptos will have advanced a ton, where as bitcoin won't have? Am I not correct in saying bitcoin is set in stone as a technology where as new cryptos are not?

 

[Deleted member 1333509]

1) Ripple provides a completely different service.
2) Look up the lightning network
3) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin







But you could easily find any of this yourself. I feel like you're being paid to make this thread as long as possible or some other whacky shit.. you seem to just be saying things that would evoke a response, but that are lazy arguments that don't really make sense.

I mean if you don't want to invest in Bitcoin, don't. But saying that it's becoming an outdated technology without even really knowing how the development process of Bitcoin works seems to be hugely arrogant at best man.

Saying that Ripple, the most centralized crypto in the world, could replace Bitcoin, the most decentralized cryptocurrency in the world, when Bitcoin's major use case is it's decentralized nature shows a pretty deep lack of understanding of why Bitcoin is even a thing.

Just Google this shit brother.

 

[Dark Sky]

1) Ripple provides a completely different service.
2) Look up the lightning network
3) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin

https://ibb.co/YdKWNBn

https://ibb.co/tMbHCvp

https://ibb.co/km0Wvfr

But you could easily find any of this yourself. I feel like you're being paid to make this thread as long as possible or some other whacky shit.. you seem to just be saying things that would evoke a response, but that are lazy arguments that don't really make sense.

I mean if you don't want to invest in Bitcoin, don't. But saying that it's becoming an outdated technology without even really knowing how the development process of Bitcoin works seems to be hugely arrogant at best man.

Saying that Ripple, the most centralized crypto in the world, could replace Bitcoin, the most decentralized cryptocurrency in the world, when Bitcoin's major use case is it's decentralized nature shows a pretty deep lack of understanding of why Bitcoin is even a thing.

Just Google this shit brother.

I don't know dude, it's good technology, but since I'm in the IT career, I fully understand that technologies need to adapt and improve with time to remain successful. That's the nature of technology.

The only way this could succeed, is if nothing could ever be created that's better. And I don't believe that for one second. A human created the bitcoin algorithms, a human can create a better version that's more successful. The only challenging part would be it's decentralized nature.

I also don't believe for one second that the creator ever anticipated it to become this big, and therefor I feel that big drawbacks will happen at global scale. Whether that's economical issues, technological issues or so on, there will be some great problems.

It takes something mighty powerful to work on a global scale, especially when the technology itself cannot be changed.

Lets take quantum computers for a second, in 20 years time if they can crack the encryption, game over for bitcoin no? I want to stress that this is just an example of how future technology can bring current technologies down and this is by no means my stand point. But feel free to debunk this one.

 

[KaleidoJack]

I see this as a giant flaw in bitcoin no? As other cryptos keep on improving, bitcoin gets left further and further behind. Afterall, why would I invest in bitcoin as a long term investment, if new cryptos are becoming better and better?

This is a good question.

I've answered it thoroughly here: https://www.blackhatworld.com/seo/m...-smart-or-stupid.1306196/page-7#post-14105748

I think that if you go to my profile and read all my posts on bitcoin and crypto assets (they're few), you'll better understand the opportunity. Go ahead and read all of my posts on BHW, too, and marvel at the depths of my historic mind.

 

[Dark Sky]

This is a good question.

I've answered it thoroughly here: https://www.blackhatworld.com/seo/my-little-brother-is-going-to-drop-50k-into-bitcoin-and-wait-a-year-is-that-smart-or-stupid.1306196/page-7#post-14105748

I think that if you go to my profile and read all my posts on bitcoin and crypto assets (they're few), you'll better understand the opportunity. Go ahead and read all of my posts on BHW, too, and marvel at the depths of my historic mind.

Interesting, you raised a new point in my head with that post.

If large institutions are looking for safety and stability in a financial instrument, and the US government created their own cryptocurrency that they back. Why would large institutions not move their money from bitcoin into a US government backed cryptocurrency?

But my point on technological improvements wasn't aimed at increased metrics, it was aimed at new metrics not being able to be created. For example new encryption techniques to combat quantum computers that cannot be created with bitcoin since no one manages the technology.

 

[KaleidoJack]

Interesting, you raised a new point in my head with that post.

If large institutions are looking for safety and stability in a financial instrument, and the US government created their own cryptocurrency that they back. Why would large institutions not move their money from bitcoin into a US government backed cryptocurrency?

I believe some governments are already creating and promoting their own cryptocurrencies. I don't think this will change bitcoin's trend, though, because it goes against its decentralized nature. Bitcoin is special and unique, in that it's a safe decentralized financial product. All you need is some people=miners buying energy in whichever corner of the world that is willing to sell it (and there are plenty of such corners), and they'll mine=power this asset. Which they'll want to do because they'll be rewarded for it. It's genius lol. Unless all governments join forces to ban BTC (which they won't because developed countries like to have wealthy, independent individuals and institutions driving their economies), there's practically nothing in BTC's way right now.

In short, BTC would be a better, safer, more valuable product than even the US-government-backed new cryptocurrency. It's already valued at 1 trillion lol. Seriously. I'm that bullish on BTC. It's a kind of miracle that it got to this point, but it got here... and it may very well go off the scale.

But my point on technological improvements wasn't aimed at increased metrics, it was aimed at new metrics not being able to be created. For example new encryption techniques to combat quantum computers that cannot be created with bitcoin since no one manages the technology.

Bitcoin's lack of updates is a double-edged sword. It's good that the technology is set into stone and nobody can mess with it anymore, as this builds more confidence in the investors. We all know how fast the tech world likes to experiment with updates and "improve" stuff, but how many of these updates substantially improve the tech and how many vulnerabilities aren't accidentally added to it by virtue of them? On the other hand, the fact that bitcoin is unalterable guarantees proven improvements can't be added to it, so it's a double-edged sword. From the perspective of the investors, I believe they prefer it this way. It means less headaches for them. So, in the end, I see it as a positive thing. (To put it in perspective, gold-as-asset is a 6-thousand-years-old technology that barely saw any improvement, and it is still used. None of the improvements of the altcoins compare to the improvement that bitcoin will be compared to gold, when it gets to a similar market cap.)

Quantum computing will destroy everything (as far as the internet goes), though, not just bitcoin. We should be alright this decade. Eventually, we'll have to migrate to a post-quantum internet, but I highly doubt this is a concern for the next 5 to 10 years.

 

[Dark Sky]

I believe some governments are already creating and promoting their own cryptocurrencies. I don't think this will change bitcoin's trend, though, because it goes against its decentralized nature. Bitcoin is special and unique, in that it's a safe decentralized financial product. All you need is some people=miners buying energy in whichever corner of the world that is willing to sell it (and there are plenty of such corners), and they'll mine=power this asset. Which they'll want to do because they'll be rewarded for it. It's genius lol. Unless all governments join forces to ban BTC (which they won't because developed countries like to have wealthy, independent individuals and institutions driving their economies), there's practically nothing in BTC's way right now.

In short, BTC would be a better, safer, more valuable product than even the US-government-backed new cryptocurrency. It's already valued at 1 trillion lol. Seriously. I'm that bullish on BTC. It's a kind of miracle that it got to this point, but it got here... and it may very well go off the scale.

I agree but I don't believe it being decentralized is a strong enough USP. There are major drawbacks to a decentralized currency. Governments can't help their economy if needed. They can't tactically encourage people to spend their bitcoins if they need an economic boost.

What happens when there is a financial crisis, and everyones holding their bitcoins because no one wants to spend their money when money is getting harder to earn. Normally the government would print money to encourage spending rather than saving. They can't do that with bitcoin.

And we have seen time and time again, during a financial crisis people will save their money instead of spending. It's only when governments take action that people start spending.

Bitcoin's lack of updates are a double-edged sword. It's good that the technology is set into stone and nobody can mess with it anymore, as this builds more confidence in the investors. We all know how fast the tech world likes to experiment with updates and "improve" stuff, but how many of these updates substantially improve the tech and how many vulnerabilities aren't accidentally added to it by virtue of them? On the other hand, the fact that bitcoin is unalterable guarantees proven improvements can't be added to it, so it's a double-edged sword. From the perspective of the investors, I believe they prefer it this way. It means less headaches for them. So, in the end, I see it as a positive thing.

Quantum computing will destroy everything (as far as the internet goes), though, not just bitcoin. We should be alright this decade. Eventually, we'll have to migrate to a post-quantum internet, but I highly doubt this is a concern for the next 5 to 10 years.

How many times have you heard of VISA having technology issues that are serious? When it comes to financial systems, they don't mess around and experiment. They test like hell before putting into production. You can't compare a financial system to social media platform in terms of updating tech.

 

[hansje]

BTC will drop to 15-20k in 2021, and in 2022 it will go to 250k

 

[KaleidoJack]

There are major drawbacks to a decentralized currency. Governments can't help their economy if needed. They can't tactically encourage people to spend their bitcoins if they need an economic boost.

Sure, but BTC isn't going to replace the US dollar. It's just another financial product, among several others, that the consumer can decide to buy (or not). It's not going to replace anything. There will still be cash, bonds, etc., even precious metals for quite some time.

How many times have you heard of VISA having technology issues that are serious? When it comes to financial systems, they don't mess around and experiment. They test like hell before putting into production. You can't compare a financial system to social media platform in terms of updating tech.

You must include in your analysis the perspective of the investors. They are trying to figure out if they can trust bitcoin. It is risky enough for them as it is now, because it is new. VISA is a proven brand, that has been offering financial services for decades (they were founded in 1958, 62 years ago). It simply doesn't compare.

For the same reason, btw, they won't jump to the next trendy shitcoin just because it's trendy.

 

[KaleidoJack]

I also see banks creating their own cryptocurrencies, too. Banks are trusted and blockchain tech will reduce transfer costs, etc.

But we simply can't just neglect the fact that we got by some sort of miracle a working, decentralized asset worth 1 trillion US dollars.

I dunno what else to say, man. Have fun with your shitcoins, I guess?

 

[Dark Sky]

Sure, but BTC isn't going to replace the US dollar. It's just another financial product, among several others, that the consumer can decide to buy (or not). It's not going to replace anything. There will still be cash, bonds, etc., even precious metals for quite some time.

Yes it won't replace the US dollar, the USA won't allow it. But it's starting to threaten their dollar. Tell me again why I would need my fiat currency if everywhere accepted bitcoin and I got paid in bitcoin?

That's the threat.

And if everyone starts using bitcoin and gets paid in bitcoin, the government lose control on their economy.

That's a problem.

It's a decentralized bank account with it's own currency. That threatens banks and the governments.

If more and more places accept bitcoin, who wants to be paid in dollars or keep their dollars when the value falls? Instead they can place it in bitcoin with a stable value. That's the big threat.

And if people do that, it can be severely damaging on the economy. Severely...

Let's take it a step further, you can currency get VA's for cheap, because the currency in their country isn't worth much. What happens when they adopt bitcoin, you going to still pay them pennies because of the country they live in? Doesn't sound fair. No more cheap labour.

Which some see as a positive, but then all of a sudden, why would someone pay for a VA if they were the same price as someone in your own country who you can communicate better with? Business starts to fall... they earn less and less. Quite a nasty effect for the countries in poverty.

You must include in your analysis the perspective of the investors. They are trying to figure out if they can trust bitcoin. It is risky enough for them as it is now, because it is new. VISA is a proven brand, that has been offering financial services for decades (they were founded in 1958, 62 years ago). It simply doesn't compare.

For the same reason, btw, they won't jump to the next trendy shitcoin just because it's trendy.

My point is, VISA keep updating their technologies and creating new ones, bitcoin cannot do that. It will simply become outdated.

 

[tb303]

My point is, VISA keep updating their technologies and creating new ones, bitcoin cannot do that. It will simply become outdated.

You completely ignored what @VSYNC said.

Look at the github commits for Bitcoin and say again it cannot change. For example, whats your views of the schnorr/taproot soft fork thats coming up?

The quantum argument always assumes that suddenly over night a computer will appear that can break SHA256. Long before that happens bitcoin could change the algorithm to SHA512. This would require a hard fork but in that situation its hardly going to be a contentious fork is it? Besides, if quantum breaks SHA we've got all sorts of problems online never mind Bitcoin.

 

[Deleted member 1333509]

You completely ignored what @VSYNC said.

Look at the github commits for Bitcoin and say again it cannot change. For example, whats your views of the schnorr/taproot soft fork thats coming up?

The quantum argument always assumes that suddenly over night a computer will appear that can break SHA256. Long before that happens bitcoin could change the algorithm to SHA512. This would require a hard fork but in that situation its hardly going to be a contentious fork is it? Besides, if quantum breaks SHA we've got all sorts of problems online never mind Bitcoin.

Absolutely, and an upgrade is precisely what the Lightning network is as well, just like other layer two solutions to optimise Bitcoin.

OP just seems to want to take an absolutely pessimistic stance in every single BTC thread he's opened, which in my mind is just as bad as saying "Bitcoin is perfect and there's no way it can be improved upon". All the while, OP says "I'm aware of all of the benefits of Bitcoin", and then continues to find some other barely relevant point to criticise.

I got fed up of trying to explain why the ecological damage created by Bitcoin mining is a blip on the global energy consumption radar and won't at all impact the growth and success of Bitcoin, now I'm fed up of explaining that Bitcoin is constantly being upgraded and improved upon by hundreds of developers in an open source fashion and that other cryptos can't provide the same value that Bitcoin does, hence it's continued position at the top.

It just seems like a huge waste of my time to discuss things like this with someone that will always come back with "yeah, but what about....", "yeah, but what about..." and with their goal being to drone on about why the best investment opportunity by a country mile over the last ten years, a completely revolutionary technology, and something which the vast majority of the financial ecosystem is now getting on board with is going to fail because of a string of non sequiturs that they only half understand anyway.

I'm over it tbh.

 

[IAmFromTheInternet]

You completely ignored what @VSYNC said.

Look at the github commits for Bitcoin and say again it cannot change. For example, whats your views of the schnorr/taproot soft fork thats coming up?

The quantum argument always assumes that suddenly over night a computer will appear that can break SHA256. Long before that happens bitcoin could change the algorithm to SHA512. This would require a hard fork but in that situation its hardly going to be a contentious fork is it? Besides, if quantum breaks SHA we've got all sorts of problems online never mind Bitcoin.

This.
Everybody keeps yelling about QC breaking Bitcoin, but if SHA256 becomes 'instantly' hackable (which it won't), Bitcoin will be the least of our worries at that moment.
Every HTTPS website will be insecure instantly, the internet will fall apart. Let alone all other applications where this type of encryption plays a vital role in the infrastructure.
And exactly because of that, SHA256 will already be replaced by something harder to break, way before QC will be able to 'hack' SHA256.

Things that might (or might not) happen in 5, 10 or 25 years, will be dealt with. Bitcoin doesn't stand still. At all.

 

[tb303]

Bumping as I thought this was relevent to Bitcoin's energy usage and China

Recently, Argo Blockchain confirmed its purchase of 320 acres of land located in West Texas. Argo said it would use the land to develop a new Bitcoin mining facility over the next year and claims the facility should run mostly on renewables.

https://www.crowdfundinsider.com/20...tor-gets-larger-in-unprecedented-bull-market/

 

[weednamese]

Bitcoin is americas asset liquidity backup plan. When their highly leveraged stock market with trillions in derivatives collapses, their going to need to get out and they will get out into btc pushing btc store of value commodity to be worth a market cap of well over gold 14 trillion. its simple as that. btc will take other world asset market cap too. the next 2 decades is going to be wild i tell ya.

 

[buddhiststudent718]

Bitcoin is americas asset liquidity backup plan. When their highly leveraged stock market with trillions in derivatives collapses, their going to need to get out and they will get out into btc pushing btc store of value commodity to be worth a market cap of well over gold 14 trillion. its simple as that. btc will take other world asset market cap too. the next 2 decades is going to be wild i tell ya.

hilarious