Not bait

Countries with failing currencies are starting to adopt bitcoin. That seems like a clear path to adoption for me.

Bitcoin is only being used for margin trading. The only big holders that aren't retarded are exchanges. USDT issuer, Tether.to is a Chinese shell Taiwanese company that doesn't have a real office. Not a medium of exchange. Not a store of value. Etc.

it's not the real BitCoin

Attached: 1578847660796.jpg (582x925, 288.93K)

They're not adopting Bitcoin. They're merely using it as a hedge against their countries' inflated currencies because they've got no other options. If they have a choice to trade their currencies for other currencies (like USD), they would.

Its hackable

>Despite what memers say scaling can mostly be solved by the LN.
I'd like to remind you that years after introducing LN, it's network capacity is a joke at ~$10m

Attached: Screenshot 2020-04-10 at 22.56.24.png (507x203, 29.77K)

cracking SHA256 encryption

>manipulated as fuck, 0.1% of holders can decide its price
>can be easily destroyed in anytime (((they))) want, one tweet from trump about banning BTC and watch this shit go to 100$

make no mistake, the only raison btc still exist is because (((they))) are making so much money from it.

fuck off, we're full.

Bro we are (((((they)))))

Attached: images.jpg (254x199, 5.92K)

It has no intrinsic value and therefore is doomed to go to 0

>trump tweet "BTC will be banned, americans money should go into DOW, not some china mined butcoin"
>btc -80%
as easy as that.

Is it?

Oh, I forgot: that shit is not fungible. It's easy for the orange man to censor addresses at will. BTC in those addresses are basically worthless.

Currently, five pools, all Chinese, control 70% of the total hashpower. If they cooperated, they could force all BTC users, traders, holders, and exchanges to accept a hard fork that raised the block reward, and thus the 21 million ceiling.

Until now, that possibility was remote, for various reasons.

Mining has been generally profitable for the Chinese miners, even after each of the previous halvings.

There were enough pools outside China that could undermine the cartel's hashpower and thus cause such a "coup" attempt to fail.

The coup could cause BTC price to drop so much that the miners's reward would drop even with the increased reward. A large and skillful marketing effort would be needed to support the price, by convincing butters that the change -- "just once, just this time" -- was Good for Bitcoin.

And the dropping revenue has caused the non-Chinese miners to drop off before the Chinese ones, thus compensating in part the losses of the latter.

But now that even the most profitable miners have narrow profit margins at best, most of the hashpower is in China, and their total raw revenue will be slashed by half next month, maybe they will have no other choice...

Moreover, it is possible that many of them just spent millions on the new Bitmain mining rigs, and thus are in the deep red.

At some point between the two World Wars, Germany replaced the hyperinflated mark by a new one that was supposed to be pegged to gold. The peg was absolutely guaranteed by laws and promises over the bones of saints and by the beard of the Prophet. But eventually the government was unable to maintain the peg, and devaluated the mark again...

Also it already got media attention, normies who bought got burned and no greater fool is buying our bags

Bitcoin is the least of your worries when this happens.

>good long term FUD for the king?
halvings are traumatic events that can send it to a death spiral. it didn't happen the first 2 times but this one looks bad the greatest depression, falling markets, money fleeing risky investments whales shake out longs people cashing out to buy toilet paper and reward halving all at once.
that's about it.
you can send about 20 thousand tx/s on a single lightning payment channel. i think you could easily have a few million of those at once.
that's a few 10 billion tx/s.

That still won’t break it actually. Both symmetric key encryption and sha256 secure bitcoin. Both would need to be broken. Also bitcoin double hashes so its even harder to break even if sha2 was broken. If both were broken you could still hard-fork the network when before they were both broken. However I’d say the experiment simply failed at that point.

decades after introducing ipv6 to solve the ipv4 scaling issues still almost nobody is using it.
these things take time networks must mature and be adopted on their own momentum find their own efficient shape and structure by trial and error.
ln works even if routing doesn't work yet. direct payment channels are already incredibly useful for micropayments.

its decentralized. The government can’t ban it

You can’t force a hardfork afaik. If you break protocol then your block is invalid and will be rejected by normal bitcoin nodes

>Both symmetric key encryption and sha256 secure bitcoin
more like sha256+ripemd160 hides the public keys and makes them quantum proof.
bitcoin doesn't use symmetric encryption in it's security model.

If Bitcoin reaches 1M per coin, the transaction fee will also rise to 1000 USD per transaction.

the worst part that we would only know about it years later, hell it could be already cracked by some NSA server

>can't ban it
you can't be serious user,can you?

>bitcoin doesn't use symmetric encryption in it's security model.
Oh I meant asymmetric lol

as far as bitcoin is concerned the "cracking" or weakening the security of sha256 doesn't really matter this usually means second preimage attacks becoming realistic and extension attacks on say executable assemblies so you can't use the hash anymore for signatures. this has happened to sha1 md5 and a lot before.

bitcoin pretty much immune all to that by default.

>You can’t force a hardfork afaik.
Of course you can, all you need is 51% of hashing power. Whether the new fork is accepted as the dominant fork or whether users stick to the traditional code-base is less clear. But it is possible to fork in a way that causes a death-match and that will be won by hash-power.

Only thing you can force is fragmentation. The people in the network will in the end choose which fork they want to use.

If the hashrate drops low enough, yes.

If bitcoin had been released as a finished, flawless protocol its leaderless design would be an asset, but because it's an experimental work-in-progress, its lack of formal ownership (superficially its greatest selling point) is actually its greatest weakness. Hierarchy is inevitable, and power over bitcoin is no exception. If bitcoin is not controlled by transparent power, it is necessarily controlled by hidden power. Objective authority which does not have to be formalized, that is, power which is allowed to remain hidden, tends toward corruption, and worse, ineptness, as it never bears responsibility for its mistakes. The fork wars demonstrate bitcoin's inability to incorporate meaningful upgrades uncontentiously and are chiefly due to lack of formal authority. This does not mean cryptocurrencies require centralized trust, but rather that their development and maintenance do. The trend among second generation coins is clear: on-chain governance. Bitcoin will never have this and might well die because of it.

There are also potential economic pitfalls to its design. If bicoin manages to survive to its fabled zero block reward sometime in 2140, will transaction fees be enough to incentivize sufficient hashrate to secure the network? Is proof-of-work ultimately secure? Does hashrate have to grow continuously and sufficiently along with global hardware production to mitigate potential alternate history attacks if and when new hardware is brought online maliciously? Bitcoin is an experiment and these answers are only revealed as the experiment unfolds. It's done well so far, more than a decade of security. But statistically, this doesn't tell us much beyond its potential to survive but another ten years.

>these things take time
18 months right? Bitboys are just grasping blindly in the dark for any way to justify their delusional fantasies.

their scaling solution can be brought to a halt with the cost of less than half a btc
>medium.com/@ayelem02/congestion-attacks-in-payment-channel-networks-b7ac37208389

what about the 20 years ipv6 failed to catch on? almost everybody on this world is still using ipv4. i usually disable the ipv6 stack on my network cards because shit is buggy and routing is a bitch on double stack.

Good post

>what about the 20 years ipv6 failed to catch on?

Let me explain this to you cuz it's pretty simple. Nobody is using lightning because right now, bitcoin is below maximum capacity (Roughly 2 MB with segwit). If bitcoin's blocksize ever peaked at 2 MB and demand increased the blockchain would grind to a halt like it did last time. No one is going to switch to lightning. They're going to sell their bitcoins and forget about this pointless projects.

Attached: baseball.png (1301x438, 308.74K)

still i have no doubt in the future ipv4 will be gone and ipv6 will be the standard. eventually it will happen. when the need is real. when the tech is mature. when the world is ready to adopt.

some fags are so impatient.

No more suckers left to buy your ponzi bags?

Attached: 9B031DC0-0FE7-4B83-978E-C954BCDC510F.jpg (640x850, 272.64K)

>No one is going to switch to lightning.
rofl who knows i think it will catch on, but you can't rush these things. real adoption comes with need. nobody needs bitcoin where people can afford it yet.

Based

>rofl who knows i think it will catch on

>it will catch on
No, it won't. Let's keep it real. No one is excited about lightning. And you act as if bitcoin HAS to be the one to succeed. If bitcoin fails some other project will pick up the pieces.

I think you mean softfork then. Hardfork means you’re breaking protocol and requires changing the nodes. You can only change the block reward amount if you hardfork.

I used to be bullish on lightning but it really does seem like something is going wrong. There's some technical problem that they're stuck on. Development is not happening as fast as it should.

This and china is the most legitimate FUD. I didn’t want to spoil the thread by giving away the answer though. Its likely this fad could die off. I don’t think it will, but it definitely could.

>No, it won't. Let's keep it real. No one is excited about lightning.
that's just like your opinion you try to sell as fact.
>And you act as if bitcoin HAS to be the one to succeed.
it's the only real crypto so far. the only one that has the properties of real crypto the only one that is a real gamechanger. i would like to see it gain more adoption indeed.
lightning is again a game changer but comes with a price tag.
layer 1 is trustless and permissionless and secure
layer 2 is trustless and secure not permissionless because it's known efficient form is very centralized as of yet

this can change with multi path channels and or ring signature type shielded pool central liquidity routing. bu as is lightning works best with a maximum of 2 hops between endpoints.
but the current layout of the network is a full mesh. so we are very very far from it be efficient. these things take time.

but for people not being excited about ln is willfully retarded. bitcoin was an awful payment system for irl purchases and instant miropayments before ln. it was fucking good for sending millions of dollars oversees. it was the best for moving serious wealth. i fucking love it compared to wires. but bitcoin without ln is not a competition for my credit card. and no 0-conf is full pants-on-head retarded.

I think we need to stop using the term fud, fud is a disinformation tactic used to scoop up cheap coins. I believe we could categorize your pointe as legitimate concerns?

Creator of lightning network
>LN is not a silver bullet for btc scaling

Bitcoiners
>hurr durr LN solves all our problems

(1) it's quite obviously a number agency creation
there are declassified NSA papers going back to the goddamn 1990's outlining blockchain technology
(2) point (1) is strengthened immensely by the fact that BTC has a goddamn SECRET INVENTOR (seriously, how is that not the biggest red flag?) that hasn't moved almost 1 mio. fucking coins in all those years

take (1) and (2) and lets hypothesize: why would a number agency keep all that money and not use it? its obvious that satoshis coins moving would completely annihilate the market instantly, so cashing out is literally impossible now. well if doing *anything* with the coins would instantly tank the market, then maybe that fact is WHY the coin was created in the first place - imagine you are the financial elites "bodyguard"/robber knight (CIA). what would be a better job at making sure that banks aren't threatened than to pool most money of people that want a DECENTRALIZED currency together and then tank it all literally on the click of a button?

point (1) is indisputable for anyone that actually looks into blockchain technology history - and as soon as you grasp that secret agencies are not here for but against us and for the banks, you'll realize that they have monopolized decentralized assets in BTC and can vaporize every cent invested in that decentralization in an instant. and they will. BTC's chart will unironically be very similar to bitconnect (going to zero overnight).

it's not a solve everything solution it's a solve micropayments efficiently with minimal global burden also make irl retail purchase possible in a trustless secure NON CUSTODIAL manner.
it also has insane theoretical tx/s.

How about we don't kneecap the network with small blocks just so some Mongolian basket weaver can run a node on his dial-up connection? How about we stop pretending that Bitcoin can accommodate the lowest common denominator and simultaneously scale to mass adoption? How about we stop pretending that average users are going to run nodes? How about we stop pretending like the Chinese mining oligopoly hasn't already edged out the competition? Despite cores best efforts to cuck the network in the name of decentralization, Bitcoin mining is incredibly centralized; a handful of nodes broadcast basically all the blocks, and it works because those miners have invested millions into hardware and infrastructure; how about we remove the block limit so then maybe users can actually use Bitcoin again?

>How about we stop pretending that Bitcoin can accommodate the lowest common denominator and simultaneously scale to mass adoption?
we have no choice but to wait and see. to me it makes sense so far but about time to star addressing future scaling. the blocksize has to be increased gradually preferably naturally with demand.
one single hardfork that makes max block size self adjusting and allows miners to forgo say 1 sat per byte from block reward to include more tx than the 100 moving average soft limit.
hard limit would be 2 power megabytes by halving so currently 4mb soon 8mb.

something like that...

>layer 2 is trustless and secure not permissionless because it's known efficient form is very centralized as of yet

Layer 2 isn't very secure. That's why it's only used for micropayments.

>insane theoretical tx/s.

Transactions still need to be settled on the BTC chain. The lightning network is only advantageous if two parties frequently do business. If it's an irregular or one-off thing, there's no advantage to using the lightning network.

as in BTC?

Consensus in regards of scaling. Or not scaling.

We've all seen the shitshow that happened during any bitcoin split. BCH/BSV was the worst, as there was no clear winner. there's guaranteed to be disagreements whenever a blocksize increase is under debate again, and you will have one hardcore brainwashed group that wants to reduce blocksize to 300kb. I believe that most likely, to not splinter the community further, this would be avoided at all costs. I have no idea, but trying to talk to maxis about even a 2x increase gets you banned on r/bitcoin, so seems like any blocksize increase will be fought hard against.

Anyway, at this current level, Bitcoin is not able to handle enough payments to have any viability other than a science project. 7 tps is not enough for a global payment system. Others will win unless something happens to the scaling plan. (if one exists lmao)

LN is not a viable solution imo. LN isn't "BITCOIN" but most people jump to this whenever scaling under debate. The result would be a hub and spoke system with known institutional hubs, that knows your identity, and collects fees to manage your LN node. LN is too complex for a newbie to just use out of the box. you'd need an always online node, with funds locked in a channel with another party with enough channel liquidity to reach your destination. due to this, higher payments are really unlikely to be accepted through the network, unless you have a channel directly with merchants. This would again lead to a hub and spoke system, where in general, liquidity is low, so you just open a channel directly to the merchant, and the merchant makes money on the transactions that goes through their highly connected node.

If you don't understand how LN works exactly watch a few videos by "Decentralized thought" on youtube

youtube.com/watch?v=pOZaLbUUZUs

By Rick Falkvinge:

youtube.com/watch?v=AzaEd2RQuRw&feature=emb_logo

Right now there's more BTC on ETH.

Attached: 1552549982486.jpg (657x527, 37.14K)