Hold on to your chair guys. This is HUGE!

InTheWoods said:
This here is the answer to your question. All these guys including Trace Mayer and many others are too invested in Bitcoin to admit to themselves what is really going on outside of Bitcoin. They want badly Bitcoin to work and see the faults but just can't accept there is something better out there. It's a very strong emotional attachment they have formed which is not rational. It is called Sunk Cost Fallacy. I have lost lots of money myself by falling into this trap. Many follow this very same thought pattern which is pretty hard to escape sometimes, especially when you are heavily invested.
Click to expand...

This, x100. I used to be in the Bitcoin-only camp. Bitcoin was the only way.

Then I got disenchanted, because of multiple factors: the falling price, the lack of features and innovation, the tabloid-style "news" popping up all over /r/bitcoin, and the constant... irrationality... of the hardcore Bitcoin crowd. So I took a step back, forgot all about it for a few months, and focussed on other life projects.

When I came back, I'd stepped out of the forest and could see it clearly, instead of just seeing the trees. I could see with a clear, unclouded mind and saw that problems did exist with Bitcoin, which other currencies solved, and quite cleverly. But I couldn't have seen that without dropping the conviction and walking away for a while.

To any external observer, looking at things rationally, Bitcoin has problems. We all know this here @ Dashtalk. Block size, speed of block confirmations, anonymity. Not to mention that it's very improbable and impractical to implement new changes and innovation into Bitcoin itself because of the massive size and scale. Gavin said something to the effect of, it's like working on a 747 while it's flying through the air.

But some of these most hardcore proponents and developers have been 110% into Bitcoin being the solution for life, the universe and everything, that they've developed deep convictions — and fought for them. Their identity is wrapped up in these convictions — and they'll probably be the last to see the light.
 
Pablo, like nmarley says, it's pretty much impossible for Bitcoin to catch up let alone surpass any altcoin with innovation. They'll be lucky to deal with the block size issue in the upcoming year, we have it solved already. If nothing else, our masternode network is healthy and large, and can be paid to store terabytes of information to serve up electrum style (which I think is the plan, or something like that). Er.. , that's the name of the light wallet, right? LOL.

So the blockchain size isn't even a problem. Right now, my server has 1.5 TB of bandwidth and 65GB of storage. I can use this baby for quite some time yet. And it's not expensive. I get paid plenty to keep it going and earn a little interest on my investment (or however you want to look at it).

Bitcoin developers would also have to be super-human coders to implement something without all kinds of hiccups which will probably anger some users. So, yah. I'm not afraid of Bitcoin becoming as good as Dash. Hell, our MN network grew naturally from the begining, and thus each has a substantial % of the available Dash 'coins' locked up in them, thus giving Dash 2 huge advantages:

1. nobody can come in and buy up a bunch of Dash and overwhelm the Dash network enough to hope to influence data. It's almost impossible today for anyone to gain information on mixing (unless they're very lucky, and the coins are only mixed 1 or 2 times)
2. It's impossible for Bitcoin to implement such a system and expect enough variety of individuals to be able to buy themselves a "special BTC node" that locks up 1/2 of the coins supply. They would end up with only a few varied BTC "special node" holders and never lock up as large a percentage of coins.

This sounds centralized wealth, that is, a few will be rich and others just users, but frankly those coins can't really be liquidated like that. They're doing a job, an extremely important job, and I suspect those coins, or others when swapped out / exchanging hands, will be locked up forever. They become, as Evan said, small businesses unto themselves. I suspect that in the future, MN owners will have to implement services, or not get paid, and they'll have to keep their nodes running and spend time making sure things are working. So they'll be like small businesses all over the world.

Nah, what Evan has done is so intricate, so much a well greased machine, it's impossible for Bitcoin to simply take Dash code and merge it, as they missed that window of opportunity. It can never be so secure. What they need and can do, is solve the blocksize problem, solve the blockchain size issue (via trimming?) and pay nodes for running (but not securing) the network (not sure this can be done without gaming the system)

Any more, they may need to use "side chains" which I feel are completely new coins, and thus, haven't even been started, and would have to build from the ground up. Thus, No way BTC can catch up.
 
I agree that it's scary to see them mentioning every DASH feature, but not DASH. I am certain that it wouldn't require a tremendous stretch of imagination for them to just start implementing DASH's code or hell........even recruit Evan. Why wouldn't they?

DASH is on the correct side of the bleeding edge and I'm happy to be involved. They aren't mentioning XMR's features...... for a reason.
 
@Jetzah

I don't think it's scary at all. Should be scary to those who put all their chips on Bitcoin. The Bitcoin devs are merely validating DASH.

It was mentioned already by TanteStefana and I, Bitcoin can't change much due to a bunch of reasons. They can't implement these features in a timely fashion even if they had the support from their community, support they don't currently have.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
InTheWoods said:
@Jetzah

I don't think it's scary at all. Should be scary to those who put all their chips on Bitcoin. The Bitcoin devs are merely validating DASH.

It was mentioned already by TanteStefana and I, Bitcoin can't change much due to a bunch of reasons. They can't implement these features in a timely fashion even if they had the support from their community, support they don't currently have.
Click to expand...

I understand what you two said, but they will have to. DASH is ensuring this.... Evolve or die.
 
Not really, Bitcoin will simply be taken over by the banks. They will use it's one function, transfer of value. They need Bitcoin because it is the only crypto out there with decent market cap and mining hash rate (which can not be overcome to cheat the blockchain). They need the market cap, which is still teeny tiny, to be useful. There is no way, even for banks to replicate that, because they need the diversified network. They don't even want anonymity. They do, if any of them understand, want a lot of full nodes. None of this is achievable by them alone, they need Bitcoin. Bitcoin is the entryway for the rest of the world to crypto. Being a one trick pony is just fine. In fact it's desirable and if you don't think the guys at MIT know this, your mistaken. They know, and they keep those developers on a string with the illusion that they (the developers) are in charge of the direction Bitcoin goes in. The powers that be do see the writing on the wall. The Banksters want to keep it down as long as possible until they control the situation (IE, have had enough time to collect enough BTC to feel in control) then, slowly, they'll start using it in their systems. BTC has a huge potential for growth, because it will become the main banking/governmental coin. But in the end, they will not be able to control the outflow to other cryptos, so they will be losing a lot of power to the people in the end, as Satoshi Nakamoto originally intended. No matter how institutionalized Bitcoin becomes, Satoshi Nakamoto is, and will always be the biggest hero of the 21st century.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And just a note, when I was watching Mike Huckabee talk about a "fair" tax by taxing consumption (goods - much like vat) then I realized that's the way to go. The government has it's easy way to tax and get funds for what they need to do. Sure, they will still get their power, but it's easier for the citizens to bulk at a single tax and demand less be taken, than it is for the government to play with complex tax laws and continue to rob the middle class via divide and conquer, which is their MO. If the Government is reasonable, and traditionally they get a lot of support from the people, they will do fine.

I'm starting to see a clearer picture of the future. It's not so different from the past, unfortunately, but a little closer to the distant past (IE what our (USA) founding fathers intended.)

It will always be up to us, the Citizens of the world, to keep governments in check. For the people, by the people, unless they give it up, as we have.
 
TanteStefana said:
And just a note, when I was watching Mike Huckabee talk about a "fair" tax by taxing consumption (goods - much like vat) then I realized that's the way to go. The government has it's easy way to tax and get funds for what they need to do. Sure, they will still get their power, but it's easier for the citizens to bulk at a single tax and demand less be taken, than it is for the government to play with complex tax laws and continue to rob the middle class via divide and conquer, which is their MO. If the Government is reasonable, and traditionally they get a lot of support from the people, they will do fine.

I'm starting to see a clearer picture of the future. It's not so different from the past, unfortunately, but a little closer to the distant past (IE what our (USA) founding fathers intended.)

It will always be up to us, the Citizens of the world, to keep governments in check. For the people, by the people, unless they give it up, as we have.
Click to expand...

If cryptos really start taking over as the primary currency instead of fiat, people will have finally given up on trying to remain compliant in a system that is designed to keep them from becoming individually wealthy/powerful.

At that point, nobody will be paying any income taxes. It is simply not enforceable unless over 1/2 of the population works for the IRS and inspectors are posted in every business to make sure the slaves--I mean owners remain "patriotic". Hopefully we'll reach the point where people just stop paying taxes long before we reach anything close to that scenario (but they're trying! look how much the US fed gov has grown. and even the dept of education has tanks and machine guns!)

Employers will realize they can use their crypto revenue to pay their employees any amount they wish directly in crypto--there will be no taxes or wage controls. Excise tax will be the ONLY type of tax. We're going to head back to the good old days of only taxing things you can see and feel and count.
 
Yup. We have to admit, people want a government for good reason. Government helps most people resolve differences, helps protect individuals and businesses from fraud and theft by creating a system where one can get help. It's VERY imperfect but works for most people most of the time. The thing is, if there isn't enough money, we can't have a huge central government, it's repetitive and wasteful. The only way to function is for most of the money and effort to always be at the local level. That's how it should be in my opinion. Not every one agrees, I know, but the closer to the community a governing body is, the better it is at servicing the needs of the people, the more flexible it is, the more efficient, and the more responsive.

I'm not saying poor communities should be isolated, but I'm certain that even a state can do the job better than a federal government.
 
Agree. States can do a better job in Australia as well.
The Federal Gov borrows $1 billion to giveaway for whatever reason and we have to pay interest on it for the next 2 generations. Doesn't make sense.
The States would tell them to bugger off as we need to build more hospitals and roads.
 
@TanteStefana

As most people know already governments don't really go back on already imposed taxes. In Europe there's huge VAT consumption tax + dozen of other taxes. Not to mention the hidden inflation tax.

Historically taxes have only gone up. No country has ever lowered taxes in the long term. Unfortunately this is a huge downside of our current political system. Gov and friends get addicted to that money, votes are bought in exchange for promises....vicious circle.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TanteStefana said:
Not really, Bitcoin will simply be taken over by the banks. They will use it's one function, transfer of value. They need Bitcoin because it is the only crypto out there with decent market cap and mining hash rate (which can not be overcome to cheat the blockchain). They need the market cap, which is still teeny tiny, to be useful. There is no way, even for banks to replicate that, because they need the diversified network. They don't even want anonymity. They do, if any of them understand, want a lot of full nodes. None of this is achievable by them alone, they need Bitcoin. Bitcoin is the entryway for the rest of the world to crypto. Being a one trick pony is just fine. In fact it's desirable and if you don't think the guys at MIT know this, your mistaken. They know, and they keep those developers on a string with the illusion that they (the developers) are in charge of the direction Bitcoin goes in. The powers that be do see the writing on the wall. The Banksters want to keep it down as long as possible until they control the situation (IE, have had enough time to collect enough BTC to feel in control) then, slowly, they'll start using it in their systems. BTC has a huge potential for growth, because it will become the main banking/governmental coin. But in the end, they will not be able to control the outflow to other cryptos, so they will be losing a lot of power to the people in the end, as Satoshi Nakamoto originally intended. No matter how institutionalized Bitcoin becomes, Satoshi Nakamoto is, and will always be the biggest hero of the 21st century.
Click to expand...


I think you're 100% accurate in this assessment. I strongly believe Bitcoin is being taken over by banksters *was taken over actually. This deserves a whole new thread because it's a very big topic.
 
TanteStefana said:
Yup. We have to admit, people want a government for good reason. Government helps most people resolve differences, helps protect individuals and businesses from fraud and theft by creating a system where one can get help. It's VERY imperfect but works for most people most of the time. The thing is, if there isn't enough money, we can't have a huge central government, it's repetitive and wasteful. The only way to function is for most of the money and effort to always be at the local level. That's how it should be in my opinion. Not every one agrees, I know, but the closer to the community a governing body is, the better it is at servicing the needs of the people, the more flexible it is, the more efficient, and the more responsive.

I'm not saying poor communities should be isolated, but I'm certain that even a state can do the job better than a federal government.
Click to expand...

Without big government, you'd have to have your own army and defenses to protect your interests in dealing with others. The big companies you see today would be small governments themselves. Everyone would be responsible for protecting their own wealth and safety. This is highly inefficient for society, trade and innovation, though. When like-minded, like-morality people get together and agree on rules and propriety, they can then elect a government to enforce those rules, and thus not have to expend nearly as much resources on personal protection compared to going at it alone. You can start to "rely" on government regulation so you can trust unknown 3rd party entities with your money. It works great for a while (industrial revolution, moon landing, computers, etc).But as we can see, this all starts to go out the window when it goes too far in the direction of complete laziness and trust without ANY personal responsibility, and the wealth and power is slowly drained from the hands of the people actually producing and into the hands of the few in control of the system.

You still need to be able to control and protect your own money. More to the point, you still need to have guns to protect yourself--not against your peers but against the government if/when it decides it no longer has to serve the will of the people who originally created it. The real check and balance system is ultimately the people themselves.
 
Yah, inTheWoods, the thing is, when everyone has digital cash freedom, the faucet will be turned off on the Government. Their only recourse will be to tax in the open, then the people can be incited to rebel so much easier. I see massive governmental employees being laid off in the future. I don't dislike people just because of where they work, but frankly, we all have had to deal with losing our jobs, they haven't. They will rebound, they will find other work.

This is the only way we can ever hope of shrinking government without a war.

I was posting while you wrote the above. I totally agree with you.
 
The public are being fed that we're a bunch of gun carrying, anarchistic crazy people. Really, we all just want to make a better world with less waste and no wars. And we simply have the gall to think.... no we know, this can be done and it must be done.

We are simply a segment of the population that actually loves our world and our fellow human beings (well, maybe not Camo ;P) , and are willing to fight to make it better......
 
TanteStefana said:
The public are being fed that we're a bunch of gun carrying, anarchistic crazy people. Really, we all just want to make a better world with less waste and no wars. And we simply have the gall to think.... no we know, this can be done and it must be done.

We are simply a segment of the population that actually loves our world and our fellow human beings (well, maybe not Camo ;P) , and are willing to fight to make it better......
Click to expand...

Satoshi, whoever he may be, regardless of his left or right political affiliation, wanted to destroy the central bank monopoly on money. This much we know as it was his stated goal. Goes without saying that if we are correct in our assessment, Bitcoin in its current form, hijacked by banksters, has failed in its mission. Banksters/private banks are just mere extensions of central banks. If private banks have taken over Bitcoin it's just another way of saying central banks have taken over Bitcoin.

You can't possibly expect to be able to challenge the central banks` monopoly while currency is not private. There is a simple reason for that. Private banks have clever ways to bypass KYC/AML compliance for their biggest customers which means Bitcoin being fully scrutinized and chocked by the fully regulated exchanges that are WAY more draconic than actual banks stands no real chance of being any kind of monopoly breaker in this area.

This means an alternative like DASH with a sustainable growth model is sorely needed. A transnational form of private digital cash that can really shatter the bankster monopoly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We don't have to worry about Bitcoin fixing its problems. It may have limitations but it does NOT have problems, and that's why it has been successful.

So far no so-called attack has ever been successful, has it? Gox and similar accidents (thefts) are a result of people not using bitcoin as intended (holding it themselves). The spamming of small transactions is not sustainable because of fees. The block size limit is a non factor because of fees. The speed is not a factor because it can simply be used to transfer larger quantities of wealth slowly with large fees. Theres no reason bitcoin can't become the primary currency for inter-governmental trade, while an alternative currency with supremely better features (A.K.A. Dash) is employed by individuals for daily use.

Economically, a fundamentally unchanging Bitcoin with huge hashing power can bee seen as a simple fact of nature like rocks or water. This actually GIVES it value and potential as a base money like gold as toknormal has expertly explained before. That's how it has garnered the investment base it currently has right now.

If any of these recent chinese speculators thought bitcoin was going to change, they'd get out right quick. IMO, Bitcoin itself is what it is and will probably never change again...that is the way it will gain the most value. Interestingly, some of the strongest advocates for Bitcoin change are the payment processors (bitpay, coinbase, etc) who do business in the facilitation of transactions, rather than using bitcoin DIRECTLY in the real-world economy. They know their days are numbered, just like the banks know it.

The only unknown for me is whether further innovation will come by means of 3rd party integration with Bitcoin or simply the use of Alts with these functions built-in. Maybe both? Extrapolate all of that 3rd party Bitcoin stuff into the long term and notice that it becomes a wasteful infrastructure that Dash handles orders of magnitude more efficiently at the protocol level! Dash will be way cheaper to use because the end-users would not have to pay nearly as much to support all of that service infrastructure. Additionally, Dash's decentralized proof of service will also be more elastic and adaptable than any for-profit 3rd party infrastructure built around Bitcoin. It is entirely possible that we'll see it all built for Bitcoin and later on at some point everyone will simply jump ship and Dash over to a superior currency.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What's really beautiful, even if people like Christine LaGarde, whom I actually find very intelligent and charismatic, really can't see that Bitcoin is THEIR future, it will not be long before Banks are converting funds to Bitcoin. Frankly, I think Ms. LaGarde knows very well, but they're still trying to see if they can do this themselves and not have the disadvantage of being "latecomers" to Bitcoin. I don't think they'll find a solution though, as the trust comes from distrust :) and there will always be the bigger banks with more hash power that the smaller banks won't trust (rightfully).
 
TanteStefana said:
What's really beautiful, even if people like Christine LaGarde, whom I actually find very intelligent and charismatic, really can't see that Bitcoin is THEIR future, it will not be long before Banks are converting funds to Bitcoin. Frankly, I think Ms. LaGarde knows very well, but they're still trying to see if they can do this themselves and not have the disadvantage of being "latecomers" to Bitcoin. I don't think they'll find a solution though, as the trust comes from distrust :) and there will always be the bigger banks with more hash power that the smaller banks won't trust (rightfully).
Click to expand...

Banks are already doing that and have been doing that via several funds that have popped up in recent years like Berry Silbert's and others. I believe he even listed one such fund on the pinkshets on the OTC market so banks can buy Bitcoin just like stock. On top of this there's the fully compliant regulated Gemini where banks can also buy Bitcoin.
I don't think this changes things much though.

Christine LaGarde recently said banks should not be worried about Bitcoin because as long as Bitcoin is chocked with draconic AML/KYC banks have nothing to worry about when it comes to their future. I think she's right. In this sense Bitcoin has failed its intended mission as Satoshi envisioned it, which was to destroy the central bank monopoly on money. Bitcoin will be just another safe heaven asset like gold (for a while) but nothing more. It will never replace fiat currencies in its current form.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You may be right, but I do see Bitcoin being more secure than anything the banks can come up with, and it's speed (compared to banks, it's super fast) will draw them in. That's not even taking into account it's cost, which is minimal especially at the amounts they trade daily. So maybe Bitcoin is "playing by the rules" of AML and KYC, it only effects small time users. You're right that Satoshi's hope for bringing down the the world banking organization has failed. But lets face it, total chaos isn't in anyone's interest. I still see all this as being extremely empowering to the people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top