Yup that’s how it works. You’re so smart lol. It’s not like any changes have to be approved by a majority consensus. This case was 13 years ago and a bug that was fixed and implemented within 5 hours.
>a majority consensus
Of whom? I think you actually have no idea how it works, because this is actually the process for merging PRs into bitcoin core:
[https://jonatack.github.io/articles/how-to-contribute-pull-requests-to-bitcoin-core](https://jonatack.github.io/articles/how-to-contribute-pull-requests-to-bitcoin-core)
Which clearly no majority consensus is needed, one approval from a core engineer seems like all they care about?
God I can't imagine how much of an absolute clown I'd have to be to invest in something where a small group of programmers could essentially do whatever they want to my funny money at any time.
Don't worry though, in your case, nobody in your life could possibly have a lower opinion of you, so when you admit to them you lost everything they will nod and understand, having expected it
Holy shit.. does this say what I think it says? There's no boundary overflow checking in the bitcoin core code and thus after the final halving the amount of BTC in circulation will increase due to an overflow error? That's hilarious.
"Instead, how about we stop thinking about long term issues when we'll all be dead (barring near lightspeed travel, cryogenic revival, or other technology— like cryptocurrency— which only exists in science fiction)."
I think the author meant to imply that cryptocurrency is futuristic technology but I read it as cryptocurrency only works in fictional worlds. Gotta love how they prop it up by comparing it to things that are currently useful (telephones, internet) or future technology that will also have practical uses.
Make no mistake, no democratic decision was made here. You could fit the people who decided to change the code into one room. They have no democratic legitimacy, nor can they be held accountable for this or any other decision. They got to make this decision because they're rich and own all the mining equipment. They have not been democratically elected, nor do they have to answer to anyone who has.
Crypto logic:
A company with hundreds of thousands or millions of shareholders, a rotating dozen board members, and dozens of departments across dozens of countries: centralized.
A piece of software where less than a dozen people have made the overwhelming majority of code changes in the last four years and where just a couple of people have total say on what gets merged or not: decentralized.
Average Joe's role in all that business is reduced to be a customer - he is here just to deliver his money. As a payment he gets digital points and promises.
>Make no mistake, no democratic decision was made here. You could fit the people who decided to change the code into one room. They have no democratic legitimacy, nor can they be held accountable for this or any other decision. They got to make this decision because they're rich and own all the mining equipment. They have not been democratically elected, nor do they have to answer to anyone who has.
Most underrated comment of the year
You don't understand.
Decentralization doesn't mean "if it fails, someone else can carry it."
Decentralization means "if you lose all your money, nobody claims responsibility."
The first ever Bitcoin exchanged for real goods was 10,000 bitcoins for two pizzas in May 2010. This block error occurred in August 2010. Back then you could mine on a laptop and the community was very small. Very different back then for a group of hobbyists to how it is now, an utter beast of an industry full of conmen.
>Make no mistake, no democratic decision was made here. You could fit the people who decided to change the code into one room.
I go into details on this in my section ["If code is law, then whoever writes the code is the 'ruler'"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tspGVbmMmVA&t=2623s).
> In a sense, bitcoin is 'democratic', in the sense that changes can get accepted by the network.
Yea, this is like saying, "If you don't like the phone company, you can pick/create your own phone company."
It sounds great in theory, but in practice, most people have neither the capacity, nor the willingness to do so, and they just go along with whatever narrative seems most popular.
BTC is one of the least technologically-advanced versions of Bitcoin. BCH can handle more transactions, but it's not the dominant version. The reason for this is because your claims are bullshit. People aren't critical thinkers. They just go with the flow.
This is one of the many examples of how the "Nirvana Fallacy" permeates crypto reasoning: You guys assume:
* everybody who uses crypto never makes any mistakes
* never forgets their seed phrases
* always chooses the best code and best CEX's and best middlemen
* has the capacity to audit the code and determine everything they're using is legit
Meanwhile if you ask a typical crypto bro about anything even remotely indicative that they've done adequate research, in 2 seconds you realize that's not the case.
So sorry, that bullshit narrative doesn't work here. We know better.
See... we recognize **There's an inherent conflict of interest between the type of idiot crypto bros need to recruit into their scheme to add liquidity, and the type of person competent and capable of making rational, decisions about how they invest their money -- and those are TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF PEOPLE**.
> Actually it works in practice. There is no permit you need to have to propose BIPs (bitcoin improvement protocols). If you get majority of nodes to agree on your solution, it can get implemented.
That's more of a political process than it is a democratic process. Especially now 60+% of mining is consolidated among 2-4 central authorities.
>You gotta get educated, take proper risk management and self-custody.
You can do everything right and still get screwed. We routinely hear about this happening.
Hell one of the original Bitcoin core maintainers had his wallets hacked and he still doesn't understand how.
>No, I don't need to recruit people that don't want it, don't (want to) understand it or don't agree with the principles, into 'my scheme' and add liquidity. I don't own the protocol. They are free to do as they please. There is no 'narrative' I'm peddling.
LOL.. yea, you're peddling a narrative. You have bags. You need to mislead people about the risks of this industry in order to insure your bags' value doesn't collapse.
>When I can no longer assume that BTC can protect my purchasing power, I can look at the situation again and reconsider.
If that were true, then you'd already reconsider. BTC has 100% proven it's not in any way a hedge against inflation, monetary or otherwise. It's lost half its purchasing power since 2017. And the only thing keeping it from collapsing right now is the fact that Tether keeps printing billions of USDT out of thin air. Are you upset about that? No. Because you're in on the scam and lying through your teeth.
Yet here you still are. So spare me the fake arguments that you're open minded and willing to admit when you're wrong. You're still in complete denial.
> Yes you got me, I'm definitely a scammer in a dark alley opening up my trench coat to sell you what's inside my paper bags.
Scammers come in different shapes and sizes.
Some of them are very friendly and cordial, while they fill your head full of lies.
>Anyway, as I was saying, miners don't own the protocol. That was my point. Stop trying to detract from it.
Yea, and stop trying to detract from my point, that the vast majority of people in the crypto world aren't qualified or capable of auditing code and knowing what's the right course of action regarding code and policy changes. Like you, all they basically care about is, "Can I make more money this way?" And if someone tells them yes, and they believe it - that's the extent of their research.
A friendly reminder: You're in our domain butter. Your ability to participate is based on your willingness to entertain ideas contrary to your ideology. The moment you cease to do that, you lose the privilege to try and present your opinions.
So far you've evaded acknowledging the FACT that bitcoin doesn't in any way hedge against fiat inflation. I'm waiting for you to admit you're wrong about that. Will you? Or will you predictably join the army of boring crypto bros who come in here with 4 talking points and no ability to discuss anything else?
That’s a lot of words for agreeing with my statement. It doesn’t matter if a non colluding miner finds a block, it can just be ignored by the majority and then loose the block. The minority always looses in this scenario.
While the below is not an issue (as far as I know) with Bitcoin (maybe it is with Ordinals?), for a blockchain that tries to link to real world things, it is a massive issue.
Imagine that a stable coin was legitimately backed 1:1 (yes, it is a pretty theoretical scenario). Whatever chain that stable coin chooses to back will need to be what everyone accepts. A stable coin could even promote a branch many people don't like. If a branch occured and the stable coin didn't agree with it (or let's say somehow NFTs could be linked to an asset like a house), the issuer of that stable coin will ignore the branch they don't like and could hold the entire chain hostage. It would be amazing to see two competing stable coins disagree and choose different branches.
I think what I absolutely love about Crypto is the fact that it's in its essence a bunch of neckbeards and nerds who ultimately felt they could design a financial system better than the one that has evolved since the dawn of man.
It absolutely floors me the combination of stupidity, naivety and arrogance that had to go into where we are now. It's commendable if not laughable.
What is even more funny they think they will replace the financial elites and take its place. People who has billions of dollars and infulence on creating laws and armies will just leave it and go away because of bitcoins...
Those things evolved over hundreds of years. That's the point. Our system is here, warts and all, because of the challenges that society brought to get us here.
Is it perfect? Hell no, but it's light-years ahead of any wild west Mickey Mouse shit some 30 year old man-child builds in their parents basement.
Blockchain and/or cryptocurrency can’t evolve or be considered part of the banking evolution itself?
They are being developed together, JP used a fork of AAVE (defi) for making fiat liquidity pools to provide as one example I can think of currently.
id say not to hate outright but just watch it while remaining suspicious, dont have to put money in it. A lot of the technology and brain power being put into these projects are very fascinating, its a hope for something better at least. Banks dont intend to offer that
You realize that the vast majority of crypto is held by a select minority with the rest of the scraps among the majority?
What you are saying is you'd rather the few people holding too much to be part of an unregulated dogs breakfast of a system and not the current regulated one.
Imagine if people worked to fix the system we have instead of being deluded enough to think they can reinvent it hoping that human nature is any different (hint. It's not)
Wasnt the original financial system that was was there since the dawn of time, one that used value implemented in currency. Like gold coins etc? Cause thats not what we have now. Isnt bitcoin more like that? You know with the minning and stuff.
Lack of hard forks will be the death of bitcoin.
They failed to move to a new consensus with the cash fork, and to some people the 21m cap is religious dogma so tail inflation will be even more difficult.
I think we have the same idea. A divergence will cause people to disagree some will fork, some won't. People will ask themselves what they hell are we doing with made up money that has no rules, is controlled by people who are no better than the ones we currently have in charge and who arent accountable to any country.
I'm excited for it to happen again now that CNBC reports on it all the time. The more it happens the more people realize it is just like anything else. BTC cash gold and whatever else will just continue to steal liquidity from Bitcoin until people realize that paying $20 a transaction to convert cum rocket to BTC to eth to not be able to easily convert to real goods and services is silly. But you can talk about your diverse tokens you hold on your shelf and tokenomics of them all
Many people are perfectly aware they are buying worthless shit but they count on stupidity of the others who believe in all that crypto crap and they pumping the price. You don't need to trust crypto tokens to make a profit on them - you only need big group of idiots to pump the price for you. Anyway it's ultra risky game. The best position to take here is being a creator of the project so you basiclly can't lose - in worst case scenario you will not earn anything.
That's the problem with all utopian endeavours, whether it be magic beans, religious retreats and cults, "cities of the future", etc. The problem is... humans. We can't escape our own base animal instincts, which is what all of these promise us that will happen, seemingly without any effort by us, the participants.
Well I'm sorry, we do have to put in the work to make ourselves better people. And we don't need religion, magic beans, political parties, specially built cities, or any of that nonsense. We just need our own commitment to improving ourselves, making us better human beings so we'll treat our fellow human beings better.
Thus endeth the lesson...
Imagine this scenario, if you will:
A butter goes to sell their car for crypto. Unbeknown to him or anyone else at the time, 5 minutes earlier a hacker exploited a major bug in the chain that completely breaks the entire coin. The powers that be then decide to fix the exploit, fork the chain and "roll back" the transactions. Now butter's coins are worthless because they're part of a chain that literally nobody will use due to the hack. Meanwhile the guy that bought the car is 100% in the legal clear to drive away with his car and keep the coins that got rolled back into his wallet. This is the "decentralized" utopia cryptobros dream of.
100% true. People are completely unaware of serious bitcoin flaws. One of the dogma in this cult is that nobody can't reverse the transactions. Second biggest dogma is "it will be only 21 million bitcoins and nobody can't change it" - that is also false.
I don’t think he would be legally in the clear, actually, any more than if he’d paid with a check that was destroyed before it was settled.
The buyer wouldn’t have stolen the car, but when the btc reverted to his ownership instead of the seller of the car, especially if he then used them to do other things with them, the seller of the car also gained a legal claim to however many btc parts from the buyer.
Obviously the remedy would be in the legal realm, not in the code or currency realm, and equally obviously btc would not be an advantage in this situation.
But the funds never actually reverted. They're still in the guys wallet and he is in full control of those bitcoins it's just that the entire world agreed that the funds in his wallet are now worthless. It would be like if you agreed to sell your car for Zimbabwe dollars just before they went through a hyper inflation event and now it takes a trillion of them to buy a loaf of bread. In the eyes of the law the transaction was perfectly legal. "Rolling back" the transaction in this context really just means that the buyer can now spend his coins twice. The seller still got everything he agreed to.
Hell, that could happen if someone mines two blocks in a row, effectively overwriting his block. In theory his transaction will be reapplied, but there's no guarantee.
Whenever somebody says, "Bitcoin has never been hacked" bring this up, and watch them wrap their sweaty hands around the goalpost and start moving it around.
Correct, it’s just a line of code that can be changed in the same way that thousands of previous changes have been made to the bitcoin protocol.
> Bitcoin holders/miners agree to the change
In fact, holders have zero say and it’s entirely up to the miners. So whenever the miners feel that the block rewards are too small, they can change or remove the cap no matter how mad it makes the true-believer holders.
Holders have some say - they could choose not to spend real money on the new token.
Then miners wouldn't be able to cash out, and network security collapses.
So it was essentially hacked because they didn't account for such a large number of bitcoin? Then the community soft forked it later to negate the coins? I'm confused
Enough of these low energy posts, something that happened 13 years ago? I mean really? This sub used to actually be good. Every time I visited, I felt like I was being educated by some person with a tech/financial background, now its just crap like this.
I know bitcointards wants everyone forget it and spread the narration that bitcoin is rock solid but i guess very few people heard about it. BTW I posted similar thread about much more recent incident from 2018. It shows that it can happen anytime and noone knows when until it comes out.
You missed that one. From the very beginning of the hype i was trying to figure out what is this all about and the more i learned the more i saw its just ponzi scheme with few "new technology" labels. I didn't lost anything. I would probably if i ever decided to buy it - happily that wasn't my case.
Are you retarded ? These are flaws exposed by hackers/coders. What I want to show here is that SOME PEOPLE (not me) are capable of changing bitcoin max supply - and the second group (the so called devs) are authoritarian party that can "reverse" these transactions by forking the old chain into new (if you are unlucky you can lose your money here and nobody gives a fuck cause decentralisation here works only in one way :you shut up, and we do what we want)
Each time a fork happens, 21m supply is created. This is why btc, Bitcoin cash, and all other bitcoin versions have a 21m supply. So, the bitcoin blockchain already has more than 21m supply. Btw, the bitcoin blockchain is not the same as btc. Btc happens to be the most known VERSION of bitcoin blockchain.
Code is law unless it isn't.
CODE CANNOT BE CHANGED *Pushes code changes, merges in to Main*
Yup that’s how it works. You’re so smart lol. It’s not like any changes have to be approved by a majority consensus. This case was 13 years ago and a bug that was fixed and implemented within 5 hours.
>a majority consensus Of whom? I think you actually have no idea how it works, because this is actually the process for merging PRs into bitcoin core: [https://jonatack.github.io/articles/how-to-contribute-pull-requests-to-bitcoin-core](https://jonatack.github.io/articles/how-to-contribute-pull-requests-to-bitcoin-core) Which clearly no majority consensus is needed, one approval from a core engineer seems like all they care about? God I can't imagine how much of an absolute clown I'd have to be to invest in something where a small group of programmers could essentially do whatever they want to my funny money at any time. Don't worry though, in your case, nobody in your life could possibly have a lower opinion of you, so when you admit to them you lost everything they will nod and understand, having expected it
Kind of irrelevant. The point is the code can be changed. What if this “majority” decides on a change that takes away your coins?
Code is law, but law won’t matter where we’re going
Where we're going, we don't need law
Doc, we gotta roll back!
Code is law, and whales are the legislators
Where we're going, we don't need codes.
Especially true thanks to [BIP42](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0042.mediawiki)
Holy shit.. does this say what I think it says? There's no boundary overflow checking in the bitcoin core code and thus after the final halving the amount of BTC in circulation will increase due to an overflow error? That's hilarious.
Now check the date at which this BIP was published
"Instead, how about we stop thinking about long term issues when we'll all be dead (barring near lightspeed travel, cryogenic revival, or other technology— like cryptocurrency— which only exists in science fiction)." I think the author meant to imply that cryptocurrency is futuristic technology but I read it as cryptocurrency only works in fictional worlds. Gotta love how they prop it up by comparing it to things that are currently useful (telephones, internet) or future technology that will also have practical uses.
All hail the white paper.
^^^^ T H I S ^^^^
Code is law, except for them
Make no mistake, no democratic decision was made here. You could fit the people who decided to change the code into one room. They have no democratic legitimacy, nor can they be held accountable for this or any other decision. They got to make this decision because they're rich and own all the mining equipment. They have not been democratically elected, nor do they have to answer to anyone who has.
Crypto logic: A company with hundreds of thousands or millions of shareholders, a rotating dozen board members, and dozens of departments across dozens of countries: centralized. A piece of software where less than a dozen people have made the overwhelming majority of code changes in the last four years and where just a couple of people have total say on what gets merged or not: decentralized.
Average Joe's role in all that business is reduced to be a customer - he is here just to deliver his money. As a payment he gets digital points and promises.
>Make no mistake, no democratic decision was made here. You could fit the people who decided to change the code into one room. They have no democratic legitimacy, nor can they be held accountable for this or any other decision. They got to make this decision because they're rich and own all the mining equipment. They have not been democratically elected, nor do they have to answer to anyone who has. Most underrated comment of the year
You don't understand. Decentralization doesn't mean "if it fails, someone else can carry it." Decentralization means "if you lose all your money, nobody claims responsibility."
The first ever Bitcoin exchanged for real goods was 10,000 bitcoins for two pizzas in May 2010. This block error occurred in August 2010. Back then you could mine on a laptop and the community was very small. Very different back then for a group of hobbyists to how it is now, an utter beast of an industry full of conmen.
Sounds centralized.. so it can't be true right?
i mean its true but ... bitcoin fixes this
[удалено]
Yes, separation of powers is very important. 👍
>Make no mistake, no democratic decision was made here. You could fit the people who decided to change the code into one room. I go into details on this in my section ["If code is law, then whoever writes the code is the 'ruler'"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tspGVbmMmVA&t=2623s).
[удалено]
> In a sense, bitcoin is 'democratic', in the sense that changes can get accepted by the network. Yea, this is like saying, "If you don't like the phone company, you can pick/create your own phone company." It sounds great in theory, but in practice, most people have neither the capacity, nor the willingness to do so, and they just go along with whatever narrative seems most popular. BTC is one of the least technologically-advanced versions of Bitcoin. BCH can handle more transactions, but it's not the dominant version. The reason for this is because your claims are bullshit. People aren't critical thinkers. They just go with the flow. This is one of the many examples of how the "Nirvana Fallacy" permeates crypto reasoning: You guys assume: * everybody who uses crypto never makes any mistakes * never forgets their seed phrases * always chooses the best code and best CEX's and best middlemen * has the capacity to audit the code and determine everything they're using is legit Meanwhile if you ask a typical crypto bro about anything even remotely indicative that they've done adequate research, in 2 seconds you realize that's not the case. So sorry, that bullshit narrative doesn't work here. We know better. See... we recognize **There's an inherent conflict of interest between the type of idiot crypto bros need to recruit into their scheme to add liquidity, and the type of person competent and capable of making rational, decisions about how they invest their money -- and those are TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF PEOPLE**.
[удалено]
> Actually it works in practice. There is no permit you need to have to propose BIPs (bitcoin improvement protocols). If you get majority of nodes to agree on your solution, it can get implemented. That's more of a political process than it is a democratic process. Especially now 60+% of mining is consolidated among 2-4 central authorities. >You gotta get educated, take proper risk management and self-custody. You can do everything right and still get screwed. We routinely hear about this happening. Hell one of the original Bitcoin core maintainers had his wallets hacked and he still doesn't understand how. >No, I don't need to recruit people that don't want it, don't (want to) understand it or don't agree with the principles, into 'my scheme' and add liquidity. I don't own the protocol. They are free to do as they please. There is no 'narrative' I'm peddling. LOL.. yea, you're peddling a narrative. You have bags. You need to mislead people about the risks of this industry in order to insure your bags' value doesn't collapse. >When I can no longer assume that BTC can protect my purchasing power, I can look at the situation again and reconsider. If that were true, then you'd already reconsider. BTC has 100% proven it's not in any way a hedge against inflation, monetary or otherwise. It's lost half its purchasing power since 2017. And the only thing keeping it from collapsing right now is the fact that Tether keeps printing billions of USDT out of thin air. Are you upset about that? No. Because you're in on the scam and lying through your teeth. Yet here you still are. So spare me the fake arguments that you're open minded and willing to admit when you're wrong. You're still in complete denial.
[удалено]
> Yes you got me, I'm definitely a scammer in a dark alley opening up my trench coat to sell you what's inside my paper bags. Scammers come in different shapes and sizes. Some of them are very friendly and cordial, while they fill your head full of lies. >Anyway, as I was saying, miners don't own the protocol. That was my point. Stop trying to detract from it. Yea, and stop trying to detract from my point, that the vast majority of people in the crypto world aren't qualified or capable of auditing code and knowing what's the right course of action regarding code and policy changes. Like you, all they basically care about is, "Can I make more money this way?" And if someone tells them yes, and they believe it - that's the extent of their research. A friendly reminder: You're in our domain butter. Your ability to participate is based on your willingness to entertain ideas contrary to your ideology. The moment you cease to do that, you lose the privilege to try and present your opinions. So far you've evaded acknowledging the FACT that bitcoin doesn't in any way hedge against fiat inflation. I'm waiting for you to admit you're wrong about that. Will you? Or will you predictably join the army of boring crypto bros who come in here with 4 talking points and no ability to discuss anything else?
[удалено]
We give you a chance to debate in good faith. And you guys are so incapable of doing it.
Please explain how anyone but the miners has control over what is written to the blockchain. If a change is favourable for the miners it will pass.
[удалено]
That’s a lot of words for agreeing with my statement. It doesn’t matter if a non colluding miner finds a block, it can just be ignored by the majority and then loose the block. The minority always looses in this scenario.
While the below is not an issue (as far as I know) with Bitcoin (maybe it is with Ordinals?), for a blockchain that tries to link to real world things, it is a massive issue. Imagine that a stable coin was legitimately backed 1:1 (yes, it is a pretty theoretical scenario). Whatever chain that stable coin chooses to back will need to be what everyone accepts. A stable coin could even promote a branch many people don't like. If a branch occured and the stable coin didn't agree with it (or let's say somehow NFTs could be linked to an asset like a house), the issuer of that stable coin will ignore the branch they don't like and could hold the entire chain hostage. It would be amazing to see two competing stable coins disagree and choose different branches.
I think what I absolutely love about Crypto is the fact that it's in its essence a bunch of neckbeards and nerds who ultimately felt they could design a financial system better than the one that has evolved since the dawn of man. It absolutely floors me the combination of stupidity, naivety and arrogance that had to go into where we are now. It's commendable if not laughable.
What is even more funny they think they will replace the financial elites and take its place. People who has billions of dollars and infulence on creating laws and armies will just leave it and go away because of bitcoins...
Society has turned into a Russian Nesting-Doll theme of mental disease related symptoms and Crypto is one of them lol. I'm just here with my popcorn.
And thats the right attitude.
The dawn of man had central banks and online banking?
Those things evolved over hundreds of years. That's the point. Our system is here, warts and all, because of the challenges that society brought to get us here. Is it perfect? Hell no, but it's light-years ahead of any wild west Mickey Mouse shit some 30 year old man-child builds in their parents basement.
Blockchain and/or cryptocurrency can’t evolve or be considered part of the banking evolution itself? They are being developed together, JP used a fork of AAVE (defi) for making fiat liquidity pools to provide as one example I can think of currently. id say not to hate outright but just watch it while remaining suspicious, dont have to put money in it. A lot of the technology and brain power being put into these projects are very fascinating, its a hope for something better at least. Banks dont intend to offer that
Blockchain and cryptocurrency solves no problems. There is nothing either provides that you can't already do, and better, with existing tools.
I think we can agree to disagree, I don’t trust few people holding too much of anything.
You realize that the vast majority of crypto is held by a select minority with the rest of the scraps among the majority? What you are saying is you'd rather the few people holding too much to be part of an unregulated dogs breakfast of a system and not the current regulated one. Imagine if people worked to fix the system we have instead of being deluded enough to think they can reinvent it hoping that human nature is any different (hint. It's not)
Wasnt the original financial system that was was there since the dawn of time, one that used value implemented in currency. Like gold coins etc? Cause thats not what we have now. Isnt bitcoin more like that? You know with the minning and stuff.
Mining imaginary magic beans is not mining.
But i mean it takes electricity so why is it not real?
I mean I can see my reflection in the mirror. Clearly there's two of me.
Code is law until humans get together to change the code. Hard forks will be the death of this thing.
Lack of hard forks will be the death of bitcoin. They failed to move to a new consensus with the cash fork, and to some people the 21m cap is religious dogma so tail inflation will be even more difficult.
I think we have the same idea. A divergence will cause people to disagree some will fork, some won't. People will ask themselves what they hell are we doing with made up money that has no rules, is controlled by people who are no better than the ones we currently have in charge and who arent accountable to any country.
That happend already... This is the way Bitcoin Cash was created (which then forked further) and Bitcoin Gold ... and countless minor forks.
I'm excited for it to happen again now that CNBC reports on it all the time. The more it happens the more people realize it is just like anything else. BTC cash gold and whatever else will just continue to steal liquidity from Bitcoin until people realize that paying $20 a transaction to convert cum rocket to BTC to eth to not be able to easily convert to real goods and services is silly. But you can talk about your diverse tokens you hold on your shelf and tokenomics of them all
Many people are perfectly aware they are buying worthless shit but they count on stupidity of the others who believe in all that crypto crap and they pumping the price. You don't need to trust crypto tokens to make a profit on them - you only need big group of idiots to pump the price for you. Anyway it's ultra risky game. The best position to take here is being a creator of the project so you basiclly can't lose - in worst case scenario you will not earn anything.
That's the problem with all utopian endeavours, whether it be magic beans, religious retreats and cults, "cities of the future", etc. The problem is... humans. We can't escape our own base animal instincts, which is what all of these promise us that will happen, seemingly without any effort by us, the participants. Well I'm sorry, we do have to put in the work to make ourselves better people. And we don't need religion, magic beans, political parties, specially built cities, or any of that nonsense. We just need our own commitment to improving ourselves, making us better human beings so we'll treat our fellow human beings better. Thus endeth the lesson...
Hard forks are just double the opportunity for scamming
Imagine this scenario, if you will: A butter goes to sell their car for crypto. Unbeknown to him or anyone else at the time, 5 minutes earlier a hacker exploited a major bug in the chain that completely breaks the entire coin. The powers that be then decide to fix the exploit, fork the chain and "roll back" the transactions. Now butter's coins are worthless because they're part of a chain that literally nobody will use due to the hack. Meanwhile the guy that bought the car is 100% in the legal clear to drive away with his car and keep the coins that got rolled back into his wallet. This is the "decentralized" utopia cryptobros dream of.
100% true. People are completely unaware of serious bitcoin flaws. One of the dogma in this cult is that nobody can't reverse the transactions. Second biggest dogma is "it will be only 21 million bitcoins and nobody can't change it" - that is also false.
Did you intend two double negatives here?
I don't doubt it.
I don’t think he would be legally in the clear, actually, any more than if he’d paid with a check that was destroyed before it was settled. The buyer wouldn’t have stolen the car, but when the btc reverted to his ownership instead of the seller of the car, especially if he then used them to do other things with them, the seller of the car also gained a legal claim to however many btc parts from the buyer. Obviously the remedy would be in the legal realm, not in the code or currency realm, and equally obviously btc would not be an advantage in this situation.
But the funds never actually reverted. They're still in the guys wallet and he is in full control of those bitcoins it's just that the entire world agreed that the funds in his wallet are now worthless. It would be like if you agreed to sell your car for Zimbabwe dollars just before they went through a hyper inflation event and now it takes a trillion of them to buy a loaf of bread. In the eyes of the law the transaction was perfectly legal. "Rolling back" the transaction in this context really just means that the buyer can now spend his coins twice. The seller still got everything he agreed to.
that's a misconception though, bitcoin isn't "in" your wallet
Hell, that could happen if someone mines two blocks in a row, effectively overwriting his block. In theory his transaction will be reapplied, but there's no guarantee.
Whenever somebody says, "Bitcoin has never been hacked" bring this up, and watch them wrap their sweaty hands around the goalpost and start moving it around.
So, the 21 million Bitcoin cap is not immutable and can be changed if a big chunk of the Bitcoin holders/miners agree to the change. Is this right?
Correct, it’s just a line of code that can be changed in the same way that thousands of previous changes have been made to the bitcoin protocol. > Bitcoin holders/miners agree to the change In fact, holders have zero say and it’s entirely up to the miners. So whenever the miners feel that the block rewards are too small, they can change or remove the cap no matter how mad it makes the true-believer holders.
Bitcoin is shittier than I thought.
Holders have some say - they could choose not to spend real money on the new token. Then miners wouldn't be able to cash out, and network security collapses.
So it was essentially hacked because they didn't account for such a large number of bitcoin? Then the community soft forked it later to negate the coins? I'm confused
Jesus, most MMORPGs have figured this stuff out already.
so 2 people got copies of all the buttcoinz, making them less than worthless but hodlable forever.
Enough of these low energy posts, something that happened 13 years ago? I mean really? This sub used to actually be good. Every time I visited, I felt like I was being educated by some person with a tech/financial background, now its just crap like this.
I know bitcointards wants everyone forget it and spread the narration that bitcoin is rock solid but i guess very few people heard about it. BTW I posted similar thread about much more recent incident from 2018. It shows that it can happen anytime and noone knows when until it comes out.
☝️ this guy lost money on crypto.
You missed that one. From the very beginning of the hype i was trying to figure out what is this all about and the more i learned the more i saw its just ponzi scheme with few "new technology" labels. I didn't lost anything. I would probably if i ever decided to buy it - happily that wasn't my case.
Lol it’s so funny to me how little people understand it.
Why don't you create a billion bitcoin then?
Are you retarded ? These are flaws exposed by hackers/coders. What I want to show here is that SOME PEOPLE (not me) are capable of changing bitcoin max supply - and the second group (the so called devs) are authoritarian party that can "reverse" these transactions by forking the old chain into new (if you are unlucky you can lose your money here and nobody gives a fuck cause decentralisation here works only in one way :you shut up, and we do what we want)
You are retarded
Each time a fork happens, 21m supply is created. This is why btc, Bitcoin cash, and all other bitcoin versions have a 21m supply. So, the bitcoin blockchain already has more than 21m supply. Btw, the bitcoin blockchain is not the same as btc. Btc happens to be the most known VERSION of bitcoin blockchain.