/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>22267919
>what bitcoin is not:
>- a whitepaper
>[...]
>- whatever satoshi said in a forum post
At least you're honest about your view on Bitcoin unlike liars like Dan Held who claims that Satoshi isn't a big-blocker.

>>21668995

>>20785227

>>It's not a technocracy when all the power is in the people's hands, which is the era we're moving into

I don't see how power can be in the people's hands if they have to trust the word of a few technocrats as to which coin is "good." Look at how many people get scammed here on a regular basis because of that. Ampleforth is only the most recent example. That sort of exit-scam is a weekly occurrence on /biz/. Bizonacci analyzed the life-cycle of a cryptocurrency two years ago in his "Wage Cuckin' It," and the video is still exactly as true today as it was then. You can't get exit-scammed with gold.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMonlRsJ5hY

>>You've never used gold in your life to buy anything. Because it's useless outside of electronics. You can't buy shit on Amazon with it, ATM's would be beyond impractical and transactions would take 1000% longer

People don't use BTC for anything. BTC is a joke. Almost all crypto transactions in Australia, for example, are BCH. If crypto did have a future, it would be something like BCH, or, for privacy, Monero; these things fill a niche and might have some sort of future. But they will never be money, because they are not unique. And we could create a gold-backed crypto which does everything that BCH does if we so chose. The real lifeboat in a currency crisis must be gold. Once we go back to gold, crypto, as I say, is largely redundant.

>>The only reason gold ever had value was because it's soft and easy to work with

This is untrue. See Roy Seabag's article. Gold is special because it is both rare and incorruptible. >>20783446

>>19773065

Precisely.

>>19733472

>Btw, gold is in the process of being demonetized by an even harder money: bitcoin.

I just realized that I missed this. I am talking to a BTC fanatic. Cannot comprehend how you think that a fundamentally broken product, controlled by banks, which must rely on second-layer technology to succeed, can ever replace gold. If you are going to speculate on crypto, at least buy something with a real use-case like XMR, not a complete ponzi-scheme. And even then, only put 1% of your money into it.

>>19706443

>Bitcoin is accepted literally anywhere

See picture.

>You will never be able to send gold across the planet in seconds for pennies without any third party involvement

This is one particular use-case which crypto has over gold, yes. But gold has its own advantages. If you make a mistake on GoldMoney.com, you can talk to someone and get the transaction reversed. If you make a mistake with crypto, you lose everything. Most normal people will never want to take on board that kind of risk. Again, somebody can torture you for your crypto-keys, and, in a crypto-world, torturing people for their money would become commonplace. But nobody can torture you for your gold which you keep in a Swiss vault.

>This is a once in 1000 lifetimes event

The once-in-a-lifetime event is the junior silver miners. They could go 100x or 150x. That's enough money for me. I don't need to put everything on a speculative gamble when I know I have a sure thing. If you know you can turn £100,000 into 15 million, why bother with crypto? Low real yields means a PM bull market, a PM bull market means silver going up, silver going up means silver juniors go to a price which we can hardly imagine.

>>19288181
>OGs have moved on
Not all of them, btw. Just take a look at Dan Held who lies his ass off, defending BTC.

>>19232031
>>19232213

Will copy here the post which I made on another thread; the specific part which answers your question is this:

>BCH was severely damaged when Craig Wright, pretending to be Satoshi, hard-forked from it, and split the anti-core community.

-

BCH hard-forked from BTC a few years ago in order to follow the original vision of Satoshi. It has the support of Mike Hearn and Gavin Andresen, who were Satoshi's closest associates, and those to whom he entrusted the continuance of the project. The idea of BCH is to continue with Satoshi's vision of making Bitcoin a genuine digital currency--"peer to peer cash," as he says in his white paper. In order to do this, the memory-size of Bitcoin has to keep growing; and this is what BCH is made to do. But a company called Blockstream, with the backing of financial institutions and the Bilberberg Group, bought out BTC in the early days and hamstringed the memory-size. BTC is so crippled that, when the price goes to $20,000, you get transactions with $100-fees and three-day waiting-times. It can only work with second-layer technology which tracks and centralizes everything you do. BTC is now nothing more than a ponzi scheme without a use-case.

Satoshi would have been completely against all this. He wanted to increase the memory-size; picture related.

Now BCH was severely damaged when Craig Wright, pretending to be Satoshi, hard-forked from it, and split the anti-core community. BTC-supporters loved it when Wright did this; they have no good reason to discredit Wright. In other words, whoever does this is most likely to be a Bitcoin Cash supporter; and it is not unlikely that the candidate is Satoshi Nakamoto himself. He's here, and he's going to rescue us.

>>19232876

The BTC community is religiously invested in the idea of second-layer technology, and of never increasing the block-size. The debate is done after the failure of Bitcoin XT, and the schism between the big-block and small-block communities is now too large ever to be healed. If you even mention increasing the block-size on /r/Bitcoin, you get banned. If you even mention BCH, except to ridicule it, you get banned. Even posting this video >>19232401, which actually posits that Satoshi Nakamoto _is_ the chief of Blockstream, Adam Back, will get you banned, simply because the first half of it gives an honest overview of the block-size debate. When people are that invested in a wrong idea, they won't change. To suppose otherwise is like thinking that somebody in a cult will change their beliefs, as the cult becomes more extremist, rather than go down with the ship. Most people do go down with the ship. By the time the inherent flaws in BTC's code become obvious to everybody, anybody with an ounce of sense will have already have jumped ship to BCH. Why waste time on something that doesn't work when you can go now to what already does?

>>19233011

See https://txstreet.com/beta.. The fees have already doubled since a week ago. $4.20 is the median fee as I write. Look at the waiting-times too, and all the people clogged up in the queue to make transactions. Miner capitulation is already happening. The problem is only going to get even worse.

>>19232876

The BTC community is religiously invested in the idea of second-layer technology, and of never increasing the block-size. The debate is done after the failure of Bitcoin XT, and the schism between the big-block and small-block communities is now too large ever to be healed. If you even mention increasing the block-size on /r/Bitcoin, you get banned. If you even mention BCH, except to ridicule it, you get banned. Even posting this video >>19232401, which actually posits that Satoshi Nakamoto _is_ the chief of Blockstream, Adam Back, will get you banned, simply because the first half of it gives an honest overview of the block-size debate. When people are that invested in a wrong idea, they won't change. To suppose otherwise is like thinking that somebody in a cult will change their beliefs, as the cult becomes more extremist, rather than go down with the ship. Most people do go down with the ship. By the time the inherent flaws in BTC's code become obvious to everybody, anybody with an ounce of sense will have already have jumped ship to BCH. Why waste time on something that doesn't work when you can already go to what already does?

NEVER FORGET WHAT THEY TOOK FROM YOU