RT @nathanielpopper: Some of the people buying and selling Bitcoin are doing so not to speculate, but to escape repressive local regimes or invest in a new digital gold. We and other news organizations have written a lot about that possibility.
Some of the people buying and selling Bitcoin are doing so not to speculate, but to escape repressive local regimes or invest in a new digital gold. We and other news organizations have written a lot about that possibility.
Anyone who looked at Bitcoin and saw ‘cheap payments’ likely doesn’t have much background in computer science,” said Ben Davenport, a co-founder of the virtual currency start-up BitGo and an opponent of doubling the network.
This argument prevailed, and in early November the plan to double the network capacity was called off.
Ben Davenport was and is one of the bad actors:
Strong supporter of UASF and by accident investor of Lightning Labs... what a coincident!
I tend to think of this in more positive way: Bitcoin is the only "altcoin" that's mentioned as an alternative. I don't see any Litecoin mentioned in this article. And this will only accelerate as more vendors adopt BCH.
More "vendors" supporting BCH also has a cool side effect. All these mainstream newspapers always go talk to those who are "authorities" in the industry. And in case of Bitcoin it will be companies that make use of Bitcoin. So the more BCH gets accepted, the more coverage BCH will get, since all the "authorities" will be primarily using BCH as payment.
Good that this article reflects the Nr. 1 reason which hurts bitcoin as a payment system: The deflationary spiral it inherits by design.
I think many bch fans are fooling themselves when they believe bch can be a proper cash like system. If you can buy something with fiat or bitcoin you are irrational if you choose bitcoin. Thats the main problem we face!
Well, if you think it will keep going up in value, it would be irrational to have any fiat at all, and then, when you don't have any fiat to spend, all you have left is spending a fraction of the month's earnings.
> Good that this article reflects the Nr. 1 reason which hurts bitcoin as a payment system: The deflationary spiral it inherits by design.
Yes, that is one of the false narratives to justify Blockstream's crippling of BTC.
But don't worry, the media are listening to us more and more and we are going to help them learn the truth about all this, including the nonsense of a deflationary currency being for 'hodling', not for spending.
They hang around wall street circles, they'll know exactly what we are talking about. They won't be fooled for much longer;)
And also the nonsense of "increased block size will decrease node amount and hurt decentralization": Who would run a node if the transaction fee is more expensive than that node, or none of his cheap transactions happens on chain?
Mr. Lee and others hope Bitcoin can be used for payments someday, but he thinks that will most likely come from software that is built on top of Bitcoin, not the Bitcoin network itself.
Not everyone agrees with Mr. Lee’s position. Many entrepreneurs and academics think virtual currencies will gain traction only if they are easy and cheap to send around. The disagreement has given rise to a host of Bitcoin competitors — including a separate virtual currency known as Bitcoin Cash.
One alternative is Bitcoin Cash, which was created in August. The price of Bitcoin Cash has risen over 125 percent since the plan to double the capacity of the original Bitcoin was called off.
But there is no shortage of investors who have voted with their pocketbooks for the more cautious approach of the original Bitcoin.
/u/spair: “If people can’t engage in commerce, it’s hard to imagine why they’d want to store their money in Bitcoin in the first place,”
Very well written, respectful, balanced paragraph:
> Not everyone agrees with Mr. Lee’s position. Many entrepreneurs and academics think virtual currencies will gain traction only if they are easy and cheap to send around.
It takes a special kind of writer to be able to fairly cover more than one conflicting point of view. We need more of them in the world in general.
> for the more cautious approach of the original Bitcoin
Not sure what is cautious about SegWit and LN. This isn't just a technical gamble, it is an economic gamble. It's a solution looking for a problem (unless of course you force the problem).
I first thought they meant Bitcoin (Cash). But they're actually meaning that SegWit and LN is the cautious approach? They're also making it sound like they're separate and that it was "created", when it was SegWit-coin that forked off the original whitepaper of bitcoin. Bitcoin (Cash) is the conservative one here.
I have a feeling there is and will be so much illiteracy and ignorance in blockchain because how the heck can you explain all that has happened in bitcoin the past years in some paragraphs?