SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the first-they-ignore-you-then-they-laugh-at-you-then-they-fight-you dept.
As someone that follows the developments in Bitcoinland closely, it has been difficult to find an article that does a good job of summarizing the drama surrounding the community. This Forbes article (Google Cache) only scratches the surface, but does a good job doing so:
On or around November 16, Bitcoin, the original cryptocurrency created by a novel technology called blockchain — a masterpiece of game theory, cryptography and, of all things, the age-old ledger — will split into two chains, each with its own set of coins. Hodlers [Note: 'hodl' - is a meme that started here] should be happy about suddenly owning double the number of Bitcoins except for the fact that the question of which of these will be called the true Bitcoin is, for now, up in the air — and that could create turmoil in the market. Anyone willing to bet their money by selling one set of coins for another stands to take a financial hit — either because they've picked the wrong side, or, for technical reasons, because selling one set may actually cause a sale on both sides of the chain.
[...] How the first cryptocurrency reached this cliffhanger in its journey is a story that has been many years in the making and finally pits against each other what were strange bedfellows anyway: the cypherpunks who, years before Bitcoin even existed, developed the various technologies that finally resulted in the first true digital asset and the Silicon Valley types who popularized the cryptocurrency that now has at least tens of millions of users and a $100 billion market cap. Whether one side will prevail or their death match will destroy Bitcoin is anyone's guess.
Is this how Bitcoin finally dies? (This bitcoiner thinks bitcoin will be wounded, but will live on.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @03:48PM (11 children)
To a user, predictability is fundamental, having a solution for a faster transaction rate is major, but the technical difference between the 2 solutions is minor.
To have a minor technical difference kill the fundamentals would be unfortunate.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 25 2017, @03:58PM (10 children)
Most such users wouldn't be in Bitcoin in the first place, if that were true. And for the rest, the reduced latency of holding bitcoins means more predictability no matter the fork.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @04:14PM (8 children)
Bitcoin was a great idea, then transaction fees popped up, decentralization became centralized as powerful mining groups were created. Turns out it can be "owned" if someone can corner enough of the hashing market. Along with the unpredictability of the base price Bitcoin is a massive failure at it's own goals.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday October 25 2017, @04:25PM (2 children)
I get the impression that it has been embraced in the last two years mostly as a device to move capital across borders and avoid regulations (for as long as it is still possible to do so before a crackdown). After that there's donations to open source software devs and a few dark web drug purchases. Finally, you have the experiments with using it in consumer settings (buying a coffee or pizza), which are impractical because of the wildly fluctuating coin value.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @05:46PM (1 child)
"which are impractical because of the wildly fluctuating coin value"
it's only impractical when you are trying to use humans to do the calculations. that's ridiculous on it's face.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 25 2017, @08:06PM
Bitcoin uses computers for the calculations. Valuation is independent of transaction calculations.
(Score: 1, Troll) by bob_super on Wednesday October 25 2017, @06:11PM (4 children)
Democracy was a great idea, then election costs popped up, decentralization became centralized as powerful interest groups were created. Turns out it can be "owned" if someone can corner enough of the influence market. Along with the unpredictability of the voter base, democracy is a massive failure at it's[sic] own goals.
Silver lining: Unlike the US constitution, at least the Bitcoin algorithms are not considered perfect, sacred and untouchable, by half of the users.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @07:20PM
There are constitutional amendments for a reason. Democracy is the best we've got so far, and we're learning how hard it is to keep centralized interests from gaining power. Next step: blockchain democracy!
Our current problems are due to a belief that the constitution is perfect, sacred and untouchable, quite the opposite. What is your game bob?
(Score: 3, Informative) by jmorris on Wednesday October 25 2017, @11:59PM (2 children)
No, Democracy is probably the absolute worst form of government since it is known to fail every time it is tried. That is why the Founders gave us a Constitutional Republic with extensive safeguards against the known evil of Democracy. Those safeguards obviously failed and need repair.
Democracy is 51 voting to piss in the cornflakes of 49 in the minority and if everyone believes in Democracy the only thing the 49 can do is make sure the vote was fair before being obligated to "respect the will of the majority" and chug the piss. The Republic we were supposed to have was based on inalienable Rights so some things were simply out of bounds, no matter the size of the majority. Others were simply very difficult, requiring super majorities, elections across long periods of time to thwart momentary passions, etc.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday October 26 2017, @01:26AM (1 child)
I missed the part where having a democracy meant you have no absolute rights. Silly me. Be right back, I have a few documents to burn, let's start with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights...
What about the part where your favorite republic allows blatantly unconstitutional laws to be voted and come into effect, with no other recourse than finding a plaintive with standing to get said law reviewed, on condition that the 9 robed ones bother to take some time to look into it and write an opinion?
How many amendments are currently being breached with your consent because you're scared of brown people from various countries?
(Score: 1, Troll) by jmorris on Thursday October 26 2017, @02:24AM
Didn't I say the safeguards failed in our Republic? We need to repair it by removing the Democracy that crept in along with the other nastiness.
And no, you have no rights in a Democracy other than what the majority wills. That is what the word means. Which is why they always destroy themselves and are a bad idea.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights us a U.N. thing, meaning Communist. Which is why nothing from that poisoned tree is good and none of it thrives.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @04:43PM
Of course market predictability is not expected for something like this.
I meant transaction predictability as in if I ask for X, X will happen.
Perhaps a better word instead of predictable is dependable.
How the market turns out over time depends on if folks believe in BC as a useful thing.
To be useful, sure it needs a faster transaction rate, but the effect of the transactions has to remain dependable.
This minor technical squabble over how to implement faster seems like it is unnecessarily putting dependablity in jeopardy.
If the only way to sort something this minor out requires this much drama, then what is going to happen when something major comes along?
If users can't depend on a stable system, how is it useful except for short term things?