Ben Bernanke to speak at major blockchain conference

fuck this kike

>>3234886
>>3234886
uhhh i thought bankers were supposed to fear bitcoin more than death

>>3234947
Why would they? It's money and it's an easy market to control. There is literally nothing for a banker to dislike about bitcoin.

>>3234947
It's not for bitcoin, it's for ripple. Xrp about to moon

>>3234975
the purpose of bitcoin was to render banks obsolete. theres no reason to use banks if we can all hold wallets on our personal devices and send funds between each other.

>>3235002
>what are investments, loans, financial advice, etc.

>>3235002
I want to buy a house, could I borrow 100 BTC?

>>3235002
>the purpose of bitcoin was to render banks obsolete
Even with bitcoin, storing your money in a bank wallet makes sense for the sake of security, protection from loss, collecting interest, etc. Bitcoin doesn't make banks obsolete, and it was never meant to make banks obsolete, it was only meant to make transactions possible without a trusted intermediary.

>>3235002
see
>>3234991
This is for the fidget spinner bank coin.

>>3234947
that was before they took bitcoin over

>>3235049
that is terrifying

>>3235068
That's why you should dump all your shitcoins and start buying

File: IMG_0188.jpg (20KB, 236x199px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 236x199px

>>3234886
Bitcoin is already (((theirs)))

Bitcoin cash is the real chain.

>>3235059
>(((Anonymous)))

>>3234947
>>3234911
now that LN and off chain / centralization is coming to BTC (((they))) are starting to like it

File: 1495010936771s.jpg (9KB, 250x240px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 250x240px

>>3235130
Never been following this btc vs bhc redpill me man

>>3235049
fuck off nigger, dis mah money bitch

How funny would it be if he went up there and did a solid and convincing breakdown of how cryptocurrencies are a scam

Have you guys maybe thought that Central Bankers aren't all that bad? Maybe they're just humans who make honest mistakes? Maybe we should give them the benefit of the doubt, and think they have our best interests in mind? Maybe we shouldn't always assume they're always up to something sinister?

>>3234886
This is sus af, either its fake news or we are in for a poignant awakening pretty soon.

>>3235668
BCH is a shitcoin.

>>3235668
the real redpill is that the banks are going to use btc and bcc to destroy each other by shitting up the hash rates. then they'll create their own coin and inject trillions into it.

>>3235668
>>3235668
bch is decentralized like btc was before segwit/lightning, and this was the only thing bitcoin offered, and it justifies bitcoin's gains many times over.

But when BTC crashes, and it will since it has no product now, BCC also crashes

File: 1495007727928.jpg (62KB, 538x445px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 538x445px

>>3234886

The ultimate jew boss.

How can anyone trust this cunt?

>>3235668
Bitcoin Core has been planning on adding features to allow off-chain payment channels (like Lightning Network) to work. Lightning Network transactions have lower fees, instantly confirm, and are more scalable. Bitcoin can go from handling 3 transactions per second to thousands per second with Lightning Network without needing to use any more disk space or network usage. LN transactions work in a decentralized way and still have the usual transaction guarantees: there's no risk of double-spends or people taking back money after sending it to you.

Satoshi talked about different designs for off-chain payment channels, but he never figured out exactly how to make them work before he left. The original codebase had features intended to be used for facilitating them, though he never mentioned the ideas in the whitepaper at the beginning. The whitepaper is just about the part he had down: on-chain transactions.

So naturally when real progress toward off-chain transactions happened, people flipped arguing that it was bad because it does things differently than how it had always done them before. Never mind that it's a more efficient way of getting the same benefits. They argue that instead we should relax some disk and network limits in bitcoin so it can scale up to *tens* of transactions per second with much higher file and network usage.

Personally I think it's likely that there's a lot of FUD being put out by miners who were worried that off-chain transactions might cause them to get fewer block fees. One of the miners arguing against segwit/off-chain payments is believed to be exploiting a flaw in bitcoin (Asicboost) which over-rewards certain mining strategies that prefer empty blocks. It's not possible to definitely detect, but it's the most sensible explanation for the sheer number of empty blocks they've mind. They've built hardware to exploit the issue. They've said they wouldn't use it, but they argue against any changes that would fix it like segwit.

>>3235985
>maybe Central Bankers are ok guys who make honest mistakes

Top KEK

The acceptance of blockchain (distinct from BTC) from Central Banks is unsurprising. Firstly its not going away and they can't kill it, so may as well get on the train.

Secondly they can use it too. A major problem in world finance is the 'unbanked'. There are more than a billion people in the world who have no bank account and therefore owe no money to the financial system. These people barely understand the concept of debt. It won't do. But the traditional system can't reach them. There are projects to get these people out of poverty and into debt like the ID2020 project but the fact is building the infrastructure to reach them will cost too much. This is where fintech and especially blockchain come in: A technology that can reach anyone anywhere at almost no cost and connect them to the financial system so they can take out debt will be eagerly accepted by the financial elites. This isn't BTC, but will be something like it that incorporates ID verification, works from a phone or tablet, runs on a public blockchain and interfaces with banks systems so they can market debt to literally anyone anywhere in even tiny amounts.

>>3236752
Yeah niggers too poor to open a bank account are going to magically adopt something as complicated as crypto. This really shows that normies have no idea what they are talking about.

>>3236880
>This really shows that normies have no idea what they are talking about.
Your nonsense shows that YOU have no idea what YOU are talking about. Think about all the bullshit infrastructure and institutions a society needs to run a fiat economy:
>banks, courts, regulators, police enforcers, politicians to constantly revise and update laws,
>insurance people and financial advisers and fund managers
>education institutions to train all these people to do everything
>all the support staff to service all the middlemen
It is practically impossible to build all this shit up in a lot of places where people live in huts, especially when their radicals are bombing you.
But you can easily give people a crypto economy because all they need is smart phones and internet access, which they have even in fucking Afghanistan. This shit is going to enable poors all over the world to have real economies by keeping ledgers of debts and transactions without needing a trillion dollars worth of institutions and educated jerkwards already operating to enable it.

>>3236497
Total fucking crap, all of it.

Core produced the scaling problem but not increasing the blocksize as specified in the whitepaper.

They're offering nonworking alterntives to the prescrived solution because it's the only solution.

The miner stuff is BCC FUD and it's a false flag. Your team are the ones who sold bitcoin to wall street.

>>3236449
>How can anyone trust this cunt?
How can anyone not see hi jumping on board, right when LN is finalized. How can anyone have more than 2 braincells and think LN is decentralized.

>>3236956
Yep

Microsoft and PwC are working on it for the UN. But the problem with the azure platform is as a 'in house' blockchain you would still need to pay for equipment and staff to maintain the network. Who would pay?

IMO a public blockchain that incorporates ID and doc management is the best solution. That way the network maintenance costs (to the bank and user) are zero and finance can use it to lend $20 to a nigerian fisherman and still turn a profit. In exchange they cede control of token creation on the network and enrich a few plebs who got in early, which is ok if they take a position in the coin themselves.

This will be what mass adoption looks like, IMO. The idea of anyone using BTC to buy coffee is a bit silly to me; the money we have works fine. But plugging third worlders into the debt system is a real problem that the bankers want solved.

File: cnn_pepe.png (2MB, 940x1440px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 940x1440px

>>3236497
Nice try

>wall of disinfo

> LN transactions work in a decentralized way

Can you clarify who will be running the networks? I was under the assumption that the off-chain networks were a way to take down bitcoin's decentralization. Another aspect about it is whether or not wall street is attempting to get their hands on the blockchain through off-chain transaction costs or patent encumbrance.

I may be a bit uneducated but it sounds like something is wrong about the situation.

(((They're))) coming. Beward.