I CAN'T stress enough the fact that all it takes to get

In the following posts i'll address classic ignorant arguments about Bitcoin.

>muh private blockchains

Blockchains, as a concept, are not controversial. Bitcoin is highly controversial. That is why the narrative changed – because “Bitcoin” makes financial professionals uncomfortable. There was no conspiracy to change the subject, it just happened naturally; the path of least resistance.

But what is it, exactly, that they hope to achieve by advancing private, non-Bitcoin blockchains? Without Bitcoin, a blockchain is just a distributed database – not exactly a novel technology. What is R3 CEV but a sexier and more social MySQL database? Why did banks not build such distributed ledgers long ago? If they are the arbiters of transactions, there is no need for mining, and thus no need for a blockchain, per se.

Perhaps such a distributed database never happened before because the banks haven’t felt the true competitive pressure to innovate. Banks’ biggest innovation in the last two decades was the Geithner Swap, in which loss due to excessive risk taking is swapped for taxpayer money. Banks aren’t so much financial innovators as they are lobbying cartels. But can you blame them? When Government forces its way into bed with you, who do you imagine you’ll wake up with?

It remains to be seen how long it takes for the financial industry to realize that the true valuable innovation is not the distributed ledger of the blockchain (which has existed in other forms prior), but rather the open platform of financial inclusion with no trusted party or cartel (which has never existed).

Blockchain technology, properly understood, is decentralized. It is an open platform. It does not pass judgement on human actions, it simply enables more action, more easily, to everyone. A blockchain strategy that doesn’t appreciate this is doomed in the same way and for the same reason as AOL and CompuServe. Does industry really need that lesson again?

File: 1347799615139.png (42KB, 1585x1527px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 1585x1527px

Can I actually buy anything in the year 2030 with Bitcoin? Or just Gift cards like now?

Gotta love those shills

So should we just buy 21 Bitcoins or?

Lmao OP this is a cringe worthy level of shilling.

5.89 ▾

Since 24 hours ago

File: 1111.png (33KB, 785x305px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 785x305px

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-eu-clamps-down-on-bitcoin-anonymous-payments-to-curb-terrorism-funding-2015-11

Well, yeeeah... good luck with tha-aaat *burp*

>>965810
And how exactly do they plan to do that? You can't ban Bitcoin. The proposition is as preposterous as banning torrents.

>>965810
6.26 ▾

Since 24 hours ago

File: image.jpg (63KB, 598x871px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 598x871px

>>965847
Meanwhile...

>>965805
>>965847
>still looking at the price
When Barren Buffet bought Washington Post stocks in the early days the stock felt down and he was on a loss for years, 40 years later he made 1 billion out of it.

If you understand Bitcoin, you would be here for the long term, if you don't understand it, you be mentally masturbating about a manipulated price all day. If you don't get it, just stay away (just like Warren Buffet itself, which is clueless about it).

>>965810
Same shit when the internet came out. "The internet is just used by criminals and pornographers". Too bad you are all 12 years old and weren't around in the early 80's. Im yet to see a single person in here who gets it.

>>965856
Every alt is a meme, including Ethereum. Study what Rootstock.io is. Ethereum will eventually work under the Bitcoin blockchain just like anything worth existing technologically in a post Bitcoin-blockchain environment.

As someone who made millions on Bitcoin from 2010-2013, let me assure you that it'll never break $2k.

It's just like gold, except less valuable.

>>965971
This is the first time I've seen anyone claim that they made money from bitcoins, I've only seen people that never made anything for various reasons.

>>965963
Rootstock is vapourware.

>network effect
>vested interests

Yes with a market cap of just 3.5 billion.

You think that Ethereum which has far more utility and programmability than Bitcoin can ever have wont overtake bitcoins network effect in a few short years?

I like Bitcoin, but it's had its day. Ethereum will take over. It's easier for programmers to work with. And the gas/ether gearing system for smart contracts is a genius solution to the problem of price volatility.

Most browser will be out soon and will make Bitcoin look like a piece of dated crap.

*mist browser

>>965976
In fairness, I was mostly fucking around. I got into them because they were an easy way to gamble online (I'm in the US), but I very quickly realized gambling with them was stupid since they kept going up in price and therefore weren't worth risking, so I ended up running arbitrage on the various exchanges that came and went instead and re-investing my profits into more bitcoins.


Sold 'em all off as soon as they hit $1k. You'll never convince me it wasn't all baseless speculation. Even if it wasn't, the price is still so high now that there's really only room for it to double two or three more times in a best-case scenario, and the risk is way too high for that to be worth it unless you've got a shitload of money to dump into it without a care.

Why 21 coins ?

>>965963
7.80 ▾

Since 24 hours ago

>>966019
That's one millionth of the total amount of bitcoins that will ever exist.

>>965775
Troll thread. I refuse to believe that there are really people out there like this.

Bitcoin is the future of money. The ones who can't see it will always be poor, because once you do it will be too late. The value isn't in the exchange rate but the increasing number of users.

I hope they keep QE, the next global monetary crisis will make Bitcoin even more valuable.

Been adding 1 BTC a week to my portfolio.
To the mooooon

>>965845
Are you retarded?
Torrents got value by themselves, you don't need other people validation to play your retarded pirated minecraft or bd-rip moe shit.
On the other hand, good luck using bit coins if accepting them becomes illegal, making transactions harder and driving most people away from it. Or you think that those edgy companies would continue to accept that shit if the US government claimed them to be illegal?

Read what Mike Hearn Bitcoin core developer has to say about the future of Bitcoin

https://m.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3tftas/mike_hearn_now_working_for_r3cv_blockchain/cx5rtii?context=3

>I knew this would come up.

>It'd be a conflict of interest if there was any chance of banks adopting Bitcoin for the use cases they're looking at, things like moving fiat currencies around, managing post trade lifecycles, etc. But there is no such chance. The use cases they are looking at and requirements they have cannot be met with the Bitcoin protocol, it just doesn't have the things they need. They are actually spending a lot more time looking at Ethereum than Bitcoin, as it's more obvious how to apply it to their use cases.

>But even if Bitcoin had all the features banks needed for what they want to do, their volumes are such that they wouldn't fit on a crippled 1mb-only block chain. Bitcoin can barely handle its existing user base without running out of capacity. Dropping existing inter-bank transactions onto it would simply not work.

>>966104
Judging by what you just wrote, YOU are the one who is retarded.

Media piracy is already illegal. Has it stopped?

>>966112

Nice fallacy.

I already said that you don't need legality to enjoy pirated media, while any currency needs it to be used in a great scale.

You don't have enough people interested in BTCs to have a strong and active market after it becomes outlawed, and the chances of that changing are little to none - for most, the ideal payment involves a 20 seconds transaction involving a credit card.

You might have an indie market running BTCs for a while, but with more and more drugs being legalized, those markets will grow smaller and smaller; since there will be less unique products available.
Unless some huge company with an incredible product gets behind BTCs, it is faded to die, giving way to better cryptocurrencies.

>>966124
Lol you better start educating yourself or stay poor.

>>966124
Have you heard of something called openbazaar?

>>966124
if governments thought it would be possible to ban Bitcoin don't you think they already would have?

Banning something like Bitcoin would be enormously expensive, time consuming and in the end utterly futile.

Drugs are banned and illegal, still, you can buy weed and Coke in any city in the world pretty easily.

>>966141
There is no need for them to do so - for now. Why? Because no one that matters gives two shits about BTCs - and they won't. Nevertheless, the threat will always be there, and that will happen when you save more enforcing the ban than you lose to people evading taxes using BTC.

>easy to buy weed and coke
Sure, take a trip to another country and see how long it takes for you to find some drugs. Now compare that to the average purchasing time of a can of coke, dumbfuck.

>>966128
Nice arguments.

The fact is that BTC today is just a Ponzi scheme, and some poor fucks are so deluded, that they have to try to force it to other people - just like any other Ponzi victim.

>>965775
Kek.
Another poor Ponzi neckbeard trying to shove buttcoin down the throats of stupid underage anons

>>966154
Currently it would take me 6 minutes to get a can of Coca Cola and about 10 minutes to get a gram of Cocain. What's your actual point?

>tax evasion

How is this Bitcoin related? Tax evasion is illegal whatever means you use. Banning Bitcoin won't stop tax evasion.

>>966154
what Ponzi scheme?

File: antinarigudos.jpg (83KB, 1280x725px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1280x725px

>>966167
Did you read the part about going to another country?

I am no longer sure if troll, average ponzi neckbeard or just stupid, so I will just stop typing.

>>966174
To nocoiners a currency that doesn't inflate means it's a Ponzi scheme. Just like they think there is a "Bitcoin CEO" and other outdated notions

>>966178
6.43 ▾

Since 24 hours ago

>>966175
I could go to another country and use bitcoins right away.

Opening a bank account however takes a lot longer.

>>966178
>To nocoiners a currency that doesn't inflate means it's a Ponzi scheme.

No, we just understand that bitcoin speculation is a zero sum game, and that the only reason you retards make threads like this is in the hope that you'll influence people into becoming greater fools than you.

>>966194
>I could go to another country and use bitcoins right away.

Nope. You would not be able to hire hookers, get a place in 99,9999% of hotels, rent a car, buy a beer or put your bittcoins on a stripper buttcrack.
You could, however, do any of the above (with the exception of the coins on crack) with an international VISA (easy as fuck to get).
Just sell your shitty currency before it is too late and stop deluding yourself.

6.96 ▾

Since 24 hours ago.

>>966199
>zero sum game

So is the stock market, so is forex. Except both of those things rely on trusting a third party. So really they're less secure than Bitcoin.

>>966202
I actually hold no bitcoins at the moment. So I'm not posting from self interest.

But sometimes I have bitcoins because the business I run accepts them.

>>966210
Forex yes, stock market no. This argument also has nothing to do with security or "trusting a third party" you fucking shill.

>>966202
>You would not be able to hire hookers, get a place in 99,9999% of hotels, rent a car, buy a beer or put your bittcoins on a stripper buttcrack.

You've never been to London or Stockholm then.

>>966219
Explain to me how speculating on the stock market is not a zero sum game

>>966214
Congratulations on being part of the 0,0000001%!

>>966223
>what is value added?

>>966227
>what is value added?

A meme

>>966101
>The value isn't in the exchange rate but the increasing number of users.
Exactly. Except that the number of users is not increasing. Just because more bitcoin addresses are being created doesn't more people are joining the network. It is easy and common for one person to have multiple addresses. The ONLY stat that matters if you want to determine if more people are using Bitcoin is total transaction volume. The harsh reality is that transaction volume has not increased, as a matter of fact it has decreased and remained stagnant over the last couple years. The Bitcoin network is not growing, it is sitting idle while hoarders wait unsuccessfully for the value to increase. This is why Bitcoin is doomed to fail. The use cases are small. Even the major retailers that accept Bitcoin like Overstock have lost money on Bitcoin last quarter. Not only that but their stock has plummeted to half of what it was the day they announced they were going to accept BTC. Eventually the stakeholders are going to revolt and attack the CEO. Bitcoin is not going anywhere, and you are a fool if you put any real money into it.

File: transaction volume.png (106KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1600x900px

>>966235
here is the chart for total transaction volume

>>966225
Nice joke poorfag. Meanwhile I'm banking sweet sweet bitcoins (occasionally)

>>966236
>Denominated in BTC

In the 4 years of that chart Each Bitcoin has increased in USD value more than ten times.

So if you're looking at the total USD value that Bitcoin is transmitting it has gone up ALOT.

>>966239
*six years.

>>966239
627->378->328
13->14->15

>Each Bitcoin has increased in USD value more than ten times
How it feels to know so little about money?

File: transaction volume in USD.png (103KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1600x900px

>>966239
>In the 4 years of that chart Each Bitcoin has increased in USD value more than ten times.
You mean it has gone up a lot since back when nobody knew about it and it was worth pennies? Astute observation! Here is the total transaction volume in USD. It doesn't show an increasing number of users either. If anything it is much lower than it was in 2013. The same speculators are speculating. The same people are using the network. Some people even stopped using the network when they lost the shirt off their back. Bitcoin is stagnating.

>>966252
Looks like a general increase with some spikes to me.

>>966250
You're dense

>>966236
>>966252
Them uptrends

>>965845
No need to ban it when there could be an endless "stress test". With torrents you can always find another "chain".

>>966257
General increase? You mean since it was literally $0, right? I am sorry that numbers and facts don't fit your agenda. There is no way that you can look at this chart in any way and say that there are more people using Bitcoin since 2013. There is no "general increase" at all.

>>966257
>>966263
>chartists

File: image.jpg (269KB, 600x502px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 600x502px

>>965775
Some of you guys are alright. Don't buy Bitcoin tonight.

>>966235
Pretty muchos this

Indeed the overall number of butt-coin cannot inflate. But it will only go up in value if there is demand.
There is a very limited amount of bloody turds coming from my ass, they are extremely rare. Yet, as nobody fucking want then their value remain low, even if, since I stopped eating Mexican, their number is actually decreasing.

In order for demand to exist for bitcoin there are only two options.
1) People want/need to use it for transaction due to its inherent values
Protip: it ain't the case at all, and the currency is less practical to use than a few years back. It will never reach mainstream use.

So the only other option left for them NEET internet billionaires and buttcoin priests to make profit from their few mili-units of cryptocirrency is to lure people more retard than they are to buy it as a speculation tool to drive the prices up.


It's been years these ponzi-tards are preaching and I have yet to see one that actually turned a real strong profit from it.

>>966261
>40% devaluation in one year followed by 10% in another
>less people using
>volume of transactions falling
>nothing to indicate that more people will pick it in the future
>HURR DURR BTC IS THE FUTURE, SWEET SWEET BUTTCOINS
Sure, I am dense, senpai =^) !

Arguing with you people is depressing.

I don't own any Apple stock but I don't go around telling people not to invest in Apple or making up lies about Apple.

Why do you guys feel so threatened by Bitcoin? You're behaving like crabs in a bucket.

>>966338
If Apple was a terrible investment and you had tons of people shilling here on how everyone should buy Apple stock then you would see the same exact response. The only thing is that since Apple is stock and regulated as such, any attempt to do that here would be market manipulation which is illegal in most countries. Crypto-currencies are a grey area where the legality of pump-n-dump, runs, ramping, bear raids, etc. is under question and not fully hashed out yet. As such, Bitcoin is a breeding ground for scams, crimes, blackmail, fraud, money laundering, and all sorts of other illicit activities to screw people over. Nobody here feels threatened by Bitcoin. We just don't appreciate the attempt at deception.

>>966338
Because it's a volatile market and it's users are petty cultist at times telling people "now is the time to buy" constantly. It comes across as marketing and a scheme much like people that tell you to sell gold in late night commercials. Bitcoin needs to be a tad bit more accessible, be the exclusive way to buy an interesting non-illegal item and be more of just a method of converting currencies. We have to let it grow on its own without being in your face about it. I believe in it a tad (I own 4 BTC) but I have no concrete reason to believe staying in for the long run is the best idea

>>966338
7.31 ▾

Since 24 hours ago

File: bitcoingeneral.png (40KB, 948x516px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 948x516px

>>965775
why not hold 200 bitcoins for 30 years and buy an african nation??!

>pic related

Bitcoin experts discussing the future value of bitcoin

>>966365
8.04 ▾

Since 24 hours ago

>>966395
It goes up and down constantly ,what are you trying to prove ?

>>966399
8.65 ▾

Since 24 hours ago

>>966410
up 12 in the last 365 days

>>966419
50.65 ▾

Since 8760 hours ago

>>965775
>Hey Everybody, its me again the all consuming thirsting for semen online Buttcoin shill again. When I'm not skulking around in public toilets, slithering about on my belly between cubicles looking for used scraps of toilets paper or dingleberries to eat I'm on /biz/ reminding you all that you too could dwell in the dizzying heights that I do and it's all due to shitcoin, forget your share markets, your commodities and your futures and Real estate is over valued as fuck anyway- good luck getting on board with their prices and getting a return in maybe 3 decades anyway- bitcoit is here now ready to save you from the drudgery of working for a living and giving you the freedom to shitpost on /biz/ all day long, from a tropical beach on island in the pacific while qt brown girls suck you orf

>>966410
Up 30% since the last month and half

>>966440
You posted this in the other thread with the same typos.

File: TraitsOfMoney.png (194KB, 660x393px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 660x393px

>>965971
>still using the "I made millions by buying at the perfect time AND selling at the perfect time" to try to positively halo your comment.

You are clueless about BTC. Even IF you were lucky enough to be there back in the day and get everything right while being completely clueless about BTC (not happening) you are just a random lottery winner without any relevancy. You have demonstrated with your comments you have no notions about Bitcoin beyond "muh price". You are not qualified enough to make reasonable predictions since they are based on nothing but normalcy bias.

I've been here since 09, and 2010 people were all computer geeks who knew what they were doing. The people that casually were hanging around as dumb weed buyers or something that happened to stumble upon it was extremelly small.

>>965997
>has this notion of "Ethereum taking over BTC"

Bitcoin was created as non-turing complete IN PURPOSE to be as robust as possible as the ultimate global settlement network. Now ETH, may have it's place. In any case, it would NEVER work as a BTC replacement (as I described, the fact it's turing complete is a big problem when doing certain things).
The general notion is, if it can be ran under the BTC blockchain, an additional blockchain is a waste of time and resources. ETH uses PoW which is good since it's pretty much the best consensus algorithm you can use, but it turns that PoW needs massive resources (which is why it's so robust), and considering BTC is the strongest network on the planet, you are lossing safety by operating under ETH's.
Here's a good analogy about PoW and how it relates to alternatives:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tntdX7qU0tA&t=11m15s

Rootstock is not vaporware, ask Nick Szabo. I honestly doubt you know how it works. Btw, Greg Maxwell already has a BIP for Sidechains which is comming really soon, it's happening.

Watch a future billonaire in the making:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pyVvq-vrrM

Take fucking notes.

>>965775
Ok well in rewponse to your tired arguments I present one of my favorites

Utility

Remember myspace? Yeh , bitcoin is the cryptocoin myspace , first mover advanatage and...nothing

The only reason it has the most security is the miners who all follow profit so if it slips below the break even point...

Or some other coin becomes more profitable to mine long term...

File: mfwrealestate.png (442KB, 635x467px) Image search: [Google]

442KB, 635x467px

>>966540
3rd time you post that shitty /pol/ image. Cherry picking when its best

>>966014
I wish i was you

>>965775

> not backed by a government
> not regulated
> can and will be hacked
> cannot be physically held, it only exists digitally

nah, this shit won't last.

File: gov deprecation due superior technology.png (335KB, 1565x2000px) Image search: [Google]

335KB, 1565x2000px

>>966108
Mike Hearn, ex-Google employee, is part of the XT trojan horse team (which failed misserably).

Proposal to create a feature for censorship lists: https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/2014-July/007167.html

Here is where Mike opposes a privacy fix that would protect hidden service operators: https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/2014-July/007173.html

Here is Ted, asking tough questions: https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/2014-July/007179.html and here are some more, revealing the political nature of Mike's proposal: https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/2014-July/007185.html

Please read the responses too, and note the red herrings that Mike uses to rationalize his proposals.

More dodgy bullshit in favour of user's protection.

Trying to use the "blacklist" to "ban" someone from the entire network would never work. All it does is make it much harder for blacklisted IP addresses to DDOS nodes, because they will have a low priority and will be bumped from a FULL node if the node reaches 100% capacity.

Right now the "blacklisted" TOR IP addresses are scraped from a publicly available list of exit nodes.

It is clear that Mike has been trying (in a very underhanded concern trollery way) to undermine Bitcoin, like he did with Tor. Hearn is the perfect guy to dev BankCoin. He can ban TOR nodes, implement honking big blocks only suitable for datacentres (they tried with 20 first, then 8), blacklist addresses which conduct non-approved transactions, and so on. He is just showing his true face now, by literally working for banks. He's so butthurt that the core devs stick to the fundamental principle of Bitcoin emulating Tor as a censorship resistant software, instead of trying to be a more fancy Paypal.

>muh gov ban

Doesn't work. Russia has been trying to scare people away for years. We can encrypt comunications, and meshnets will be there in decades (not even really needed). There will be nodes forever.

>>966605
If you think that a few public comments is Russia really trying, you need to wake the fuck up. All that they did was create a safeguard if they ever have a real need to rape buttcoiners.

>>966620
Cope.

Bitcoin believers remind me of those friends you had in high school who got suckered in a multi-level marketing scheme and tried to pressure you to join in.

>>966365
>bits of data worth more than shitstain countries
this would be great

you're really getting boring

>grandpa-tier
>cope
>same tired argument that buttcoin is going to the moon because of historical extrapolation

still haven't seen a good reason as to why ethereum won't replace buttcoin

>Bitcoin was created as non-turing complete IN PURPOSE to be as robust as possible as the ultimate global settlement network. Now ETH, may have it's place. In any case, it would NEVER work as a BTC replacement (as I described, the fact it's turing complete is a big problem when doing certain things).

what things?

>The general notion is, if it can be ran under the BTC blockchain, an additional blockchain is a waste of time and resources. ETH uses PoW which is good since it's pretty much the best consensus algorithm you can use, but it turns that PoW needs massive resources (which is why it's so robust), and considering BTC is the strongest network on the planet, you are lossing safety by operating under ETH's.

and why won't ETH's network catch up and exceed bitcoin's when it has way more uses?

If Ethereum is the Facebook to bitcoins myspace, does that make dogecoin bebo?

>>966683
No, it is orkut, only brazilians are into it.

>>966675
people are scared for 51% control

>>966656
17,87 ▾

Since 24 hours ago

>>966675
The problem is everyone in here is computer illiterate, but i'll try:

TC is not necessary for BTC and would very likely lead to unforeseen problems and instability (mostly related to the halting problem). Money isn't a computer.They address halting by fee paying for interpreter cycles.When the fee runs out the contract is stopped.

But there are obviously interpreter escape dangers, which are harder to contain for a stateful, looping, low level (byte code like) language. Look at the history of java sandbox escapes.People say that was mostly due to call outs to complex native library have to look through the (large) CVE database on JVM to figure out the stats.Also the pressure may have been lower. If you get real money under it all kinds of resources and unrevealed 0-days can leak out of the woodwork and create the new target for grey and black hats some of whom are world class at this stuff.Or even from national security network intrusion insiders with Snowden-level access or the people developing and selling grey market 0-day to the intelligence community etc.Those people are fallible humans too - they may succum to the financial motive, or the people who developed and sold them the 0-days may find a new monetization model, or second use for them (they cant "forget" them after sale).

There have also been VM escapes from full hw abstraction vms (i mean not just API sandbox light linux-in-linux virtuozzo but actual whole OS in the container).

And finally BTC scripting is functional, stateless and non-looping (non TC in fact also) for a reason. BTC doesnt (and I think its intentional) have even extrospection.There are grey-goo outcomes if you are not careful with even something as constrained as an extrospection op code to existing language.There will be whole classes of not yet imagined grey goo opportunities lurking in a full TC language.You cant easily systematically defend against whole classes of such issues without intentional constrained language.

>>966683
There will be no "facebook of Bitcoins" because the analogy of comparing a protocol with a service is as stupid as it gets. Stop dreaming for "Bitcoin 2.0".

>>965775
it hit the ceiling (worldwide fame) in late 2013

if it becomes a bubble again, it won't move by orders of magnitude, sell when it starts to get erratic

>>967164
ok sounds reasonable. ethereum allows way more complexity to exist in the system and opens itself up to more vulnerabilities

I'm inclined to agree with you, but ethereum still has way more applications than a currency and if it is successful, will have way more volume/use. I think it's still plausible for its network to overshadow bitcoin fairly quickly

>>966675
>still haven't seen a good reason as to why ethereum won't replace buttcoin

Nobody has heard of it ,knows what it is or can even pronounce it.

>>967340
GREAT ARGUMENT

10/10

>>967164
also, I'm pleasantly surprised that you were able to write that. I thought you were a 100% mouthbreather from your previous posts

This card is accepted at Visa locations

https://www.zapchain.com/a/l/i-just-ordered-the-first-us-issued-bitcoin-debit-card-with-my-coinbase-account/16NNqud1fO