Every attempt to “improve” Bitcoin by creating another coin only serves to prove that Bitcoin’s value is as a secure store of value, thereby increasing its price as more people store their value in it.

If you peruse the various subreddits on the subject of crypto you'll see incredible frustration among the various communities behind other coins. Faster transactions, more transactions, larger blocks, faster blocks, turing completeness, confidential transactions – yet the price of bitcoin keeps going up without these.

Why?

Because bitcoin, at this stage in history, isn't about any of those things. Bitcoin is a system that can be used to reliably store value at no cost. Scarcity and security are the keys to value and you don't need any of those other features. And nobody has suggested any way at all to improve on these features of bitcoin.

So bitcoin keeps on winning on value and becomes the fastest growing way to store value. And of course, its value skyrockets as more value is crammed into it.

When the time comes to go from savings to spending, the competitive landscape will be very different. But you can't spend what you haven't earned and saved, and all of today's alternatives to bitcoin will have failed at earning the position of a savings vehicle.

submitted by /u/logical
[link] [comments]
Bitcoin

Are the 2X guys painting a target on their own foreheads? (reddit.com)

Its no secret that some criminals have a huge stake in Bitcoin. Im not talking about your average run of the mill crook that steals a TV from a house or sells a dime bag on the street corner. Im talking about guys who sell guns, large volumes of drugs, even children on the deep web. These are the kind of guys that wouldnt think about shooting a competitor in the head and then pissing in the bullet hole for fun. Im just wondering if anyone else thinks the 2X guys are unwittingly signing their…

Bitcoin

The current approach S2X is taking in deploying their fork is a violation of the second paragraph of the NYA Scaling Agreement

Paragraph 2 of the NYA scaling agreement reads:

We are also committed to the research and development of technical mechanisms to improve signaling(sic) in the bitcoin community, as well as to put in place communication tools, in order to more closely coordinate with ecosystem participants in the design, integration, and deployment of safe solutions that increase bitcoin capacity.

(I added the bold above)

In direct contradiction, however, BTC1 (the S2X codebase) intentionally has created and deployed code that creates a technical mechanism to cloak signalling.

Also in contradiction to the claim of "deployment of safe solutions" the refusal to implement safe two way replay protection, which is an easy thing to do, is actually intentional deployment of an unsafe solution.

Add to that today's news that Jeff Garzik has sought assistance in creating Sybil nodes deployable as docker containers for BTC1 which would send false signals about the quantity of support S2X has and we can see that NYA's second paragraph carries zero weight with its lead (and possibly only) developer.

Add to that the fact that all the miners mined on a separate hard fork of bitcoin that was created simultaneous to the SegWit activation clause, and that all the exchanges listed and traded that alt coin and you have the agreement's first paragraph breached by practically all participants already.

Those that tell you that you are breaking an agreement by not endorsing S2X are the worst kinds of liars. You never signed up to their agreement; and they are the ones breaking the agreement.

(https://medium.com/@DCGco/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77 for anyone interested in reviewing it.)

submitted by /u/logical
[link] [comments]
Bitcoin