The Truth about Bitcoin’s Future - Is It THAT Bad? [2020]

Titcoin - the one and only adult industry crypto coin

Titcoin was developed as a secure and anonymous form of digital currency specifically catering to the adult entertainment industry.
[link]

MoneyToken

The MoneyToken platform allows you to borrow liquid funds right now, based on the current and future value of your cryptocurrency asset holdings. You take out a short or medium term loan, collateralized with more volatile assets such as BitCoin and Ethereum, and in return you receive an agreed upon loan amount in a stable currency. After the loan is successfully repaid, you receive back your crypto-assets in full.
[link]

Sugi NFC Wallet Card + Mobile App

[link]

BITCOINS are the future of prostitution, paying your prostitute with bitcoin means safety for all! bitcoin is not recognized as a nationally-accepted currency, so you can NOT get in trouble! i have also contracted herpes, syphilis, and chlamidya in the past 24 hours, ama!

submitted by cocaineoverdose to shittyama [link] [comments]

The world's future medium of exchange, Bitcoin Cash, functioning as intended during a global pandemic and market collapse. Added bonus; it does not transfer germs or lose value to inflation like filthy fiat currency!

The world's future medium of exchange, Bitcoin Cash, functioning as intended during a global pandemic and market collapse. Added bonus; it does not transfer germs or lose value to inflation like filthy fiat currency! submitted by CryptoStrategies to Bitcoincash [link] [comments]

04-16 14:04 - 'CHINA and USA is trying to BAN CASH and implement BITCOIN or their own digital currency as the currency it will also reduce the risk of spreading diseases in future....' (youtu.be) by /u/photoshop_expert063 removed from /r/Bitcoin within 109-119min

CHINA and USA is trying to BAN CASH and implement BITCOIN or their own digital currency as the currency it will also reduce the risk of spreading diseases in future....
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: photoshop_expert063
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

The future of bitcoin as a global currency.

The scalability problem is still enormous. However, this doesn’t necessarily have to hinder the efforts of bitcoin as a global currency. If Bitcoin became a reserve digital currency, with other digital coins available for spending within different countries, it would still serve its purpose. One could simply exchange BTC for the local country’s digital coin and spend it that way.
As a result of that, Bitcoin is still globally enabling without necessarily requiring every transaction to be in BTC. Until a solution allows for 1,000s of transactions per second using bitcoin, this might be the best way. What do you think?
submitted by BeTeeC to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Economist Barry Eichengreen on the dollar losing its status as a dominant reserve currency and the future of bitcoin

submitted by envatted_love to Economics [link] [comments]

/u/binarygold on The future of bitcoin as a global currency.

When you have large blocks on BSV, let's say 250MB+ blocks and the blockchain is 250TB+, only large organisations with powerful servers costing 20K+ / month. Thus, you only have a handful of full nodes in the world, and they run on services like AWS, Google Cloud, Alibaba, etc. A government like the USA can order these services to shut the nodes down in a concentrated effort by claiming the network supports terrorism or some other made up or real reason. Even if they can't shut all of them down, losing a large percentage of the validating network creates an incentive for other types of attacks, and will make users lose confidence, making the price crash. Then, the government can go after the remaining nodes with force, and finally shut the whole thing down.
I can't demonstrate this because I'm not a government with such power over cloud services, nor do I have an army to back me up. If BSV ever becomes important and a threat to a given government or a larger group of corporations (like banks) who can order the government to act, they will demonstrate the issue for you. But even without the demonstration, the attack vector is pretty obvious, not?
Compare this to an event with Bitcoin where only 10,000 of the 100,000 nodes are lost due to a government action. Virtually nothing changes, nobody panics, nobody cares, it is business as usual in Bitcoin world. The price initially drops, but once people realise that the attack failed and Bitcoin comes out demonstrating its resilience, the price goes back, and trust in the network gets even stronger.
It's not a problem to have large organisations in the network as long as they don't call the shots. Right now Bitcoin is pretty decentralised. It relies on organisations of various sizes in many jurisdictions, and on many individual users all around the world. Nobody has enough power to kill the network.
I don't really understand your argument about bigger node = more money, etc. what point are you trying to make with this?
LN may hypothetically centralise around hubs, but if those hubs are not beneficial to users, users can route around them and effectively vote them irrelevant to the network. There is no danger of centralisation, or censoring transactions, or something like that. Also, these potential hubs will only command some control on a second layer and no control on the base layer.
There are many types of entities in the Bitcoin ecosystem: users with full nodes, core team, alternative bitcoin implementation devs, large miners, large pools, individual miners, LN dev teams, LN hub operators, wallet devs, Liquid devs, exchanges, merchants, payment processors, publications, evangelists, etc. They all command some power in a certain area, but overall nobody controls the whole system. The only common interest between parties is to make Bitcoin keep working and grow ever bigger.
binarygold
submitted by highhighhopes101 to TalkativePeople [link] [comments]

/u/dalebewan on The future of bitcoin as a global currency.

You need to pay to open a channel, no? To who are you paying?
Miners. The "payment" to open a channel is a transaction fee for an on-chain transaction.
Routing path is just another name for “middle man” on the path.
No it isn't. When I send a Bitcoin on-chain transaction, it also doesn't go from "me" to "destination"; it is broadcast throughout the network and eventually touches every node. It's then mined in a block by a miner who is also (usually) neither myself nor the person I'm sending it to. These aren't middle-men and neither are Lightning Network nodes.
You are kicking miners out of the game but big hubs are okay.
Again, you don't understand the Lightning Network at all if you think it's "kicking miners out of the game" or that "big hubs are okay". That's not how it works, not at all.
Miners are essential; they secure the blockchain. Without a secure blockchain, Lightning also has no security. It's only secure because the channel contracts (which are on-chain transactions) are secure.
Large hubs are unlikely to form. They're economically discouraged because of how easy it is to route around them. This will only become more true as new technologies such as atomic multipath payments are implemented so that smaller channels can carry parts of larger payments that they couldn't carry alone.
dalebewan
submitted by highhighhopes101 to TalkativePeople [link] [comments]

/u/BeTeeC on The future of bitcoin as a global currency.

So that mode would act as a trusted third party? Interesting.
I’m sorry you don’t have the time and I’m not sure what I’ve really done to make you this upset, but hopefully things go your way today dude.
BeTeeC
submitted by highhighhopes101 to TalkativePeople [link] [comments]

/u/dalebewan on The future of bitcoin as a global currency.

No it isn't. You clearly don't understand the Lightning Network at all.
How is any of this anything like a bank?
dalebewan
submitted by highhighhopes101 to TalkativePeople [link] [comments]

/u/dalebewan on The future of bitcoin as a global currency.

I don't see any reason why BTC can't be used for all transactions. Those transactions simply can't all be on-chain individually.
On-chain settlement is Bitcoin behaving as the "reserve digital currency", but there is no need to invoke the creation of shitcoins to enable real world transaction scale. This can be handled perfectly well by transacting BTC in ways other than on-chain. Right now, the options are pretty limited and can be poorly designed with loads of issues that can't be solved due to being fundamental to the concept (e.g. custodial accounts moving numbers around in a database; handing paper wallets over to other people; etc) or can be well designed with fewer issues that should be solvable since they aren't fundamental to the concept (e.g. Lightning Network).
I note that brbi2922 mentioned Liquid as well as Lightning Network, trying to equate the two as if they're both just ways for some corporation to make money as long as the block size is kept down. This is conspiracy nutjob crap that no one outside of the bcash world actually takes seriously.
Liquid is a side-chain token created with the intention of acting as a "holding/trading" system between entities that somewhat trust each other to move larger amounts of BTC around without actually moving the BTC (i.e. moving tokens that are pegged to the BTC by a smart contract that can be referenced). Honestly, I see this as little more than a stopgap solution until such time as second layer technologies are more fully ready. At that point, it really is just another token (shitcoin) with no real value of its own. I don't think Blockstream were necessarily foolish to create it since it does solve a temporary problem and they can make some money off it, but I do think that anyone believing it has long-term viability hasn't really thought about it in any depth.
Lightning Network is a proper second layer solution (again, not without issues currently, but none that appear impossible to solve) in that it doesn't have separate tokens of any kind. It lets you deal with real Bitcoin values by exchanging a validtransaction back and forth between participants in a channel and simply not writing that transaction to the chain until one or both parties (in the channel; not necessarily the payments taking place) agree to do so. Each time the balance changes, you update the transaction, so the one that eventually does get written to the chain represents the sum total of all balance updates that happened. Note that the Lightning Network is an open standard and anyone is free to participate. There are companies working on it and they certainly are (like any company) interested in making profits, but they can't artificially force anything in the system to ensure more profits to them since if they tried, the rest of us would just fork off from them and run the better version that doesn't have whatever crap was done.
dalebewan
submitted by highhighhopes101 to TalkativePeople [link] [comments]

/u/BeTeeC on The future of bitcoin as a global currency.

So like I pointed out in another comment, my faith in Lightning to solve the overall coming burden is limited. It works for people making multiple transactions from the same vendor, and that’s great. However, it does nothing to reduce singular on chain transactions to different vendors. That would be very common for anyone travelling, and we are talking about a global currency here.
BeTeeC
submitted by highhighhopes101 to TalkativePeople [link] [comments]

/u/btc-forextrader on The future of bitcoin as a global currency.

There are 2nd layer solutions that make scaling a non-issue, and plenty of other tech in the pipeline. Do some research before you blather something stupid on Reddit.
btc-forextrader
submitted by highhighhopes101 to TalkativePeople [link] [comments]

/u/binarygold on The future of bitcoin as a global currency.

You're referring to increasing the block size indefinitely to meet demand. You're right in a sense, it's part of the solution, but it's not about just increasing the block size on its own to increase capacity. It won't work on its own. In fact, it would be counter productive on its own.
Remember that we're not after measly 2x or 10x capacity increases. We're looking for 100x - 1000x increase to be able to serve the whole world of people and machines eventually. We are not just planning for single transactions. We want payment streaming with transactions being streamed like we stream music and movies, in return for various services. And, all this without losing the main properties that make Bitcoin valuable in the first place.
Just increasing the block size won't work without compromising the main benefits of bitcoin, which is resistance to attacks, and independence from large centralised organisations.
If we only have 50 giant full nodes around the world running on corporate networks processing 100MB+ blocks every 10 minutes, a concentrated effort by a few governments can bring them down without the ability to recover from such an attack, just like how they successfully brought down the centralised servers of file sharing sites.
If we have 100,000 nodes (as we have now) it's extremely hard and almost impossible to perform such an attack, because there will always be a few percent of users in remote corners of the world running perhaps on obscure setups like Raspis and satellites, who can't be forced to shut their nodes down. Because of this reality, it's not even worth trying to shut it down. It would only result in embarrassment, and it would only demonstrate the strength of Bitcoin making it more popular than ever.
The less nodes there are, the easier to bring the network down or to censor transactions, or to hard fork the network to include new rules. The easier it is to do that, the less value the network has, thus there are less investors, thus less miners, etc. It's a self reinforcing effect that results in the eventual destruction of the network. Thus, preventing the loss of nodes is very important.
There is a sweet spot between the number of nodes and block size, and it depends on network and tech progress. It could be less than the current 4MB, or more. On one hand, if we decrease the block size, it will create a congestion which will reduce the nodes because less people use Bitcoin. Also, if we increase the block size it makes it harder to process the transactions, and thus we may see less full nodes. On the other hand, it is also possible that smaller blocks will increase the nodes because it's easier to run the full nodes, or that slight larger nodes will increase the user base thanks to cheaper fees, and thus we will have more full nodes. We don't exactly know where the sweet spot is. What we do know for sure, is that the sweet spot is moving higher with time as technology improves. So even if Today's sweet spot is 4MB, in 2 years it may be 4.4MB or more. Tech must outpace the growth of the blockchain growth that we have Today.
Second layer solutions are very important, because they amplify any potential future block size increases. For example by merchant estimates, LN already serves appr. 10% of the Bitcoin on-chain transactions. In a few years LN will probably serve 10x of Bitcoin on-chain transactions. The same applies to other second layer solutions like Liquid. So, any small improvement on the base chain, will result in an amplification of ~10x or more, which increases the effectiveness of any block size increase and reduces the risks significantly.
Without LN, increasing the current 4MB (with Segwit) block size to 8MB would be very risky and only result in 2x increase in transaction capacity. But, if LN is already mainstream, the same block size increase would result in 20x capacity increase overall, so the upside is much bigger. Or to put it another way, going from 4MB to 4.4MB will double the capacity overall. 10% block size increase is 10x less risky and controversial than a 100% increase.
In 5 years 1 GB internet will be commonplace, and entry level $500 laptops will come with 5TB SSD and 5x faster CPUs. High end cell phones will be able to run Bitcoin full nodes on 5G networks. When that happens, we will be able to increase the block size slightly without risking the node count, and thus it will not be as controversial as it is Today.
Being conservative about block size increases is smart for Bitcoin, even if it means potentially somewhat slower network growth. Alts can experiment with other strategies, because they have less to lose, and more to win. In fact I would encourage experimentation, because Bitcoiners can learn from those experiments, and thus any potential change would be less risky.
binarygold
submitted by highhighhopes101 to TalkativePeople [link] [comments]

/u/brbi2922 on The future of bitcoin as a global currency.

Usage requirments dont outpace Moors law, Moors law doesn’t stop an it is not going to stop. Yours are just assumptions. Idk where you get these ideas. We have more bandwidth then we ever had and don’t know what to do with it because it is cheaper then ever! And it is getting cheaper!
Second, exactly why wouldn’t you have your data on the blockchain? For example this would stop Facebook and other social media from sending you adds based on preferences they calculated from stealing your data and selling it to company’s, why wouldn’t you sell your data directly and have the company that wants to send you adds PAY TO YOU DIRECTLY? Yes, pay in micropayments directly every time they want to send you a stupid commercial! This is another idea but it is essentially what PEER TO PEER means and only one example of what bitcoin can do! Why do you say people will fill it with crap like that would matter? Bitcoin is more powerful then you think. It doesn’t need your protection and worrying what people will put there. Imagine a world of smart contracts, legal, medical, etc information attached to your identity on bitcoin. All of this can happen with bitcoin. Now you tell me why not?
Third, what do you mean it’s not economically feasible? For whom? If you are trying to make everyone a miner you are living in a fairytale because that will never happen! We just can’t agree there. Besides if you have too many miner no matter what they won’t add value to the network and won’t earn shit. Miners need to be incentivized! This is the idea that bitcoin originally started with, not “everyone runs a node” bullshit!
brbi2922
submitted by highhighhopes101 to TalkativePeople [link] [comments]

/u/brbi2922 on The future of bitcoin as a global currency.

Why would resistance to attacks be compromised with larger block size? Now you finally have a chance to prove your points on BSV, please try and compromise BSV network .. when I say you I mean everyone who makes that claim not just you personally... all of you have a chance to prove your point.
Second, there is no independence from large organizations anyway, these organizations will serve as miners just like Satoshi envisioned. Remember they are incentivized to protect the network and make your transactions as a user as cheap as possible. If we are talking BTC I think these “organizations” have already found a way to centralize development of bitcoin around one fucking company and one fucking idea... so let’s not talk like BTC development is not centralized. Bigger nodes = more money, more money = even more and more money. You think LN will not centralize around big hubs?
brbi2922
submitted by highhighhopes101 to TalkativePeople [link] [comments]

/u/abcAussieGuyChina on The future of bitcoin as a global currency.

Agreed! It's these layers upon BTC that will be key
abcAussieGuyChina
submitted by highhighhopes101 to TalkativePeople [link] [comments]

/u/brbi2922 on The future of bitcoin as a global currency.

I think scalability problem was solved when bitcoin was created but no one will want to admit that. We know who profited from blocking Bitcoin’s growth at 1MB block size....
The answer is: whoever is creating LN and Liquid, (1.5 layer and 2nd layer) .....🤭🤫... it will be a miracle if my comment is not deleted from here...
brbi2922
submitted by highhighhopes101 to TalkativePeople [link] [comments]

/u/dalebewan on The future of bitcoin as a global currency.

A one off lightning transaction ends up being a one-off on chain transaction.
You misunderstand the Lightning Network. It is not necessary to open a channel with each transaction partner. That would indeed be a terrible solution.
It's a network, not just payment channels. So Alice has a channel with Bob who has a channel with Charlie. Alice can pay Charlie without ever opening a channel to him.
dalebewan
submitted by highhighhopes101 to TalkativePeople [link] [comments]

/u/btc-forextrader on The future of bitcoin as a global currency.

Nah, sorry, I don't waste my time explaining to ignorant dolts. You clearly have no idea of what you're talking about, and the more you post your insanely off-the-mark shit, the more you prove that.
I will tell you this though, only to make you understand how truly ignorant you really are...
You don't have to open a channel with a vendor to do a transaction with them you misinformed dimwit. You only have to have an open channel with any node that's funded enough to cover any transaction that you will want to make with your LN wallet.
Have an open funded channel with a node that is well-connected to route your payment to the vendor over the "gasp"... Lightning Network! Crazy huh? :)
Seriously, go do your own research, because you're making an idiot of yourself out here.
Better yet, go try LN for yourself. Try not to be a dipshit, go through the learning curve to get it set up properly. Again, you clearly have no clue now. You've been inhaling too much ignorant FUD out here, apparently. :)
btc-forextrader
submitted by highhighhopes101 to TalkativePeople [link] [comments]

/u/brbi2922 on The future of bitcoin as a global currency.

You need to pay to open a channel, no? To who are you paying?
Routing path is just another name for “middle man” on the path . I have a problem with this because it is not bitcoin anymore, it is not peer to peer. You are kicking miners out of the game but big hubs are okay. Hypocrisy!
brbi2922
submitted by highhighhopes101 to TalkativePeople [link] [comments]

/u/brbi2922 on The future of bitcoin as a global currency.

Conspiracy nutjob crap 🤣 ...
...but if you actually look at LN it’s the exact replica of THE CURRENT BANKING MONETARY SYSTEM where opening a payment channel is equivalent to opening a bank account!
brbi2922
submitted by highhighhopes101 to TalkativePeople [link] [comments]

/u/BeTeeC on The future of bitcoin as a global currency.

Like Lightning? 😂
BeTeeC
submitted by highhighhopes101 to TalkativePeople [link] [comments]

BITCOIN THE FUTURE OF MONEY Bitcoin Currency of the Future - YouTube What Happens if Bitcoin Becomes the Currency of The Future? Bitcoins: digital currency of the future? The Currency of The Future 4- Bitcoin

It can be used for currency speculation, with the value of a Bitcoin fluctuating at least as wildly on digital currency exchanges as the commodities we used to trade; over the past 90 days, the Bitcoin as Gold: Fiat currency remains the main unit of exchange everywhere except in a few extremely dysfunctional economies like Venezuela’s. But Bitcoin’s market capitalization remains Will Bitcoin Be The Currency Of The Future? Considering all of the above-mentioned factors we are not very sure about the role of bitcoins as the future currency but we can say for sure that bitcoins have paved the way for the world to consider cryptocurrencies as the future of all their transactions. The virtual currency Bitcoin is growing in popularity and some are even calling it the future of money. Spencer Kelly explains the workings behind Bitcoin and how people have already become The smartest people in the world have strong opinions about Bitcoin’s future in 2020, and these opinions are different. Warren Buffett said: ‘It’s a delusion’, while on the other hand, young entrepreneur Elon Musk (founder of Paypal and Tesla) calls it ‘Brilliant’ along with many more entrepreneurs. We celebrated Bitcoin’s 10 year anniversary on January 3rd, 2019.

[index] [1566] [30220] [26966] [12] [20672] [9531] [13050] [17048] [13340] [1095]

BITCOIN THE FUTURE OF MONEY

"DasCoin, the currency of trust" Imagine buying the virtual currency before it goes to the public market and with a network of thousands of people valuing it? You can pay in any worldwide trade ... The Currency of the Future 2- Bitcoin - Duration: 10:00. Marie Clare Melebo 1 view. New; 10:00. Beginner Swing Trading with the TTM Squeeze - Duration: 21:36. Michael Chin 135,138 views. Bitcoin will work and I hope the main stream media never supports it. Stefan Molyneux explains what may become the currency of the future. The Future of Bitcoin, Cryptocurrencies, and the Blockchain In this episode, Anthony Pompliano joins Mattimore to discuss the future of Bitcoin and the global financial system...

Flag Counter