throwaway248329
throwaway248329 on Hacker News
Governments have literally genocided, sent to concentration camps, tortured, experimented on millions of people more than a few times just in the past 100 years. Of course they can ban Bitcoin lol. The only question is the extent to which they're willing to go to stop it.
This was before they got a new owner.
Nah, another shitcoin that is run as a startup with a large premine.
99% of all crypto companies are scams looking pump the price and sell their premine.
Bitcoin is the only crypto that matters.
The amount of trust will be limited to trusting that the bank is showing your balance correctly and that nobody stole their SSL keys.
You can't have freedom of speech without freedom of wealth. The more Money is controlled by the government, the more it will be able to censor opposition and incentivize loyalism.
That's a good thing. Having an established governance process would be an attack vector.
How exactly was it derailed? Creators of 2X stopped the fork because it was clear that majority of users were against it and that miners would be forced to mine it at their expense.
Governments would try to borrow more, but would there be enough willing lenders?
The endgame is forcing governments to be more fiscally conservative and generally less bloated.
No, individual users decide the outcome of a hard fork.
Coinbase, BitGo, Bitmain all tried to force Bitcoin to use larger blocks because that would've gave them more power, and look where we are.
Yes, but as long as some miners stay on the old chain, it will live. Hard fork also requires the users to switch to that new client, otherwise they won't be able to accept the new blocks from the forked chain.
Sure, it's possible that the wealth disparity rise happened for other reasons, not related with gold standard.
However, I can still look at those charts and say that the gold standard does not harm the poor the way you imply it does.
Changing the miner subsidy amount would require a hard-fork, so the chain would split in two chains with a shared history, the original with only 21M coins and the new chain without the cap. And once that happens, it would be in everyone's financial interest to get rid of their inflationary coins and sell them for original Bitcoin.
So unless all the world governments decide to make it illegal to mine the old chain, it wouldn't work.
Yes. The governments would still be able to borrow, but they won't be able to do it in an unchecked manner.
Since the lender would know that they are not guaranteed to get their money back at the expense of the borrower country's population.
Sure, I'm not "forced" to buy real estate, but I think it's fair to say that I'm forced to invest and buy speculative assets, otherwise my savings will slowly melt away.
And of course I also don't think that once gold standard is established, there will be absolutely no poverty.
>If it "makes sense to you" that the lack of Gold Standard is the real reason workers are poor, it probably helps to consider that workers were much poorer for the vast majority of human history with a Gold Standard...
That doesn't tell much. Anyone was much poorer for the vast majority of human history.
How do you explain the wealth inequality trend change starting from 1971? https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
True. Although their control of money supply would be limited, and they would lose some part of that control every time they decide to "increase" the money supply.
The difference is that without fiat currency, the government can't inflate it's currency to pay off the debts. At the very least it means that the population does not have the risk of their savings becoming worthless anymore, and it probably also disincentives the lender to give money for such purposes.
No, that's literally not how it works. Read the article I linked.
Even if the cabal of miners decided to make a change in the protocol and print themselves bunch of free coins, those mined blocks would get rejected by the full nodes, which compose the Bitcoin network and validate all the transactions.
Do you disagree that real estate is used as a hedge against inflation, which artificially increases the prices?
And you can call "lack of Gold Standard is the real reason workers are poor" an astroturf, but it's something that actually makes sense to me when I look at the arguments.
It doesn't mean that governments are going to be funded by crypto whales, it just means that government spending will be kept on check and limited by the amount of money they can tax from people.
Politicians not being able to fund wars using a money printer is a good thing, not bad.
> With Bitcoin, the community that controls the money supply is not at all democratic; it is the early adopters with large holdings that carry all the weight.
The mechanism according to which Bitcoin upgrades has nothing to do with decisions of whales or democracy. Read about how soft/hard forks and UASF specifically works.
The workers, unlike capitlists, earn a fixed salary. Inflation makes this salary have increasingly less buying power. This way workers are forced to negotiate a raise every year just to keep up with inflation and don't become poorer.
So, to be able to save, workers are forced to buy real estate that they don't need, making it less affordable for people who actually need to buy a house or get exposed to stock market risks.
All these problems caused by absence of hard money.
Shouldn't the use of double hashing also delay it? Bitcoin blocks are hashed as SHA256(SHA256(x)).
Wash trading happens on exchanges, not on-chain.
Any other reason why you would move $200 worth of BTC? I've only ever done such transactions when I was making purchases with it.
You need a false implication for a non sequitur. I didn't imply anything.