Money isn’t a great barometer for intelligence but doesn’t the fact that loads of successful people are using crypto to move huge amounts of money give you any pause? Do you think all of these people are just criminals, speculators, or just too lazy to create a PayPal account?

I don't know what the percentage of bitcoin tx are intended money transfers, but I suspect very few. Even fewer are purchases. The vast vast majority of bitcoin tx are crypto transactions--->speculation.

Zenzor,

The good information came from young, smart, forward thinking, open minded posters who found this little thread because they were playing poker. They've all left. In fact, there are very few young, smart, forward thinking people left on this site because poker is dead.

Many people who continue to post (especially in this thread) are all mawg, slightly right leaning (they'd probably argue left since trump is in office), who are not open to change. By accepting crypto/ bitcoin/ blockchain as the future, it means they have to accept the fact that the current banking/ financial industry is severely flawed, outdated, and inefficient. They can't do that because most of them are extremely selfish and self centered to grasp the big picture.

I mean ffs these guys are still trying to convince themselves and anyone who will listen that wire transfers are better than bitcoin and that the credit card/ visa / electronic money system we have is efficient. They know nothing other than their own personal experiences which they try to project on everyone else. You're talking to a brick wall.

Bitcoins flaws have been enumerated dozens of times in this thread, but the standard response is "you don't know what you're talking about" which is horse manure. Of course the financial system has flaws. Everyone knows this. Bitcoin has too many flaws to fix/replace them all---otherwise it would have done so already. Emerging revolutionary technologies don't take decades to implement themselves. The internet exploded into existence 25 years ago and has not stopped transforming the world since. Bitcoin came about 10 years ago and no one uses it for its intended purpose. You can sit back and rationalize and be passive-aggressive about why that's the case, but no rationalizing is really needed if you're honest about it.

I like bowl shaped bottoms on the chart for a sustained recovery, not V bottoms, which I feel are more likely to be a fake out. Lots of people got burned in the 6 weeks and that memory is still fresh. If they haven't left the space entirely, most will now be very quick to sell coins and drop bids as soon as any rally looks like it's slowing down. A slow forming bottom followed by a slow rise will bring back some strength to the hodling hands.

These V moves may be tradeable but you're going to have to get the timing nearly perfect on both ends. The exception would be some ridiculously good change in the immediate term fundamentals, i.e. not something speculative.

I'm going to be blunt. This is how ****ing stupid you are: the Internet was not created 25 years ago. It gained traction 25 years ago. The concept of the Internet, the "white paper" so to speak was created in the early 60s, and it took 3.5 decades of fighting and struggle before the mainstream decided to hop on board. It's cool though man, keep fudging history in order to fit your narrative.

Whether Satoshi's vision is different than current visions or not is rather inconsequential. The canonizing of Satoshi in this regard misses the mark. Its very common for people to piece together current advancements in a unique way but not see the entirety of that value at the genesis point.

Here is Hal Finney discussing a lot of the issues you have been describing w/ Bitcoin and the early groundwork for layer 2 solutions in 2010: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?to...34211#msg34211

While Roger can scream Bitcoin Cash is Satoshi's vision and think it is applicable, we all know there were several bugs and poor coding in the initial versions of Satoshi's code. Why wouldn't we leave those in as its his vision in action? He was not infallible so treating him as such is where you can get the cultist doctrine you have mentioned before with regard to Bitcoin supporters.

Some great posts lately calling out the nocoin slappys for who they are

Nah not really man lol ARPANET was used by the military until the world wide web was invented in 1990. There certainly wasn't a 3 decade push to make it public and worldwide before 1990. Thanks for playing though.

Have we reached a bottom yet? lol I have said the same at 13k 10k 8k maybe for once I'll be right?

I guess the question is: What are the current roadblocks keeping it from widespread adoption, and how long will it take to solve them?

You seem to be confusing a conceptual flaw with a technical one. I can write code for something, make mistakes, and still have those fixes stay true to the concept I intended to create.

What Nakamoto designed bitcoin to be is not what it has become. So has it failed? It certainly failed him; he hasn't been around for years.

I'd suggest you read the bitcointalk posts and the public emails back and forth between Satoshi and the early help, especially those emails with Finney. By no means was Satoshi 100% on his conceptual framework.

I don't know if anyone is capable of being conceptually flawless to the point of clairvoyance when creating an entirely new asset and I am not ready to assign that deity status to a pseudonymous online entity no matter how much I think Bitcoin and the whitepaper is impressive.

The last line makes no sense and is a little bit reaching. I would argue someone who goes through the trouble of identity masking online to the point Satoshi did would be expected to retreat from the limelight as the project grew. Why else start out pseudonymous?

You know nothing. Networking is basically my life. This would be like me trying to argue medicine/ human anatomy with a ****ing doctor. Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

The olds hate technology

I beg to differ. His whitepaper and later emails lay out exactly what he intended to create.

Satoshi left when Gavin Andresen started talking to the CIA. He moved on to work on smart contracts at Ethereum under his real name.

Regardless, fixing code is not fixing conceptual flaws, it's fixing technical ones. It was clear this was intended to be a universal payment system, not a niche one. It has failed as a universal payment system and no solutions are forthcoming, so bulls rationalize it to have always been the latter. The parallels with religion are compelling.

You know of that cool internet tool called google, right?

Bitcoin cannot handle the transactional load on chain to be a transactional currency.

The Lightning Network can, in principle, handle that load. The Lightning Network is an emergent system, so you should not take seriously most predictions about what will actually happen with it, whether they're optimistic or pessimistic. Fortunately, it is just now starting to exist, so feel free to pay attention.

https://p2sh.info/dashboard/db/light...etwork?orgId=1

Nakamoto believed bitcoin could handle the load because he believed storage space would continue to increase with a decreasing cost ala Moores Law. Lightning Network is an off-chain quick fix because his concept was wrong. Lightning network has even worse usability problems than bitcoin.

As I write this Bitcoin is worth 7400 dollars. That is worth more than Gold, how is that considered a failure?

I’ve thought for a very long time that bitcoin’s biggest struggles will be with efficiency in transaction time and price. Bitcoin’s biggest problem will be competing with other crypto currencies. The lightning network is a very valuable service that patched some major flaws with bitcoin. What bothers me is when it’s described as a feature. It’s not really much of a feature and it can and will be adapted to other crypto currencies as well.

I think the real battles for speed and efficiency have yet to take place.

The way I am reading this it says "Satoshi moved on to work on smart contracts at Ethereum under his real name."

Is that correct or were you referring to Gavin somehow?

You are correct.

This is a poor comparison. The total current value of all gold dwarfs the total of all bitcoin current value. Ounce to coin is irrelevant.

...Well who is he?

Because it was created to be a universal P2P payment system, not a speculative asset.