Almost every day someone asks me what will happen in Bitcoinlandia. Will there be fork ? Will it continue this "civil war of attrition"? How you will react the price? Invariably, my response is unsatisfactory for the interested: "I do not know". However, what I really mean is I do not know exactly, in detail, what will happen or when it will happen; I do not mean that there is nothing predictable but predicted all responsible in this field should not include dates, or quotes, and must always be preceded by an "if".
The theme of the week is the agreement signed in " Consensus 2017 " to exit the impasse in Blockstream / Core has left Bitcoin, whereby Segwit (the invention of AXA to force us to abandon the chain block and enter their walled gardens) would add to increased block size to 2MB. What would this mean?
Let's start by establishing what it is possible to say with a high degree of certainty.
More economically relevant they are today certain individuals and companies in Bitcoinlandia, any of them may cease to be at any time. We have seen many mining giants fall, giant investors, brokers giant, giant exchanges, projects "revolutionary" giants, etc., that the fall of one more should not surprise any veteran bitcoiner. In fact, if there is something that can not be doubted is that sooner or later because of the difficulties in this environment to those who would impose barriers to competition , almost all the giants of Bitcoinlandia be significantly reduced their influence .
So that, it should be taken with tongs whatever sign today who have , or believe have- influence on Bitcoinlandia. It is a lesson we should have learned by now , almost a year and a half of the infamous "according to Hong Kong" in which a group of self - defined and self - appointed leaders of Bitcoin tried to impose its "Roadmap" for scalability behind the market.
What this or that individual or company looking for is not necessarily aligned with what serves the whole of the inhabitants of Bitcoinlandia; namely a good currency. So the criptopolÃticos can meet behind closed doors for days, discuss, negotiate and sign agreements sealed distinguished role; what can never do is circumvent the judgment of the market.
From this agreement, Bitcoin could take one of two paths. The first lead without major obstacles towards its manifest destiny ; the second -can do not know that well, though in a more tortuoso- mode. Let's see…
1. As the agreement does not seem to be accepted by Core developers (who oppose the plan Satoshi Nakamoto to remove the limit of 1MB), in practice its implementation would serve to expel this group of ideologues resentful and opportunistic so much damage they have made Bitcoin. Seen this way, no matter much detail agreed as it would have taken the first step towards the liberation of Bitcoinlandia. While Bitcoin continue unnecessarily limited, once it is proven that the fork is nothing more than a simple software upgrade and no one can argue in good faith that in the future this should be avoided at all costs . After a brief bureaucratic process, the result would be the same as that of a fork implemented in order to completely eliminate the central planning limit to the size of the blocks.
2. But what if interests prevail Blockstream / Core? Not rule out this possibility; After the Barry Silbert -the main agree- promoter is one of the investors who have kept alive Blockstream over the years, and it remains unclear whether or not he laments about it. If prevailed the interests of the Blockstream / Core dyad, scalability within the chain of blocks remain artificially limited for the benefit of financial intermediaries who bear the assault to Bitcoin. Then we would have to deal with the Trojan horse (Segwit) that this parastatal organization have managed to introduce in the code.
The fundamental problem of Segwit is that by handing power over the fate of Bitcoin to a group of developers at the expense of the interests of investors, users and miners, tends to undermine the incentive system which depends on security (and eventually the operation itself) of Bitcoin. But you do not understand this hidden threat to reject the imposition of Segwit; There are many other problems that victims of propaganda ignored while intoxicated dance around this Trojan horse. One of the most obvious is that Segwit increases the number of transactions but not the user .
According to the model core, to enjoy the supposed advantages of the Lightning Network (network mounted transactions Bitcoin that Segwit would enable) is necessary for the chain block is restricted in its ability used exclusively for the recording of large settlements. Now if you wanted to access the Lightning Network with own bitcoins you would have to first access the block chain; and increasingly higher rates, the vast majority of users have no choice but to leave the block chain (to fall into the hands of Blockstream) or leave Bitcoin.
Under the rule of Blockstream / Core, the pressure exerted by the limit on the size of the blocks continue to rise, which would emerge in several ways:
1. dissatisfaction among users Bitcoin both between casual and including reject the experimental model unsafe and centralized of Blockstream / Core.
2. Hemorrhage investors and users to the altcoins, a process that is ongoing and that began with the kidnapping of the repository founded by Satoshi Nakamoto.
3. increasingly dissatisfied Mineros From the moment the price of bitcoin no longer compensate for losses due to diversion rates into the coffers of Blockstream-, and worried about the rise of altcoins -given his teams only serve to undermine bitcoins-.
4. An increasingly insecure network . Once introduced Segwit (not by choice but by force at the expense of the scalability of Bitcoin, as Blockstream / Core intended), the sunk in Bitcoin value would be detached from the reward received by miners for their work, and therefore the incentive for proper network protection.
If people Blockstream / Core had his way, would be in a paradoxical situation would have managed to temporarily control Bitcoin but at the cost of preventing their growth, which would end their dreams of becoming big brokers Criptolandia. Any idiot knows that scare users, entrepreneurs and investors can never be a successful strategy; Only a shrewd venture capitalist can be convinced that this is the way to success .
Lost in their own cloud contracts autoejecutados smart, decentralized autonomous organizations and other entertainment futuristic imagination, many inhabitants of Criptolandia forget that 99.99% of investors are not interested in "the potential chain blocks" or "value the internet" or the criptomonedas 2, 3, 4 or 5.0 but a safe haven that protects the inevitable collapse of the state financial system. That is, they are interested in a good currency, the derivative immune to depreciation of centralized control that can be easily used at any time and without arbitrary penalties. If for fear of attacks Blockstream / Core Bitcoin miners still maintain a neutral position still refusing to provide such shelter, the pursuit of universal monetary standard will continue outside of Bitcoin.
When most of the computing power under the control of conscious miners that competition between criptomonedas there, aware that Bitcoin is not guaranteed the network effect by decree of a politburo, aware that their interests are at odds with the interests of Blockstream, they will flee from Core as the Ebola virus . Will they do it on time, or Bitcoin will then become the "Myspace" of the criptomonedas? What will today 's miners or have to tilt the new scale miners who see the opportunity to make a fortune saving Bitcoin?
If I was forced to risk a prediction, I would say the following: the financial elites of fiat world will fail to destroy Bitcoin, even corrupt developers who join their cause, even media buying, even propaganda, censorship, stagnation, personal attacks and cyber attacks that fund. Bitcoin resist, as has resisted all these years because the incentive system described in the white paper of Satoshi Nakamoto (based on the assumption that the miners benefit adhering to the rules that the market values) is designed specifically to punish those who They oppose him .
I predict that the defeat of Blockstream / Core open the floodgates to more peaceful transfer of wealth in all of history.
The theme of the week is the agreement signed in " Consensus 2017 " to exit the impasse in Blockstream / Core has left Bitcoin, whereby Segwit (the invention of AXA to force us to abandon the chain block and enter their walled gardens) would add to increased block size to 2MB. What would this mean?
Let's start by establishing what it is possible to say with a high degree of certainty.
More economically relevant they are today certain individuals and companies in Bitcoinlandia, any of them may cease to be at any time. We have seen many mining giants fall, giant investors, brokers giant, giant exchanges, projects "revolutionary" giants, etc., that the fall of one more should not surprise any veteran bitcoiner. In fact, if there is something that can not be doubted is that sooner or later because of the difficulties in this environment to those who would impose barriers to competition , almost all the giants of Bitcoinlandia be significantly reduced their influence .
So that, it should be taken with tongs whatever sign today who have , or believe have- influence on Bitcoinlandia. It is a lesson we should have learned by now , almost a year and a half of the infamous "according to Hong Kong" in which a group of self - defined and self - appointed leaders of Bitcoin tried to impose its "Roadmap" for scalability behind the market.
What this or that individual or company looking for is not necessarily aligned with what serves the whole of the inhabitants of Bitcoinlandia; namely a good currency. So the criptopolÃticos can meet behind closed doors for days, discuss, negotiate and sign agreements sealed distinguished role; what can never do is circumvent the judgment of the market.
From this agreement, Bitcoin could take one of two paths. The first lead without major obstacles towards its manifest destiny ; the second -can do not know that well, though in a more tortuoso- mode. Let's see…
1. As the agreement does not seem to be accepted by Core developers (who oppose the plan Satoshi Nakamoto to remove the limit of 1MB), in practice its implementation would serve to expel this group of ideologues resentful and opportunistic so much damage they have made Bitcoin. Seen this way, no matter much detail agreed as it would have taken the first step towards the liberation of Bitcoinlandia. While Bitcoin continue unnecessarily limited, once it is proven that the fork is nothing more than a simple software upgrade and no one can argue in good faith that in the future this should be avoided at all costs . After a brief bureaucratic process, the result would be the same as that of a fork implemented in order to completely eliminate the central planning limit to the size of the blocks.
2. But what if interests prevail Blockstream / Core? Not rule out this possibility; After the Barry Silbert -the main agree- promoter is one of the investors who have kept alive Blockstream over the years, and it remains unclear whether or not he laments about it. If prevailed the interests of the Blockstream / Core dyad, scalability within the chain of blocks remain artificially limited for the benefit of financial intermediaries who bear the assault to Bitcoin. Then we would have to deal with the Trojan horse (Segwit) that this parastatal organization have managed to introduce in the code.
The fundamental problem of Segwit is that by handing power over the fate of Bitcoin to a group of developers at the expense of the interests of investors, users and miners, tends to undermine the incentive system which depends on security (and eventually the operation itself) of Bitcoin. But you do not understand this hidden threat to reject the imposition of Segwit; There are many other problems that victims of propaganda ignored while intoxicated dance around this Trojan horse. One of the most obvious is that Segwit increases the number of transactions but not the user .
According to the model core, to enjoy the supposed advantages of the Lightning Network (network mounted transactions Bitcoin that Segwit would enable) is necessary for the chain block is restricted in its ability used exclusively for the recording of large settlements. Now if you wanted to access the Lightning Network with own bitcoins you would have to first access the block chain; and increasingly higher rates, the vast majority of users have no choice but to leave the block chain (to fall into the hands of Blockstream) or leave Bitcoin.
Under the rule of Blockstream / Core, the pressure exerted by the limit on the size of the blocks continue to rise, which would emerge in several ways:
1. dissatisfaction among users Bitcoin both between casual and including reject the experimental model unsafe and centralized of Blockstream / Core.
2. Hemorrhage investors and users to the altcoins, a process that is ongoing and that began with the kidnapping of the repository founded by Satoshi Nakamoto.
3. increasingly dissatisfied Mineros From the moment the price of bitcoin no longer compensate for losses due to diversion rates into the coffers of Blockstream-, and worried about the rise of altcoins -given his teams only serve to undermine bitcoins-.
4. An increasingly insecure network . Once introduced Segwit (not by choice but by force at the expense of the scalability of Bitcoin, as Blockstream / Core intended), the sunk in Bitcoin value would be detached from the reward received by miners for their work, and therefore the incentive for proper network protection.
If people Blockstream / Core had his way, would be in a paradoxical situation would have managed to temporarily control Bitcoin but at the cost of preventing their growth, which would end their dreams of becoming big brokers Criptolandia. Any idiot knows that scare users, entrepreneurs and investors can never be a successful strategy; Only a shrewd venture capitalist can be convinced that this is the way to success .
Lost in their own cloud contracts autoejecutados smart, decentralized autonomous organizations and other entertainment futuristic imagination, many inhabitants of Criptolandia forget that 99.99% of investors are not interested in "the potential chain blocks" or "value the internet" or the criptomonedas 2, 3, 4 or 5.0 but a safe haven that protects the inevitable collapse of the state financial system. That is, they are interested in a good currency, the derivative immune to depreciation of centralized control that can be easily used at any time and without arbitrary penalties. If for fear of attacks Blockstream / Core Bitcoin miners still maintain a neutral position still refusing to provide such shelter, the pursuit of universal monetary standard will continue outside of Bitcoin.
When most of the computing power under the control of conscious miners that competition between criptomonedas there, aware that Bitcoin is not guaranteed the network effect by decree of a politburo, aware that their interests are at odds with the interests of Blockstream, they will flee from Core as the Ebola virus . Will they do it on time, or Bitcoin will then become the "Myspace" of the criptomonedas? What will today 's miners or have to tilt the new scale miners who see the opportunity to make a fortune saving Bitcoin?
If I was forced to risk a prediction, I would say the following: the financial elites of fiat world will fail to destroy Bitcoin, even corrupt developers who join their cause, even media buying, even propaganda, censorship, stagnation, personal attacks and cyber attacks that fund. Bitcoin resist, as has resisted all these years because the incentive system described in the white paper of Satoshi Nakamoto (based on the assumption that the miners benefit adhering to the rules that the market values) is designed specifically to punish those who They oppose him .
I predict that the defeat of Blockstream / Core open the floodgates to more peaceful transfer of wealth in all of history.